World socialist party of India launch new website

[The Idler]

World socialist party of India launch new website.
http://www.worldsocialistpartyindia.org/

[Igor]

from the website's "about us" section


We need self-emancipation of our class through political class struggle, in a peaceful and democratic way, by applying our power of knowledge and number via ballot in elections, and establishing a stateless, moneyless, wageless, classless, world socialist system

I think this sums these guys up a bit too well. I'm really looking forward to establishing world socialism via the ballot man

[VirgJans12]

from the website's "about us" section



I think this sums these guys up a bit too well. I'm really looking forward to establishing world socialism via the ballot man

Perhaps if they'd just help the Maoists they'd actually be able to take over India. They already hold 1/3rd of the land mass.


http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_UUV6V1y_VYk/TDW7LoKv-QI/AAAAAAAAAyA/U0ws95hVEW0/s400/naxalite.bmp

[The Idler]

Voting is more effective, democratic and peaceful than the streets or strikes.

[Thirsty Crow]

from the website's "about us" section



I think this sums these guys up a bit too well. I'm really looking forward to establishing world socialism via the ballot man
Google "impossibilism".

It's not that this group isn't based on an established tradition in revolutionary politics (also check out SPGB). Of course, it's one thing to debate the merits of the electoralist approach (especially in the case of the idler's ridiculous rejection of strike action, but okay), but to write such politics off in a non-chalant way is a mistake in my opinion.

And I won't even comment this pearl of wisdom on helping out the Maoists. Yeah, they could do that, if they lived long enough to do so when engaging that wonderful bunch (or they could start to uphold Maoism; that could get them far)

Anyway, interesting to see such developments in Indian politics.

[Hit The North]

Voting is more effective, democratic and peaceful than the streets or strikes.

So your version of "working class self-emancipation" is voting, is it?

And there's nothing more democratic than a good old fashioned strike, comrade.

And there's nothing our rulers like more than social "peace".

[Hit The North]

Anyway, interesting to see such developments in Indian politics.

I have to disagree. If the Indian party adopt the same practices as the SPGB, it will mean over 100 years of tiny membership, abstention from working class struggle and zero influence in the organisations of the working class.

Nice website though.

[Thirsty Crow]

I have to disagree. If the Indian party adopt the same practices as the SPGB, it will mean over 100 years of tiny membership, abstention from working class struggle and zero influence in the organisations of the working class.

Nice website though.
Well, I meant interesting literally - that it interests me, it raises more questions than it answers, due to all sorts of things (not least due to my lack of significant knowledge on the situation in India, apart from being somewhat familair with the politics surrounding Maoism). I didn't mean to imply that I see this as an unequivocally positive development.

[Q]

Perhaps if they'd just help the Maoists they'd actually be able to take over India. They already hold 1/3rd of the land mass.


http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_UUV6V1y_VYk/TDW7LoKv-QI/AAAAAAAAAyA/U0ws95hVEW0/s400/naxalite.bmp

Somehow I doubt they hold that amount of land.

And congrats for the WSM/SPGB to start a branch in India. I disagree with the approach (it's not called "impossibilism" for nothing) but they're worthy comrades.

[Ocean Seal]

Voting is more effective, democratic and peaceful than the streets or strikes.
What?
I mean at least hide the liberalism a bit. And as others said the strike is the most democratic process that exists.

[Manic Impressive]

Somehow I doubt they hold that amount of land.

And congrats for the WSM/SPGB to start a branch in India. I disagree with the approach (it's not called "impossibilism" for nothing) but they're worthy comrades.
Actually the term impossibilism is a sarcastic term. The issue arose in the French Worker's Party in 1882 where there was an argument over Reform or Revolution. The reformists called themselves possibilists and in response jokingly the revolutionaries called themselves impossibilists to show their opposition. A similar dispute was occurring in the UK within the Social Democratic Federation which led to the eventual split. The right wing of the party or the British possibilists later went on to play a part in the founding of the Labour party whereas the Impossiblists formed the SPGB in London and the SLP in Scotland. Obviously the impossiblists have been proven right as the reformist road to revolution has been proven to be the real impossibility with the failure of the labour movement to achieve anything other than reforms before eventually capitulating to the bourgeoisie and taking anti-working class positions.
While the British impossibilists did split from the reformists the French did not and eventually became the Socialist party who are in power today. The impossibilist faction eventually died out in the 90's. The SLP abandoned impossibilism sometime between the 40's or 50's.
So impossiblism actually has nothing to do with using parliament but more to do with parliamentarianism. Which was defined by Engels as using parliament to enact reforms and engage in bourgeois politics. So yeah impossiblism actually just means anti-reformism.

[Manic Impressive]

What?
I mean at least hide the liberalism a bit. And as others said the strike is the most democratic process that exists.
If you're going to make wild statements like that you should back them up with quotes.

It seems you are calling Marx and Engels liberals. Could you name any Leninist parties who wouldn't participate in elections. Except for the ICT and ICC which technically aren't parties.

[Tim Cornelis]

Perhaps if they'd just help the Maoists they'd actually be able to take over India. They already hold 1/3rd of the land mass.


http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_UUV6V1y_VYk/TDW7LoKv-QI/AAAAAAAAAyA/U0ws95hVEW0/s400/naxalite.bmp

Those are the states they operate in, not the states they control.

[VirgJans12]

And I won't even comment this pearl of wisdom on helping out the Maoists. Yeah, they could do that, if they lived long enough to do so when engaging that wonderful bunch (or they could start to uphold Maoism; that could get them far)

What is so wrong with Maoism in a country that for the most part exist out of peasants living in poverty?




Somehow I doubt they hold that amount of land.

That's a map of the affected districts. In reality, it's slightly less but still quite some land.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/76/India_Naxal_affected_districts_map.svg/530px-India_Naxal_affected_districts_map.svg.png

[#FF0000]

Voting is more effective, democratic and peaceful than the streets or strikes.

You are so flat out wrong that i actually felt your being wrong hit me in the chest.

Even if you want to believe the ballot box is a useful tool, to say it's more important than organizing is dead. wrong. Virtually everything the working class has won has been the result of radical, militant movements forcing the hand of elected officials.

I'm ambivalent about voting. But to say that it is more important -- or equally as important -- as organizing is completely false.

[officer nugz]

Voting is more effective, democratic and peaceful than the streets or strikes.the amount that the general population democratically supports a strike should have no bearing on whether or not radicals support it.

[Manic Impressive]

You are so flat out wrong that i actually felt your being wrong hit me in the chest.

Even if you want to believe the ballot box is a useful tool, to say it's more important than organizing is dead. wrong. Virtually everything the working class has won has been the result of radical, militant movements forcing the hand of elected officials.

I'm ambivalent about voting. But to say that it is more important -- or equally as important -- as organizing is completely false.
I think what he meant was as a form of revolution. How the working class seize state power is very important as it will determine the material conditions by which we build communism. If it's a global civil war as many on here advocate then if successful the material conditions will almost undoubtedly not be conducive to creating a society of abundance which is needed to realize the principle to each according their ability to each according their need. This is why we advocate as peaceful a revolution as possible until it becomes an actual impossibility. I don't think anyone could disagree that that would not be better than a violent one.
I'd also question exactly what the working class has won? A nicer capitalism? No reform is passed which is not in the interests of capital.

[Q]

What is so wrong with Maoism in a country that for the most part exist out of peasants living in poverty?
There are two main issues with the Maoist strategy I think:
1. When trying to conquer power through guerrilla struggle you end up with an army strategy. This leads to, if successful, this army taking over control and imposing its control structures on society. The working class in the mean time plays a subsidiary role only. Hardly revolutionary self-emancipation.

This is not to say that guerrilla struggle is not a valid tactic under certain circumstances. But the goal should always be to enable revolutionary self-emancipation of the working class.

