Involvement In TUSC

[GeordiErnesto]

As someone relatively new to actively engaging in politics I have been getting heavily involved with TUSC, however I don't understand why it is mainly the Socialist Party with a few SWP members helping and the RMT funding leaflets?
Was wondering if any members of other organisations or activists/socialists who aren't affiliated with any party could explain why they have chosen not to get behind the project?
That sounds a bit like Im having a go for not getting involved but I am merely interested in hearing a critical view of TUSC in the hope of raising issues to help further it. I know it's not perfect but in my opinion its better than any current politcial party and could only be made better by people getting on board and sharing skills, ideas and time.

[GiantMonkeyMan]

Some people aren't trots and don't believe in the transitional program that the SWP and the Socialist Party advocate and seek to enact through TUSC. TUSC aims to do things like nationalise (under democratic worker control) the banks, transport, communication and essential services. This is, essentially, a reformist goal (but, for those participating in TUSC, it is an goal made with the aim to galvanise workers into taking active control of their own lives and to reveal the contradictions of parliamentary democracy).

[ed miliband]

do they still exist? i thought the delusional leftists involved decided to jump on the similarly terrible 'left unity' bandwagon.

[GeordiErnesto]

Thanks GMM, that gives me a bit of insight, like I said i don't think TUSC is the ultimate vanguard party but I do think the rise of the right and the labour party probably moving past the centre ground to the "near right" necessitates a left wing alternative to make sure that UKIP don't fully capitalise on the anti-politics sentiments that are a huge part of UK consciousness at the minute.

Perhaps I raised the question wrong in presuming that people would want TUSC to be successful, but this is more what I actually want to know:

Is there a platform on which all left wing parties in the UK would be able to come together, given the varying views expressed? As a socialist I think it is entirely inefficient to have the small number of leftists we have in the UK split into different groups all pursuing different programs. I like the variation in views and think a large party or umbrella group would give the chance to have these debates and better understand where these views come from.

To me the real enemy is far too large to concentrate our efforts on Trotskyist/Impossibilist/CP splits or even infighting between Trotskyist groups. That isn't to say that I wouldnt argue my position against others within a larger group.

Sorry, I know this has probably been discussed a lot but as I say Im relatively new to the left and barely talk with any SPGB/CPGB/Respect?/Green Lefts/RCG etc.etc.

[GiantMonkeyMan]

do they still exist? i thought the delusional leftists involved decided to jump on the similarly terrible 'left unity' bandwagon.
They've got councillers in a couple northern ex-mining villages, a regular (small) percentage of the vote in various places... enough to keep them clawing on. People want an alternative to the mainstream parties and thankfully not everyone is willing to buy into the shit that UKIP are spewing.


Thanks GMM, that gives me a bit of insight, like I said i don't think TUSC is the ultimate vanguard party but I do think the rise of the right and the labour party probably moving past the centre ground to the "near right" necessitates a left wing alternative to make sure that UKIP don't fully capitalise on the anti-politics sentiments that are a huge part of UK consciousness at the minute.

Perhaps I raised the question wrong in presuming that people would want TUSC to be successful, but this is more what I actually want to know:

Is there a platform on which all left wing parties in the UK would be able to come together, given the varying views expressed? As a socialist I think it is entirely inefficient to have the small number of leftists we have in the UK split into different groups all pursuing different programs. I like the variation in views and think a large party or umbrella group would give the chance to have these debates and better understand where these views come from.

To me the real enemy is far too large to concentrate our efforts on Trotskyist/Impossibilist/CP splits or even infighting between Trotskyist groups. That isn't to say that I wouldnt argue my position against others within a larger group.

Sorry, I know this has probably been discussed a lot but as I say Im relatively new to the left and barely talk with any SPGB/CPGB/Respect?/Green Lefts/RCG etc.etc.
I've definitely found a good response to TUSC from ordinary people who are disappointed with Labour but want nothing to do with UKIP. People are clamouring for an alternative to the mainstream parties and TUSC, with some luck, could become that alternative. My worry is that it would turn into a Syriza analogue and essentially turn right the moment they come close to a whisker of power (actually, that's not much of a 'worry' per se but what I'm pretty sure would happen).