2. The Maoist conception of an "alliance of x classes" is a way of circumventing the very real problem of minority rule of the working class in developing countries. I don't however think it is a very good workaround, let alone a solution.

Having said that, the urban population stands at about 31% as per 2011 (http://www.google.nl/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CDUQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fcensusindia.gov.in%2F2011-prov-results%2Fpaper2%2Fdata_files%2Findia%2FRural_Urba n_2011.pdf&ei=FHlLUNP6GcSX0QXpoYDQBQ&usg=AFQjCNEqSxt7nTkhKtXjU4karY9-tNhvOw&cad=rja). While only an indicator, it shows that the working class is not insignificant and on the rise.


That's a map of the affected districts. In reality, it's slightly less but still quite some land.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/76/India_Naxal_affected_districts_map.svg/530px-India_Naxal_affected_districts_map.svg.png

That map is 5 years old. Is there something more recent? And mentioning the source is also important as this kind of info is surely disputed.

[Ostrinski]

Historically, guerrilla campaigns have always created power vacuums, such as in Cuba where Batista was able to keep a firm grasp on the urban population and working class during the guerrilla war, rendering them unable to emancipate themselves and take control of society.

[VirgJans12]

There are two main issues with the Maoist strategy I think:
1. When trying to conquer power through guerrilla struggle you end up with an army strategy. This leads to, if successful, this army taking over control and imposing its control structures on society. The working class in the mean time plays a subsidiary role only. Hardly revolutionary self-emancipation.

This is not to say that guerrilla struggle is not a valid tactic under certain circumstances. But the goal should always be to enable revolutionary self-emancipation of the working class.

2. The Maoist conception of an "alliance of x classes" is a way of circumventing the very real problem of minority rule of the working class in developing countries. I don't however think it is a very good workaround, let alone a solution.

Having said that, the urban population stands at about 31% as per 2011 (http://www.google.nl/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CDUQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fcensusindia.gov.in%2F2011-prov-results%2Fpaper2%2Fdata_files%2Findia%2FRural_Urba n_2011.pdf&ei=FHlLUNP6GcSX0QXpoYDQBQ&usg=AFQjCNEqSxt7nTkhKtXjU4karY9-tNhvOw&cad=rja). While only an indicator, it shows that the working class is not insignificant and on the rise.



That map is 5 years old. Is there something more recent? And mentioning the source is also important as this kind of info is surely disputed.

The guerilla army (Naxalites) exist out of recruited peasants. They do not possess the means of production so they are still part of the proletariat. So is it not true that they ARE actually self-emancipating by taking up the armed struggle? Also, if the urban population is only 31%, that means the rural population is 69%, which is a huge majority, even though the urban population is on the rise.

The source of the previous map was Wikipedia. I know, but the same 2007 map is in the book "Red Sun: Travels in Naxalite Country (http://www.scribd.com/doc/41285042/Red-Sun-Travels-in-Naxalite-Country-0670081337)". The maps are on the first few pages. I am yet to read the book. I prefer a paperback but I can only find it on foreign websites. Just like Michael Parenti's "Blackshirts and Reds". Do you happen to know any Dutch sites I can get such books? Or at least a place I can pay with iDeal?

Here is a 2009 map. The borders haven't changed much, but the struggle started in 1967 so I guess for an armed struggle, they're pretty fixed.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-m2nIylm8HDo/T5rOQz3kflI/AAAAAAAABt0/3f1fO4m3d10/s1600/naxal2009.jpg

[Q]

The guerilla army (Naxalites) exist out of recruited peasants. They do not possess the means of production so they are still part of the proletariat.
Peasants do own means of production (their arable land), which means they form a different class as they hold a different position to economic relations.

That said, I'm sure there is an overlap between being a peasant and being a wage-worker. Most will probably function part-time as both, going back to live from the land if they're unemployed.


So is it not true that they ARE actually self-emancipating by taking up the armed struggle?
The point, as Lizard King also makes, is that guerrilla armies have historically failed as a road to socialism. This is, I think, because of the stratified character of such organisations. Furthermore, typically only a small fraction of the (peasant) population is taking part in the armed struggle. I'm sure the Naxalites form no exception, especially since this struggle has been going on for so long.


Also, if the urban population is only 31%, that means the rural population is 69%, which is a huge majority, even though the urban population is on the rise.
Yes, but this situation is rapidly changing. Estimated growth this year stands between 5.8% and 7.2% (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_India), meaning more people will move to the cities, year by year.


The source of the previous map was Wikipedia. I know, but the same 2007 map is in the book "Red Sun: Travels in Naxalite Country (http://www.scribd.com/doc/41285042/Red-Sun-Travels-in-Naxalite-Country-0670081337)". The maps are on the first few pages. I am yet to read the book. I prefer a paperback but I can only find it on foreign websites. Just like Michael Parenti's "Blackshirts and Reds". Do you happen to know any Dutch sites I can get such books? Or at least a place I can pay with iDeal?
You might try at the Rooie Rat (http://rooierat.nl/).


Here is a 2009 map. The borders haven't changed much, but the struggle started in 1967 so I guess for an armed struggle, they're pretty fixed.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-m2nIylm8HDo/T5rOQz3kflI/AAAAAAAABt0/3f1fO4m3d10/s1600/naxal2009.jpg
Fair enough, but conversely this also means that little progress is forthcoming.

[Ocean Seal]

If you're going to make wild statements like that you should back them up with quotes.

It seems you are calling Marx and Engels liberals. Could you name any Leninist parties who wouldn't participate in elections. Except for the ICT and ICC which technically aren't parties.
Can you not see which part I was responding to?


Voting is more effective, democratic and peaceful than the streets or strikes.

I don't mind participation in elections, I don't care enough to polemicize about it in its absolute, what I do care about is the fact that the Idler's response glorifies bourgeois parliaments over democratic organization of workers. Shouldn't you as an ultra-left be quite upset about this? About him calling the streets and strikes less democratic than the ballot box? Isn't that absurd coming from a so called revolutionary leftist? Its an insult to workers struggles in the past and today everywhere.

[The Idler]

So your version of "working class self-emancipation" is voting, is it?
So your version of "working class self-emancipation" is abstentionism, is it? Why wouldn't a self-emancipated working-class use the vote?

And there's nothing more democratic than a good old fashioned strike, comrade.
Except for all the strikes called off by union leaders.

And there's nothing our rulers like more than social "peace".
And there's nothing workers bear the brunt of more than social unrest.

What?
I mean at least hide the liberalism a bit. And as others said the strike is the most democratic process that exists.
Except for all the working-class regarded by the ruling-class as unproductive, students, pensioners, homemakers, carers, volunteers. I mean at least hide the economist syndicalist abstentionism a bit.

You are so flat out wrong that i actually felt your being wrong hit me in the chest.

Even if you want to believe the ballot box is a useful tool, to say it's more important than organizing is dead. wrong. Virtually everything the working class has won has been the result of radical, militant movements forcing the hand of elected officials.

I'm ambivalent about voting. But to say that it is more important -- or equally as important -- as organizing is completely false.
Voting is organising, more importantly it is organising democratically for political power rather than economic power. The principal victory of the working class is universal suffrage. Anything elected representatives give, they can take away. The best way to stop them is universal suffrage rather than abstentionism.

the amount that the general population democratically supports a strike should have no bearing on whether or not radicals support it.
Popular support does bear on whether strikes ends in success or tanks, mobile police units, arrests, and casualties.

[#FF0000]

Voting is organising, more importantly it is organising democratically for political power rather than economic power. The principal victory of the working class is universal suffrage. Anything elected representatives give, they can take away. The best way to stop them is universal suffrage rather than abstentionism.

Except that is wrong and history has shown that we're more likely to get what we want by forcing the hand of those in power than just relying on them to give it to us.