As to left unity... I'd warn against fetishising the concept. Work within these umbrella groups to spread the message and gain as many good comrades as you can but there are just too many ultra-lefties basking in their own irrelevance and too many trade unionists willing to compromise with the bourgeoisie that I wouldn't put much hope in these groupings as being a vehicle for revolutionary fervour. Engage with them or within them but be conciouss of what is possible and what is likely.

Unfortunately, comrade, the material situation and the huge culture industry of the ruling classes have shunted the organised left into the shadows in Britain. Hopefully in the future the general strike, the People's Assembly, the disappointment in the Greens and LibDems as an alternative etc. will spur on the building of a mass workers party.

[Bibelot]

I've been "within" the SPGB (without actually joining) on-and-off for a couple of years now, and just yesterday I was canvassing with a friend who is standing under TUSC for the upcoming elections on Thursday.

I think the first thing you notice is just how many people appear sympathetic to their "no cuts" platform, and how many more people are entirely disgusted with the entire system. One could argue that the failure of TUSC is their inability to attract these people, who will instead vote Labour out of habit, UKIP to make a statement, or not vote at all. Although on the other hand some will say opening TUSC up in such a way will dilute their mission statement before it's reached anywhere near being implemented.

Ultimately, I agree that the British left desperately needs to unite, and in my opinion it would be humiliating for any Briton prescribing to socialistic ideals if we fail to provide an alternative when the working-classes here need it more than ever. Even if this comes at a cost of taming certain policies. I accept reformism is a bit of a dirty word but anything that sees a return of genuine left-wing politics to the mainstream is a positive for now, because it has been all but eradicated everywhere else.

[ed miliband]

I've been "within" the SPGB (without actually joining) on-and-off for a couple of years now, and just yesterday I was canvassing with a friend who is standing under TUSC for the upcoming elections on Thursday.

I think the first thing you notice is just how many people appear sympathetic to their "no cuts" platform, and how many more people are entirely disgusted with the entire system. One could argue that the failure of TUSC is their inability to attract these people, who will instead vote Labour out of habit, UKIP to make a statement, or not vote at all. Although on the other hand some will say opening TUSC up in such a way will dilute their mission statement before it's reached anywhere near being implemented.

Ultimately, I agree that the British left desperately needs to unite, and in my opinion it would be humiliating for any Briton prescribing to socialistic ideals if we fail to provide an alternative when the working-classes here need it more than ever. Even if this comes at a cost of taming certain policies. I accept reformism is a bit of a dirty word but anything that sees a return of genuine left-wing politics to the mainstream is a positive for now, because it has been all but eradicated everywhere else.

with politics like this, what are you doing "within" the spgb? for all their poor positions, they aren't this bad. do you mean the spew?

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Whilst reformism is a dirty word and there is literally nothing supportable in the TUSC coalition, and the left unity calls aren't too much better, there is something to be said for undermining the mainstream austerity arguments. Not necessarily with 'anti-austerity' arguments blanketing the policies of any opposition, but we have to face the fact that if we don't grapple with capitalism's current form - some sort of weird post neo-liberal/austerity hybrid - then we're going to totally fail to undermine capitalism at all.

Really, however, this isn't a job that the 'left' has shown itself capable of doing. The 'left's' performance over the past 5 years since the economic shit hit the fan so to speak, has been pitiful. Really, it would be best if the established left died out and was replaced by new methods of working class organisation. The organised left just seems to kill any movement - of students, workers or unemployed - that has any potential, merely because apparently new movements aren't doing it the 'right' way, whatever that is.

[Fionnagáin]

I'd venture that the "left" died a long time ago. What we're seeing now is just a corpse that kept walking.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Some people aren't trots and don't believe in the transitional program that the SWP and the Socialist Party advocate and seek to enact through TUSC. TUSC aims to do things like nationalise (under democratic worker control) the banks, transport, communication and essential services. This is, essentially, a reformist goal (but, for those participating in TUSC, it is an goal made with the aim to galvanise workers into taking active control of their own lives and to reveal the contradictions of parliamentary democracy).

I don't understand how putting the banks, transport, communications industry (-telecom, TV, radio, newspapers) and essential services under democratic worker's control is reformist.It seems obvious that it cannot and will not happen under capitalism. In and of themselves theyt are a big step to a society beyond the rule of capital.