Frankly I don't know what you're doing on this site.

EDIT: and your perspective is particularly confusing in the US, where the entire structure of government so heavily caters to the two-party system that I'm at a loss as to who you think we ought to vote for.

[officer nugz]

Popular support does bear on whether strikes ends in success or tanks, mobile police units, arrests, and casualties.I do not want to jump to a conclusion, so please tell me, what are you trying to say about the stance to take on unpopular strikes?

[VirgJans12]

Peasants do own means of production (their arable land), which means they form a different class as they hold a different position to economic relations.

That said, I'm sure there is an overlap between being a peasant and being a wage-worker. Most will probably function part-time as both, going back to live from the land if they're unemployed.

From what I read about the Naxalites, they gave the land of conquered territory to peasants, because it belonged to landlords before, which would make them simply workers in unconquered territory.



The point, as Lizard King also makes, is that guerrilla armies have historically failed as a road to socialism. This is, I think, because of the stratified character of such organisations. Furthermore, typically only a small fraction of the (peasant) population is taking part in the armed struggle. I'm sure the Naxalites form no exception, especially since this struggle has been going on for so long.

How did it fail in like China, Vietnam and Cuba? Sure, they're not shining examples of socialism now, but that has other reasons. They did rise to power and their original intents after the revolution were to build a socialist society.

[Q]

Voting is organising, more importantly it is organising democratically for political power rather than economic power. The principal victory of the working class is universal suffrage. Anything elected representatives give, they can take away. The best way to stop them is universal suffrage rather than abstentionism.

I think the underlying points here are important: Our class needs to conquer political power as opposed to merely focusing on strikes and other workplace related arenas. We can only do that by organising ourselves as a class-collective with our own agenda as opposed to that of the state or other classes.

Electoral work, strikes and yes, even guerrilla struggle are all valid tactics within this framework. But neither are panaceas, silverbullets to socialism. A well known phrase regarding elections is that if elections ever did change anything, they'd be abolished. So yes, it is obvious that we want to take over power peacefully, violence is not in our interests as a class. But violence is imposed upon us, mainly by the state, so we have to defend ourselves. This is all elementary.

So, I come back at the long term strategy of a party-movement where the class organises itself to fight for political hegemony. Within that strategy a plethora of tactics may be employed to whatever fits the given circumstances.

[Q]

From what I read about the Naxalites, they gave the land of conquered territory to peasants, because it belonged to landlords before, which would make them simply workers in unconquered territory.
So, the Naxalites then act as bosses that own these lands and pay wages to these farmers to work on them? In that case I agree, they are very much proletarians.

(Note a slight hand of sarcasm ;))


How did it fail in like China, Vietnam and Cuba? Sure, they're not shining examples of socialism now, but that has other reasons. They did rise to power and their original intents after the revolution were to build a socialist society.
What "other" reasons? If you're following the narrative that those revolutions were couped by "evil plotters" (like Deng Xiaoping in China, etc) I can only disagree. I think the method of revolution is playing an important part too as I explained in previous posts. The way we organise our party is marking the future society. So if we mainly organise in a militaristic way, we get a quasi-militaristic society. And I don't think you could argue otherwise regarding Mao's China, Ho Chi Minh's Vietnam or Castro's Cuba.

[Manic Impressive]

I think the underlying points here are important: Our class needs to conquer political power as opposed to merely focusing on strikes and other workplace related arenas. We can only do that by organising ourselves as a class-collective with our own agenda as opposed to that of the state or other classes.

Electoral work, strikes and yes, even guerrilla struggle are all valid tactics within this framework. But neither are panaceas, silverbullets to socialism. A well known phrase regarding elections is that if elections ever did change anything, they'd be abolished. So yes, it is obvious that we want to take over power peacefully, violence is not in our interests as a class. But violence is imposed upon us, mainly by the state, so we have to defend ourselves. This is all elementary.

So, I come back at the long term strategy of a party-movement where the class organises itself to fight for political hegemony. Within that strategy a plethora of tactics may be employed to whatever fits the given circumstances.
Agree with most of this and to elucidate on the SPGB position we believe that both political and economic power must be seized separately. The reason for this being that if you are actively involved in economic struggles while involved in political struggles then you are under pressure from some of your own membership to capitulate to the bourgeoisie's offers of reforms. It's a plan which is focused on NOT repeating the mistakes of past attempts at revolution. Workplace organization is essential but it must also not be reformist and remain focused on the actual seizure of industry ready for working class control. By being involved in the political struggle unions are liable to be put under pressure to moderate their actions.
The combination of political and workplace organization has been a toxic mix which has lead to many of the defeats the working class movement has suffered. Whether these workplace organizations exist yet even in an embryonic stage is debatable. There are some possible candidates.

But what I think the Idler is saying is that trade unions in their current form should not be supported as they are reformist, undemocratic and constantly betray their own members. I don't think that's a controversial view and I agree entirely. However the issue of whether or the degree of support trade unions should receive from us has been a hotly debated issue within the party since it's inception where the other side would say that (current) trade unions are a vital defense for workers rights.

[Hit The North]

So your version of "working class self-emancipation" is abstentionism, is it?


Have you read me supporting abstentionism? No! In fact, my political tendency has a better record of standing candidates in elections than yours. The SPGB calls for workers to vote their way to socialism and stood one single, solitary candidate in the last general election! So who are the workers supposed to vote for, the Labour Party?


Except for all the strikes called off by union leaders.

Um, yeah. Strikes are taken under the democratic mandate of workers and sometimes strikes are prevented due to the undemocratic manoeuvring of trade union bureaucrats (although normally these days, in the UK at least, due to the undemocratic manoeuvring of the bosses operating through their courts and judges). What is your point?


And there's nothing workers bear the brunt of more than social unrest.


You mean apart from the day-to-day exploitation and degradations of capitalist society? The very mode of exploitation that is embedded in the normal, regular tempo of social peace.


Except for all the working-class regarded by the ruling-class as unproductive, students, pensioners, homemakers, carers, volunteers. I mean at least hide the economist syndicalist abstentionism a bit.

Surely the working class have to use all means at their disposal to defend themselves against capitalism and to forge their self-emancipation. Therefore a mixed economy of actions should be considered and these actions should be linked. If you think the road to socialism can be travelled through mere passive voting, then you have not studied history.


The principal victory of the working class is universal suffrage. Anything elected representatives give, they can take away. The best way to stop them is universal suffrage rather than abstentionism.


So you're in favour of voting but not in favour of elected representatives?

Meanwhile, you seem to be unaware that in most developed capitalist societies there has been universal adult suffrage for nearly a century and yet this has not prevented our political representatives from selling us out time after time.

I confess to not having much time for the politics of the SPGB, but surely your comments are a poor representation of their position?

[Hit The North]

A few points I'd like to make:


Agree with most of this and to elucidate on the SPGB position we believe that both political and economic power must be seized separately. The reason for this being that if you are actively involved in economic struggles while involved in political struggles then you are under pressure from some of your own membership to capitulate to the bourgeoisie's offers of reforms. It's a plan which is focused on NOT repeating the mistakes of past attempts at revolution.

This is completely wrong headed. The mistake which is usually made is precisely the refusal to link the political organisation and the economic organisation of the working class. Imagine if during the UK Miners' Strike of 84-5 the Labour Party had come out and supported the NUM and called upon its voters and the TUC to do the same. This would have given the movement against Thatcher and neo-liberalism a real boost. Instead, as they always do, the Labour Party honoured the bourgeois division between the economic and the political spheres and refused to support the movement. The truth is that it is reformism, not revolutionism, that benefits from this separation.

So the SPGB's "plan" works contrary to the SPGB's aims (assuming the SPGB is a revolutionary Marxist party).


But what I think the Idler is saying is that trade unions in their current form should not be supported as they are reformist, undemocratic and constantly betray their own members. I don't think that's a controversial view and I agree entirely.If he's saying this, then he's saying it badly. But I note that if you support unions but you don't support them being reformist, then you must support a form of syndicalism. Otherwise, why support unions at all?

Also, as I point out in my previous post, although the internal democracy of trade unions might leave a lot to be desired, the real mitigating factor against unions being effective and democratic fighting machines for the working class is the current bourgeois anti-union legislation which replaces the participant democracy of mass meetings with the passive one-member-one-vote ballot. This takes power away from activists and places it in the hands of administrators. It also makes it easy for courts to over-rule the democratic mandate of rank and file workers.

Finally, and ironically, given the accusations that The Idler likes to throw around, to say that unions should not be supported because of their bureaucratic leaderships is just another kind of abstentionism. If rank and file union members, who are also socialists, are not taking on the bureaucrats, then who will?

[Positivist]

The guerilla army (Naxalites) exist out of recruited peasants. They do not possess the means of production so they are still part of the proletariat. So is it not true that they ARE actually self-emancipating by taking up the armed struggle? Also, if the urban population is only 31%, that means the rural population is 69%, which is a huge majority, even though the urban population is on the rise.

Actually peasants do own means of productions, though they are highly unsophisticated and are worked either individually or familialy. That being said, at this point most peasants have either evolved into agrarian capitalists or have been reduced to semi-peasants forced to work for supplementary wages or are straight up rural proletarians. With this being recognized, the naxalite army can be considered atleast partially an emancipatory force.

Though, as others have stated, the naxalites can not be expected to succeed unless they link up with the rest of the proletariat, especially the growing industrial segment.

[Sir Comradical]

The naxalites represent a large mass of adivasis and dalits who are being kicked off their land by the police on behalf of mining companies. While they say they want revolution in India, it's more a land rights movement than a revolutionary proletarian movement.

Don't get me wrong, they're awesome, but people in the west seem to be getting the wrong idea.

And also.


Perhaps if they'd just help the Maoists they'd actually be able to take over India. They already hold 1/3rd of the land mass.


http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_UUV6V1y_VYk/TDW7LoKv-QI/AAAAAAAAAyA/U0ws95hVEW0/s400/naxalite.bmp

I wish they controlled those states. I've been to rural Andhra Pradesh & Karnataka in so called "affected areas". Most of the time the insurgents are local villagers who take up arms if there are injustices by landlords or police. However up north in Orissa and Chattisgarh it's much more serious. Most of this coloured map nonsense is actually propaganda by the Indian government which literally no one is buying. On a side note, when I was in India I sensed quite a bit of sympathy for the Naxals from people who can hardly be described as left-leaning let alone communist.

[Die Neue Zeit]

There are two main issues with the Maoist strategy I think:
1. When trying to conquer power through guerrilla struggle you end up with an army strategy. This leads to, if successful, this army taking over control and imposing its control structures on society. The working class in the mean time plays a subsidiary role only. Hardly revolutionary self-emancipation.

This is not to say that guerrilla struggle is not a valid tactic under certain circumstances. But the goal should always be to enable revolutionary self-emancipation of the working class.

Maoism puts all its eggs on the People's War basket. There's Focoism to consider, but more importantly, also Breakthrough Military Coups.


2. The Maoist conception of an "alliance of x classes" is a way of circumventing the very real problem of minority rule of the working class in developing countries. I don't however think it is a very good workaround, let alone a solution.

Comrades should note that I have discussed the advocacy of Third World Caesarean Socialism, based on a Bloc of Dispossessed Classes and Pan-National Petit-Bourgeoisie, stretching from Bangladesh to Pakistan and from Nepal to Sri Lanka.


Having said that, the urban population stands at about 31% as per 2011 (http://www.google.nl/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CDUQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fcensusindia.gov.in%2F2011-prov-results%2Fpaper2%2Fdata_files%2Findia%2FRural_Urba n_2011.pdf&ei=FHlLUNP6GcSX0QXpoYDQBQ&usg=AFQjCNEqSxt7nTkhKtXjU4karY9-tNhvOw&cad=rja). While only an indicator, it shows that the working class is not insignificant and on the rise.

Thanks, comrade, but I'll use this to counter an Indian Trotskyist. :)


Yes, but this situation is rapidly changing. Estimated growth this year stands between 5.8% and 7.2% (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_India), meaning more people will move to the cities, year by year.

Shopkeepers and other urban petit-bourgeois elements may be thriving like in Syria and Libya, though.

Their typical stance for equal suffrage would necessarily mean the proletariat taking a back seat to the "National" Petit-Bourgeoisie (which they should).

[Die Neue Zeit]

Historically, guerrilla campaigns have always created power vacuums, such as in Cuba where Batista was able to keep a firm grasp on the urban population and working class during the guerrilla war, rendering them unable to emancipate themselves and take control of society.

Comrade, Cuba at the time didn't have a proletarian demographic majority.

[Die Neue Zeit]

As for the WSM proper, allow me to compile what I believe are the correct positions expressed in this thread so far by those for strike fetishism, parliamentary and electoral cretinism, and by comrades:


So your version of "working class self-emancipation" is voting, is it?

[...]

And there's nothing our rulers like more than social "peace".


I have to disagree. If the Indian party adopt the same practices as the SPGB, it will mean over 100 years of tiny membership, abstention from working class struggle and zero influence in the organisations of the working class.


Virtually everything the working class has won has been the result of radical, militant movements forcing the hand of elected officials.


I don't mind participation in elections, I don't care enough to polemicize about it in its absolute, what I do care about is the fact that the Idler's response glorifies bourgeois parliaments over democratic organization of workers. Shouldn't you as an ultra-left be quite upset about this? About him calling the streets and strikes less democratic than the ballot box? Isn't that absurd coming from a so called revolutionary leftist? Its an insult to workers struggles in the past and today everywhere.


Except for all the working-class regarded by the ruling-class as unproductive, students, pensioners, homemakers, carers, volunteers. I mean at least hide the economist syndicalist abstentionism a bit.


I think the underlying points here are important: Our class needs to conquer political power as opposed to merely focusing on strikes and other workplace related arenas. We can only do that by organising ourselves as a class-collective with our own agenda as opposed to that of the state or other classes.

Electoral work, strikes and yes, even guerrilla struggle are all valid tactics within this framework. But neither are panaceas, silverbullets to socialism. A well known phrase regarding elections is that if elections ever did change anything, they'd be abolished. So yes, it is obvious that we want to take over power peacefully, violence is not in our interests as a class. But violence is imposed upon us, mainly by the state, so we have to defend ourselves. This is all elementary.

So, I come back at the long term strategy of a party-movement where the class organises itself to fight for political hegemony. Within that strategy a plethora of tactics may be employed to whatever fits the given circumstances.


Agree with most of this and to elucidate on the SPGB position we believe that both political and economic power must be seized separately. The reason for this being that if you are actively involved in economic struggles while involved in political struggles then you are under pressure from some of your own membership to capitulate to the bourgeoisie's offers of reforms. It's a plan which is focused on NOT repeating the mistakes of past attempts at revolution. Workplace organization is essential but it must also not be reformist and remain focused on the actual seizure of industry ready for working class control. By being involved in the political struggle unions are liable to be put under pressure to moderate their actions.

The combination of political and workplace organization has been a toxic mix which has lead to many of the defeats the working class movement has suffered. Whether these workplace organizations exist yet even in an embryonic stage is debatable. There are some possible candidates.


Surely the working class have to use all means at their disposal to defend themselves against capitalism and to forge their self-emancipation. Therefore a mixed economy of actions should be considered and these actions should be linked. If you think the road to socialism can be travelled through mere passive voting, then you have not studied history.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

Voting is more effective, democratic and peaceful than the streets or strikes.