[Fionnagáin]

I don't understand how putting the banks, transport, communications industry (-telecom, TV, radio, newspapers) and essential services under democratic worker's control is reformist.It seems obvious that it cannot and will not happen under capitalism. In and of themselves theyt are a big step to a society beyond the rule of capital.
If democratically-managed capitalism is impossible, that makes it a stupid goal, not a revolutionary one.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I don't understand how putting the banks, transport, communications industry (-telecom, TV, radio, newspapers) and essential services under democratic worker's control is reformist.It seems obvious that it cannot and will not happen under capitalism. In and of themselves theyt are a big step to a society beyond the rule of capital.

If they didn't want to do it under the 'nationalisation' auspice of managing capital, then why would they just want to socialise the commanding heights of the economy? After all, in a socialist society there will be no private sector involving markets, so really it's contradictory to call this kind of left-reformist demand 'revolutionary'. Not that it wouldn't be some sort of improvement on what currently exists, but let's just call a spade a spade.

[GiantMonkeyMan]

I don't understand how putting the banks, transport, communications industry (-telecom, TV, radio, newspapers) and essential services under democratic worker's control is reformist.It seems obvious that it cannot and will not happen under capitalism. In and of themselves theyt are a big step to a society beyond the rule of capital.
It's certainly a transitionary step but it's clearly utilising the bourgeois parliament to achieve these goals. Don't get me wrong, it's far better than basking in the irrelevance of left communism in my opinion.

"Whilst you lack the strength to do away with bourgeois parliaments and every other type of reactionary institution, you must work within them because it is there that you will still find workers who are duped by the priests and stultified by the conditions of rural life; otherwise you risk turning into nothing but windbags." - Lenin... The 'priests' have turned into the culture industry and the 'rural life' has turned into the welfare state but the message is the same.

[Fionnagáin]

When in doubt, quote a dead Russian.

[The Idler]

Some TUSC policies from http://www.tusc.org.uk/policy.php

Public ownership, not private profit
No cuts – for quality public services
Jobs, not handouts to the bankers and billionaires
Employment and trade union rights
Protect our environment – stop global warming
Decent pensions and benefits
Democracy, diversity and justice
Solidarity not war
Socialism

● For a democratic socialist society run in the interests of people not millionaires. For bringing into democratic public ownership the major companies and banks that dominate the economy, so that production and services can be planned to meet the needs of all and to protect the environment.
Clear implication that money will mediate transactions in society. There will still be rich and powerful individuals. There will still be employment and work. There will still be banks. There will still be prisons, police, armies. There will still be border controls.

The IMF and World Bank might shudder at the prospects of a TUSC government but I'm sure could eventually come to terms with it. Revolutionaries, however, cannot.

Why go for the crumbs, when we have the power to go for the bakery.

[GeordiErnesto]

So are you saying that any party with a transitional programme is anti-revolution?, my opinion of this is that it is a necessity in order to allow class consciousness to develop but i do have some scepticism about how to ensure that corruption doesn't flourish and progress stagnate.

It might be my inexperienced naivety speaking but would having lots of small groups involved mean they would create accountability to the other parties?

[The Idler]

What's transitional? Why would these demands be transitional, or foster class consciousness? Many of these policies could be used by all sorts of political perspectives under the auspices of workerism.

In theory, lots of small groups might ensure each group is accountable. In practice, each groups leaders will enforce bloc voting along party lines, backroom stitch-up deals with other groups, and create artificial divisions or better still members will just caucus to agree the party line before proper meetings. To state the obvious the biggest group will win the votes. The smaller groups will split or be carrying out policy in some cases - contrary to what they support.

[Le Socialiste]

When in doubt, quote a dead Russian.

Please don't post one-liners like this, we consider it spam.

[l'Enfermé]

When in doubt, quote a dead Russian.
Enough with the spammy and flame-baity one-liners. Consider this a verbal warning.

[Geiseric]

Some TUSC policies from http://www.tusc.org.uk/policy.php
Clear implication that money will mediate transactions in society. There will still be rich and powerful individuals. There will still be employment and work. There will still be banks. There will still be prisons, police, armies. There will still be border controls.

The IMF and World Bank might shudder at the prospects of a TUSC government but I'm sure could eventually come to terms with it. Revolutionaries, however, cannot.