Hey, is that Noam Chomsky in your avatar?
http://images.wikia.com/en.futurama/images/d/da/Fry_Looking_Squint.jpg

[The Idler]

Except that is wrong and history has shown that we're more likely to get what we want by forcing the hand of those in power than just relying on them to give it to us.

Frankly I don't know what you're doing on this site.

EDIT: and your perspective is particularly confusing in the US, where the entire structure of government so heavily caters to the two-party system that I'm at a loss as to who you think we ought to vote for.
I think we should take power not demand reforms. We should not be forcing hands we should be the hands. Revolutions take power, abstentionism does not.

I do not want to jump to a conclusion, so please tell me, what are you trying to say about the stance to take on unpopular strikes?
Don't tell workers they're going to win if you think they're going to lose e.g.All Out Stay Out, general strike now etc.

Have you read me supporting abstentionism? No! In fact, my political tendency has a better record of standing candidates in elections than yours. The SPGB calls for workers to vote their way to socialism and stood one single, solitary candidate in the last general election! So who are the workers supposed to vote for, the Labour Party?

Um, yeah. Strikes are taken under the democratic mandate of workers and sometimes strikes are prevented due to the undemocratic manoeuvring of trade union bureaucrats (although normally these days, in the UK at least, due to the undemocratic manoeuvring of the bosses operating through their courts and judges). What is your point?

You mean apart from the day-to-day exploitation and degradations of capitalist society? The very mode of exploitation that is embedded in the normal, regular tempo of social peace.

Surely the working class have to use all means at their disposal to defend themselves against capitalism and to forge their self-emancipation. Therefore a mixed economy of actions should be considered and these actions should be linked. If you think the road to socialism can be travelled through mere passive voting, then you have not studied history.

So you're in favour of voting but not in favour of elected representatives?

Meanwhile, you seem to be unaware that in most developed capitalist societies there has been universal adult suffrage for nearly a century and yet this has not prevented our political representatives from selling us out time after time.

I confess to not having much time for the politics of the SPGB, but surely your comments are a poor representation of their position?My point about strikes is not how democratically they start (or not), but how democratically they finish.

No the SPGB does not call for workers to "vote their way to socialism" or a road to socialism through passive voting. If I've given that impression, it is wrong. I confess to only having some time for the IST but that political tendency also has a more consistent record of supporting a vote for the Labour party. This is probably part of the reason universal suffrage has been used by radicals to masochistically support electing sell-outs. We know this leads to general disillusionment so why keep doing it?

Social peace kills fewer workers and more slowly than social unrest.

So I'm precisely in favour of voting (to get rid of leaders in trade unions or parliamentary elections) but not in favour of representatives.

A few points I'd like to make:

This is completely wrong headed. The mistake which is usually made is precisely the refusal to link the political organisation and the economic organisation of the working class. Imagine if during the UK Miners' Strike of 84-5 the Labour Party had come out and supported the NUM and called upon its voters and the TUC to do the same. This would have given the movement against Thatcher and neo-liberalism a real boost. Instead, as they always do, the Labour Party honoured the bourgeois division between the economic and the political spheres and refused to support the movement. The truth is that it is reformism, not revolutionism, that benefits from this separation.

So the SPGB's "plan" works contrary to the SPGB's aims (assuming the SPGB is a revolutionary Marxist party).

If he's saying this, then he's saying it badly. But I note that if you support unions but you don't support them being reformist, then you must support a form of syndicalism. Otherwise, why support unions at all?

Also, as I point out in my previous post, although the internal democracy of trade unions might leave a lot to be desired, the real mitigating factor against unions being effective and democratic fighting machines for the working class is the current bourgeois anti-union legislation which replaces the participant democracy of mass meetings with the passive one-member-one-vote ballot. This takes power away from activists and places it in the hands of administrators. It also makes it easy for courts to over-rule the democratic mandate of rank and file workers.

Finally, and ironically, given the accusations that The Idler likes to throw around, to say that unions should not be supported because of their bureaucratic leaderships is just another kind of abstentionism. If rank and file union members, who are also socialists, are not taking on the bureaucrats, then who will?
This is just inaccurate, I've never argued against trade unions even if they have a bureaucratic leadership.

There's linking economic to political struggles and substituting political struggles for economic struggles. Political struggles require an understanding and support. If workers want to keep a workplace open, but don't want socialism its no good trying to hijack industrial action. Workers might be otherwise satisfied with capitalist society. By all means, try to persuade them (this is what the linking is), but don't substitute economic struggle for political. Marx said every class struggle is a political struggle not every class struggle should be substituted for a political struggle.

[Manic Impressive]

This is completely wrong headed. The mistake which is usually made is precisely the refusal to link the political organisation and the economic organisation of the working class. Imagine if during the UK Miners' Strike of 84-5 the Labour Party had come out and supported the NUM and called upon its voters and the TUC to do the same. This would have given the movement against Thatcher and neo-liberalism a real boost. Instead, as they always do, the Labour Party honoured the bourgeois division between the economic and the political spheres and refused to support the movement. The truth is that it is reformism, not revolutionism, that benefits from this separation.
Open Letter to the Miners - SPGB

Fellow workers, you are now involved in a great industrial conflict with your exploiters, the state. Like the teachers, nurses and railway workers, your union is confronted with a government which bows to the god of profit as it tramples on the needs and aspirations of those who produce all of society‘s goods and services. But you don't have be a miner to appreciate our message since all those who depend on a wage salary or dole cheque in order to survive suffer, in varying degrees, the effects of the same callous social system.
This letter is not addressed to your leaders, although we hope that Arthur Scargill and his fellow elected officials will take the time to read it and respond. The socialist message is directed primarily at you, the workers who are not interviewed on television or driven from one picket line to the next in chauffeur-driven cars. You are the men who dig the coal and run the mines in from top to bottom; who belong to class which produces wealth but does not posses it. We address you for two reasons: firstly, because it is only by spreading ideas to the majority that we will ever achieve real social change –leaders can't do it for us; and secondly, because socialists know that only when workers raise their political sights will they achieve a society capable of satisfying human needs.
We start from the assumption that your struggle against the state exploiters is part of the class war endemic to capitalism. As socialists, we recognise that the task before all workers is not to win this or that skirmish or gain a few concessions which the capitalist class can well afford; our objective in the class war is to win it. Back in 1905 this was the advice given by the Socialist Party of Great Britain to the railway workers –and it is bit as applicable today as it then:
“What the workers on the railways and in every other branch of industry have to recognise is that the utility of combination, economic and political, lies in the strength it gives to fight. What they have to understand is that they can only fight to the betterment of their own position at the expense and to the disadvantage of the class that employs them. What they have to appreciate if they object to being robbed of any part of the wealth they produce, is that they will not only have to place the capitalist class in the category of irreconcilable enemies, not only will they have to fight them as such always but they will have to beat them out of existence absolutely, before they can enter into the enjoyment of the full fruit of their labour
. . . The workers on railways and elsewhere will have to understand that it is the possession of the land and tools of production and distribution that gives the capitalist his power. They will have to understand that the only way to break that power is to force him to relinquish his hold upon the means by which all the people live. And then they will ... be prepared to work with us for the capture of the political machinery of the country as the necessary preliminary to the capture of all the machinery of wealth production.”. (Socialist Standard, May 1905)
In other words, no answer short of social revolution will do if the problems of the working class are to be abolished from the face of the earth.
Media prostitutes
Unfortunately, what the majority of workers know about the miners' strike they have received from the media. In this strike, as ever, the whores of Fleet Street have used their limited imaginative talents to defend the position of their bosses: attacks on individuals are the familiar substitute for analysis of the issues involved. On television we are bombarded with images of picket-line violence. But why did the violence start? And why need workers picket in the first place? In answer to these questions there is hardly a whisper. Of course, insofar as the reports of workers persecuting those who disagree with them are not false or exaggerated, socialists condemn unreservedly the anti-working class intimidation of fellow miners. No useful purpose will be achieved by imposing the will of one group on another; persuasion is the key to united strength. One thing is for sure: the media will not be made widely available to you to state your case and call for support from fellow workers. The so-called free press is no more than a propaganda tool of the exploiting class.
The issues at stake
The strike was called because of NCB plans to close down a number of pits and make thousands of miners unemployed. The extent of the proposed cuts has been a matter of contention between the NCB and the NUM but, even in the unlikely event that MacGregor is telling the truth, the result will be longer dole queues and the devastation of a number of old mining communities. It is in response to these facts that miners have gone on strike. The NUM, in accordance with its conference policy, is demanding that no pits be closed. In examining that demand, we need to know why the NCB had made its proposals.
Clearly, the intention to destroy large areas of the coal industry is not a result of what is popularly called Thatcherism. Neither is it a whim of Ian MacGregor's. The object of production under the present social system – capitalism – is not primarily to create wealth, but to make profits. The government has decided that there is not enough money to be made by exploiting miners in the old way and that they need to trim your jobs and communities to fit in with the demands of the market. Remember: the government does not run capitalism; it is the economic laws of the system which force the government to dance to the market's tune. In demanding that pits be kept open, even though the government does not regard them as profitable enough, the NUM is effectively demanding that capitalism be run for the benefit of the workers. Of course, society should be run for the wealth producers, but under capitalism that can never happen.
The state capitalist non-alternative
It used to be believed by many workers –including plenty of miners –that the way to make capitalism run in the workers' interest would be to take the means of wealth production and distribution from the private capitalists and place them in the hands of the state. It was argued that the government would run the mines for the miners and not the ruling class. As long ago as 1912, when nationalisation of the mines was being advocated by certain reformists, the South Wales miners' Unofficial Reform Committee pointed out that
“Nationalisation of the mines . . . simply makes a National Trust, with all the force of the Government behind it, whose one concern will be to see that the industry is run in such a way as to pay the interest on the bonds with which the coal-owners are paid out, and to extract as much more profit as possible in order to relieve the taxation of other landlords and capitalists.” (The Miners' Next Step)
On that point the Unofficial Committee was quite right. Nationalisation has amounted to nothing more than state-run exploitation of miners. If workers are to learn one lesson from the strike it must be that nationalisation is no answer. Of course, there are those smooth-tongued Labour opportunists who claim that if only the state was controlled by a Labour government it would all be different. Have they forgotten that Labour did run the state when the firemen, the NUPE workers and the dockers were out on strike? Have they forgotten that it was the Wilson government which initiated The Plan For Coal, which was based entirely on the assumption that the coal industry must make a profit? Fellow worker, as a member of the NUM, you are paying part of your wage into a political fund to send Labour administrators of capitalism to parliament. Is it not time that all union support for this anti-working class party was ended?
The international struggle
As all trade unionists learn through struggle, unity is strength. But unity is not just achieved on a national basis –capitalism is a worldwide social order and workers of all lands have a common interest in joining together against the common foe. One of the reasons the NCB can sit back and smile is that they are importing cheap Polish coal. In fact, coal imports from Poland over the last three months were five times higher than for the same period in 1983. The bosses are trying to break the strike by using workers from another part of the world, and in the bargain are buying cheaper coal because Polish miners receive lower wages.
Scargill has appealed to Jaruzelski, the unelected leader of the Polish police state, to stop coal imports to Britain. Jaruzelski, who needs the money to pay off Poland's huge bank debts, has ignored Scargill's plea. But why is Scargill appealing to the head of a state-capitalist dictatorship in the first place? Because the workers there have no independent unions to support the British miners' struggle. When the Polish miners were organised in their own union, Solidarity, Scargill's comment (published in the WRP's newspaper, Newsline) was that they should stay in the government-controlled Unions. So, Solidarity has been smashed, the Polish workers are effectively non-unionised, the price of Polish miners' labour-power is cheap and British coal importers are rubbing their greedy little hands.
The view that there is communism or socialism in Poland, Russia or any other nation must be rejected. Instead of workers in the so-called socialist countries fitting in with the needs of their state bosses, the struggle of workers must be international. Real unity means that if workers in Britain come out on strike we can bring with us the effective support of workers around the world. There can be no room for nationalist notions, including the policy of import controls, if we are to fight and win against the international ruling class.
The power of democracy
How dare the unelected editors of Fleet Street preach to the miners about democracy. And as for the NCB: who elected MacGregor to receive his fat salary for doing the dirty work of the profit system? A fact which is undeniable is that the vast majority of miners have supported the strike. As was mentioned in the Socialist Standard two months ago, we do not notice the media or the government insisting that, in the interests of democracy, all union members be balloted before a strike ends. Nonetheless, a combination of workers is only as strong as the understanding and commitment of those involved. Leaving the decisions to leaders –even to apparently militant ones –is no substitute for the democratic involvement by all members in all important union decisions. As the Unofficial Committee realised in 1912, leadership results in organisational weakness:
“Sheep cannot be said to have solidarity. In obedience to a shepherd, they will go up or down, backwards or forwards as they are driven by him and his dog. But they have no solidarity, for that means unity and loyalty. Unity and loyalty, not to an individual, or the policy of an individual, but to an interest and a policy which is understood and worked for by all.” (The Miners' Next Step)
Conscious unity — let the bosses try to defeat that!
Fair-deal capitalism
What are the miners asking for? Insofar as the trade union fight is for wage defence, better working conditions, higher redundancy payments and keeping as many jobs as possible, hard negotiation backed up by democratic, militant trade unionism can achieve results. But let's not kid ourselves –even if the NUM achieves what it seeks, the result will only have held back the capitalist butchery, not defeated the butchers. According to the SWP leaflet, Why You Should Support The Miners, "The first reason why we should support the miners is that they are fighting for jobs". And what is a job, fellow worker, but wage slavery? Fighting to be exploited –to be dependent on a wage at the end of the week –having to sell your labour-power to the highest parasitical bidder. Is that really the most that workers can ask for?
Karl Marx –who gets an even worse write-up in the Daily Express than Arthur Scargill and therefore must be talking some sense –recognised that trade union action was necessary, but that it would not make capitalism a fit system in which to live. As he put it:
“Trades Unions work well as centres of resistance against the encroachments of capital. They fail partially from an injudicious use of their power. They fail generally from limiting themselves to a guerrilla war against the effects of the existing system, instead of simultaneously trying to change it, instead of using their organized forces as a lever for the final emancipation of the working class that is to say the ultimate abolition of the wages system.” (Value, Price and Profit)
As Marxists, we fight not for jobs but for emancipation from a system which turns useful work into wage slavery.
There will never be fair-deal capitalism. Workers can fight strikes from now until Prince William gets a job and there will still be a class-divided society, with the wealth-producing majority living in an economically inferior condition. Kinnock , if elected, would be no better than Thatcher, and Scargill's rhetoric will, in the end do no more to shake the system than did Gormley's in 1974. The fact to face up to is that there is a bigger battle to be won.
Capitalism the enemy
Your real enemy is the present system, which produces commodities to sell on the market with a view to profit. Have you ever sat down and thought about what sort of a society it is in which thousands of old workers face the prospect of dying from hypothermia next winter because they cannot afford to buy fuel? Last winter and the winter before that tens of thousand of workers perished in the cold; the market could not see them because it is blind to those without the money to attract its attention. It is sickening, is it not, that economic experts are worrying about how to cut coal production while members our own class are too poor to switch heater?
Capitalism, with its hideous contradiction of mass poverty amid the potential for plenty, is your real enemy. It persecutes you at every level, advertising itself as a world of plenty and then rewarding the wealth producers with deprivation. For too long workers have suffered under this rotten set-up, when the means are at hand to create a society of production for need in which we can all give according to in abilities and take according to our self-determined needs.
What can you do?
Socialism is more than simply a great idea; it is an obtainable alternative to the chaos of the system which puts profit before use. So, what can you do about achieving it? Well, you've made a start by reading this letter. If you like what it says, why not pass it on to your friends, workmates and relatives? If you agree with the socialist outlook, so might they. If you want to know more, go along to your local branch and discuss the case for socialism. The Socialist Party is very active throughout the country and we can assure you of a warm reception. If you want more socialist literature, please contact our Head Office.
At the time of writing it is not certain how the miners' strike will end. Of one thing you and all other workers can be sure: when capital and wage labour are in open conflict, the Socialist Party takes the side of the robbed against the robbers. For it is only through the conscious solidarity of workers, that the system of legalised robbery will be compelled to make way for the reign of united humanity.

The Miners Strike Why?

Why did 120,000 miners join what has become the longest, bitterest and most controversial strike in the British coal industry since 1926? Clearly, it is no answer to say that they are motivated by subversive political aims or that they have all been hoodwinked by nasty Arthur Scargill and the NUM leaders. We can read this kind of facile substitute for an explanation in the propaganda press.
Economics under capitalism are concerned first and foremost with price and profit. Production is regarded as "uneconomic" when investment of capital shows little or no prospect of leading to profit for the investor. Being "uneconomic" is not at all the same as being "useless". For example, dairy farming is currently "uneconomic" within the EEC countries because more milk is produced than can be sold profitably. However, milk is desperately needed by the 40,000 children who, according to UNICEF, die of starvation or malnutrition-caused diseases every single day. So, when the economic experts say that miners are producing too much coal, this excess relates to profit rather than need. Similarly, when they say that investment in certain miners is "uneconomic" this does not mean there is not plenty of coal in them, but that capital investment in mining such coal would be unprofitable.
Politicians like Thatcher have never forgiven the NUM for the success of their last strike. Responding to the feelings of many capitalists, her government wants to weaken the power of the miners. A leaked Cabinet Minute of 1979 explained that “A nuclear programme would have the advantage of removing a substantial proportion of electricity from disruption by miners and transport workers.”
Economists are not paid to think about the devastation of the old mining communities which pit closures cause: destroying long-established ways of life does not appear on their balance sheets. Economists are not paid to register the harsh facts that more than half of the men attempting suicide are unemployed and that the rate of successful suicides in Britain has shot up during the present recession. Nor are they paid to bother themselves about the old workers who will die this winter because they are too poor to switch on a heater. Electricity output has been reduced because there is much less market demand for it by domestic consumers, while the non-recognition of real human demand leads to the totally unnecessary social disease of hypothermia. But none of these factors is of economic significance under capitalism: let communities be converted into industrial wastelands, let thousands of useful and energetic miners be forced into idleness, let thousands be cold for lack of coal-based heating.
Myths about the State
There was once a time when miners, in the company of many other workers, were easily persuaded that the solution to the problems of the profit system was nationalisation of industry. If only the mines were owned and controlled by the government rather than by private capitalists, it was asserted, the miners would have little to worry about. Forty years ago Will Lawther, the President of the Mineworkers' Federation of Great Britain (the predecessor to the NUM), asked readers to imagine what could be achieved through nationalisation:
“It would win the complete confidence of the miners and their families. Generations of suspicion and hatred would be wiped out, and an entirely new attitude developed towards the coal industry . . . Only through public ownership can you really plan the effective use of Britain's coal resources, plan production on the basis of modernisation or mechanisation, and bring about complete unity between your export and domestic coalfields . . .” (Foreword to Britain's Coal by Margot Heinemann, 1944).
Lawther goes on to predict that nationalisation would "enormously improve output and make use even of old coalfields that are looked upon as being worked out" and that "only the nationalisation of the mines can win the confidence of the miners". One can forgive miners for having been taken in by these hopes for capitalism at the time, even if—it must be added—the Socialist Party of Great Britain was then pointing out to those who would listen that nationalisation offered no solution to the workers. But now, after decades of experience of state capitalism in action, it is politically inane for workers to imagine that nationalised industries are in any way immune from the economic laws of capitalism. The NCB, as the state employer, is just as exploitative and antagonistic to the workers' interests as were the old mine owners.
The second myth which needs to be dispelled is that the state—the government, the law, the judges, the police commanders—is neutral. The state must be the political defender of the ruling class. When thousands of miners are stopped from picketing, when hundreds of miners are beaten by the police and when the funds of the South Wales NUM are stolen by the courts, it is clear that the state exists to reinforce the needs of capital. It would make no difference if the Labour Party was running the state instead of the Tories. That is why, when the Labour Party was in office between 1964 and 1970, they closed down 48 pits and made over 50,000 miners unemployed in the South Wales region alone.
In the first three months of the strike one miner was arrested every twenty minutes—3,282 arrests in all. Over 80 per cent of these arrests were for "breach of the peace" or "obstruction". Obviously the government has instructed the police to use tough tactics in dealing with the strikers. The well-known television picture of a police officer beating a defenceless striker with a truncheon is but one of numerous examples of police brutality in a battle initiated by the state. But as ordinary workers, paid to do an unpleasant job, it is not the police workers on the picket lines who are to be blamed: the real culprits are the legally respectable and physically secure boot-boys who pull the strings of the state.
The NCB has increased its importation of cheap Polish coal which is one of the factors weakening the effects of the British miners' strike. The NUM now has an official picket outside the Polish Embassy, calling on the Polish bosses to suspend imports in order to strengthen the effects of the British strike. But when Polish miners attempted to set up an independent union of their own the President of the NUM (writing in his personal capacity) argued that such action constituted "sabotage" and that the Polish miners should be loyal to their state bosses. The capitalists, who not for the first time are benefiting from the tactic of Divide and Rule, must be laughing all the way to the bank as they import cheap coal from their "Communist" enemies. Reproduced below is the full text of a resolution published by the underground Solidarity union in the Warsaw region, first published in their illegal journal, CDN. It shows that the writers and supporters of this Polish resolution are thinking along internationalist lines:
“For four months the British miners have been on strike against a programme of mass closures of mines for economic reasons. The miners are threatened with unemployment. The government has rejected compromise solutions and has resorted to severe police methods against the strikers. Thousands of miners have been arrested; hundreds have been hospitalised and one has been killed.
The government of the Polish People's Republic, despite hypocritical condemnations of the activities of the British police in the columns of the regime press and by the regime's pseudo-trade unionists, is profiting from the export of coal to Britain. It sells dirt cheap coal which has been mined in scandalously neglected working conditions and with reckless condemnation of the labour force and the coalfield. The slave labour of the Polish miner serves to break the resistance of the British miner.
British miners! The true sentiments of Polish trade unionists towards the authorities of the Polish People's Republic and their practices was shown in the recent electoral farce which was boycotted by the workers. In the prevailing conditions of terror, the Polish workers' movement is at present not in a position to undertake protest actions. But you may be certain that as you have supported and are supporting our struggle, so we are in solidarity with you. We strongly oppose every case where force is used against workers struggling for their rights and interests.” (Published in CDN, Mazowsze region, 26 June, 1984).
How painful it would be for the workers who produced the above resolution to know that the President, and several other key leaders, of the NUM believe that Solidarity should not exist.
What the miners struggle has shown
As the miners' strike has not been organised by socialists, it is not surprising that tactics have been employed with which we disagree. It is possible that the division within the NUM could have been avoided; full, democratic decision-making within the workers' movement is always the surest guarantee of strength.
But the miners' struggle has shown the importance of solidarity between workers of one county and another one country and another. The sense of common purpose and dedication which thousands of miners have shown during the strike contrasts sharply with many previous struggles in trade union history, where workers have been conned into co-operating in their rulers' interests. Let any miserable little cynic who says that workers are incapable of self-organised co-operation take a look at the tremendous achievements in communal self-help which strikers have set up.
Secondly, the strike has shown the Labour Party and its Leftist followers to be quite unable to point the miners in the direction of socialism. According to the theory, Leftists are supposed to wait for major struggles like this one in order to move in and tell the workers about the alternative to capitalism. In fact, the SWP, CP, WRP, RCP and numerous other inflatable vanguards have not produced a single leaflet between them urging the miners to transform their demands into the political aim of abolishing the wages system. As for the Labour Party, Neil Kinnock and his fellow mis-leaders have had little to offer but empty rhetoric. After all, every time the Labourites stand up in the House of Commons to tell the Tories how wicked they are, the Tories have been able to quote chapter and verse showing that previous Labour governments have run the mines in just the same way-to meet the demands of the profit system.
In any strike between robbers and robbed (with the exception of political strikes, such as when the dockers opposed immigration or the Labourites ran their phoney day of action) the Socialist Party is unequivocally on the side of the robbed. In the class war no worker and no political party can be neutral. But in expressing solidarity with workers in struggle, we point out that our sympathy and their temporary gains will be meaningless unless victory involves winning the war and not just one battle. To win the class war workers must organise as a class for the conquest of the earth and all its resources. No lesser victory is worth settling for.


http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1980s/1984/no-959-july-1984/open-letter-miners
http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1980s/1984/no-961-september-1984/miners-strike-why

[Thirsty Crow]

I think we should take power not demand reforms. We should not be forcing hands we should be the hands. Revolutions take power, abstentionism does not.

just this brief note, this seems really confused to me.
Of course that abstentionism doesn't take power, since it is only a organizing tactic (one that I support, but not necessarily under all conditions imagineable) within a broader framework of the struggle of the revolutionary working class. It's wrong to put forward this dicthotomy.

Another thing, going off of FtC's remark about SPGB, I don't think any honest revolutionary could deny that this organization represents a current within revolutionary Marxism. I have deep seated issues with aspects of the org's organizational politics, but I've never seen any piece of evidence showing that it crosses the class line in a way.

[Manic Impressive]

But I note that if you support unions but you don't support them being reformist, then you must support a form of syndicalism. Otherwise, why support unions at all?
There are numerous organizations within the Left communist and Anarchist movements who advocate these types of grass roots democratic organizations. Usually based on some form of Syndicalism. I won't be drawn on supporting any of them as for me support has substantial meaning. But to put it this way their focus is purely on workplace organization while ignoring the seizure political power. What I advocate is a multiple coalition of these organizations taking on the economic struggle while the SPGB/WSM takes on the political to avoid any conflict of interests that would jeopardize the revolution. So no I don't support syndicalism but I would work with groups that do if the situation called for it.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I think the DeLeonists did a much better job at furthering this political/economic delineation than the WSM, to be honest. The WSM doesn't organize a whole lot politically, otherwise we'd see it in more protest actions and politicizing amongst social support / solidarity networks.

[Ocean Seal]

Except for all the working-class regarded by the ruling-class as unproductive, students, pensioners, homemakers, carers, volunteers. I mean at least hide the economist syndicalist abstentionism a bit.

Do you genuinely expect me to care what the ruling class thinks of us? Hell I didn't even say that voting should be ruled out as a tactic. But to abstain from the strike or to not put the strike as central to our programme, is an enormous mistake. Did the socialists ever have any sizeable presence in the US congresses? Were even labor parties able to score some victory in the halls of the Senate? The answer is no. But yet we don't live in the squalor of those who worked here a century and a half ago. It might just be because of the strike.

[Manic Impressive]

I think the DeLeonists did a much better job at furthering this political/economic delineation than the WSM, to be honest. The WSM doesn't organize a whole lot politically, otherwise we'd see it in more protest actions and politicizing amongst social support / solidarity networks.
Well the reason for this is because we view them as reforms. Say for instance we campaigned for LGBT rights and were elected to parliament on that basis. We would then be compelled to attempt to pass reforms in accordance with our mandate. This is why we only stand for election on a single issue, the abolition of capitalism. I am also yet to see any significant results from solidarity actions in terms of raising actual class consciousness. Generally it seems to me that groups who do these kind of actions end up compromising their own principles rather than persuading those they are helping for the need to abolish capitalism.

[The Idler]

Do you genuinely expect me to care what the ruling class thinks of us? Hell I didn't even say that voting should be ruled out as a tactic. But to abstain from the strike or to not put the strike as central to our programme, is an enormous mistake. Did the socialists ever have any sizeable presence in the US congresses? Were even labor parties able to score some victory in the halls of the Senate? The answer is no. But yet we don't live in the squalor of those who worked here a century and a half ago. It might just be because of the strike.
I think you misunderstand why I described those "that the ruling-class regard as unproductive" ie. to make it clear that students, pensioners etc can wield the vote more effectively than any economic power. Why we don't live in the squalor of those who worked here a century and a half ago might equally be because of the vote.
I'm not advocating abstention from a strike, but putting a strike as central to our programme in countries like Zimbabwe or Mozambique where unemployment is 70% and 60% would achieve very little. It might even principally hurt the working-class.
Socialist Studies put it best in their pamphlet The Impossibility of Anarchism (http://www.socialiststudies.org.uk/pamphlet%20anarchy.shtml)


The idea of the general strike was first elaborated in the 1830's, in Britain, by William Benbow, who was associated with the "physical force" wing of Chartism. Socialist Party of Great Britain's position on the General Strike to achieve socialism has been quite clear; it is impracticable and political dangerous. No General Strike has achieved its desired end, neither in St Petersburg in October 1905, in Belfast in 1907, nor in Spain in 1917. The General strikes in 1919 did not bring Socialism any nearer. The General strike in Germany failed in its aims as did the French General strike in 1936, in East Germany in 1953, Hungary in 1956, Belgium in 1961 and France in 1968.

A General Strike as envisaged by the anarcho-communists would lead to confusion and chaos. In an integrated society how could the machinery of government be isolated or targeted by political industrial action in order to make it ineffective without disrupting production and distribution for the rest of society? Well-trained and armed troops and police would just seize what they needed, isolate strikers, and through immediate violence or a war of attrition over time starve the workers back into employment.
I have a lot of respect for the DeLeonists since they come from the same tradition. The DeLeonists actually reversed their position on elections relative to strikes (focusing more on elections then on strikes) at least twice. So for a few periods they were actually following the WSM/SPGB position.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I have a lot of respect for the DeLeonists since they come from the same tradition. The DeLeonists actually reversed their position on elections relative to strikes (focusing more on elections then on strikes) at least twice. So for a few periods they were actually following the WSM/SPGB position.

The problem is that the DeLeonists really didn't. Being German-inspired, they focused on organizing the class more than rote "educating" it like the WSM has done. The WSM never once considered the imperative of organizing social support (cultural societies, recreational clubs, etc.) like the DeLeonists did.

Just look at what SYRIZA is doing today in Greece for a modern example: http://www.revleft.com/vb/syriza-alternative-culture-t173446/index.html

[The Idler]

The problem is that the DeLeonists really didn't. Being German-inspired, they focused on organizing the class more than rote "educating" it like the WSM has done. The WSM never once considered the imperative of organizing social support (cultural societies, recreational clubs, etc.) like the DeLeonists did.

Just look at what SYRIZA is doing today in Greece for a modern example: http://www.revleft.com/vb/syriza-alternative-culture-t173446/index.html
I do appreciate the social support (cultural societies, recreational clubs, etc.) but the problem is, in respect of electoral activity relative to industrial the DeLeonists absolutely did adopt the WSM/SPGB position during particular periods.