Why go for the crumbs, when we have the power to go for the bakery.


You left coms are so full of it! Holy shit. No we don't have the power to go for the bakery. "We" as in the working class aren't organized enough for the breadcrums! The working class thinks that the breadcrums as they are is unobtainable. I don't even know much about TUSC but I know I would support them and work with them more likely than you bunch who are all more or less taking sectarian jabs, which you apply to any group other than yourselves. Windbags! Just like Lenin said!

[Geiseric]

What's transitional? Why would these demands be transitional, or foster class consciousness? Many of these policies could be used by all sorts of political perspectives under the auspices of workerism.

In theory, lots of small groups might ensure each group is accountable. In practice, each groups leaders will enforce bloc voting along party lines, backroom stitch-up deals with other groups, and create artificial divisions or better still members will just caucus to agree the party line before proper meetings. To state the obvious the biggest group will win the votes. The smaller groups will split or be carrying out policy in some cases - contrary to what they support.

How would stopping the bailouts and austerity to show how capitalism is unsustainable without them not transitional? You all say that anything not with the literal verbage of "Revolution now, overthrow the government" is not worth supporting. You think that people will spring up when you communist messiahs come around and enlighten them about how there needs to be a revolution, which is a pipe dream i've had myself on several occasions, however people who actually organize these things and participate in demonstrations don't respond so well when you say that "your struggle isn't worth fighting for because capitalism can survive, so get over it."

[Blake's Baby]

You left coms are so full of it! ...

For fuck's sake Broody, learn who you're shouting at. The Idler is not a Left Comm, he's an Impossiblist. I may consider The Idler a comrade and you as a counter-revolutionary tool, and think that Left Comms and Impossiblists are all part of some amorphous but intransigent 'Ultra-Left', but honestly, to The Idler, you (as a Trot) and me (as a Left Comm) are both 'Leninists'. He really really isn't a Left Comm.

[Geiseric]

For fuck's sake Broody, learn who you're shouting at. The Idler is not a Left Comm, he's an Impossiblist. I may consider The Idler a comrade and you as a counter-revolutionary tool, and think that Left Comms and Impossiblists are all part of some amorphous but intransigent 'Ultra-Left', but honestly, to The Idler, you (as a Trot) and me (as a Left Comm) are both 'Leninists'. He really really isn't a Left Comm.

He has an ultra left sectarian position which is similar to what you guys say, so in this situation I couldn't really tell.
Labels are bad though; you have that right.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Really, it would be best if the established left died out and was replaced by new methods of working class organisation. The organised left just seems to kill any movement - of students, workers or unemployed - that has any potential, merely because apparently new movements aren't doing it the 'right' way, whatever that is.

If by "established left" you mean the direct action left, the mass strike left, the council/assembly left, etc., along with the frontist left and coalitionist left, then I'm very tempted to agree with you.

[MarxSchmarx]

Really, it would be best if the established left died out and was replaced by new methods of working class organisation. The organised left just seems to kill any movement - of students, workers or unemployed - that has any potential, merely because apparently new movements aren't doing it the 'right' way, whatever that is. If by "established left" you mean the direct action left, the mass strike left, the council/assembly left, etc., along with the frontist left and coalitionist left, then I'm very tempted to agree with you.

What is your take on the influence of the voluminous Trotskyist sects who do not fit these criteria? Many Trotskyist groups are in fact quite visible and vocal, although they vary in their involvement in unions/strikes. It is impressive the number of students for instance that cycle through their ranks to emerge burnt out on the other end.

I think by many standards they are fairly considered part of the "established left" but the main point made by TB seems quite applicable - Trotskyists have at best an uneven track-record of contributing positively to contemporary (or last 20 year) leftist movements at least in the global north.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Comrade, those sects do fit into those criteria. The "transitional" sects vacillate between the mass strike left and the frontist left. I've stressed before and again the need for a revival of independent but institutional approach to class organization, updating the profoundly true and important lessons of the original Socialist ("Second") International to today's circumstances.

[Fionnagáin]

Is that the same Second International that cheerfully sent its members to die in the trenches, or a different Second International? Just, seems to me that any lessons such an institution has for today are of a primarily cautionary nature, rather than a matter of unearthing any "profound truths".

[GiantMonkeyMan]

Is that the same Second International that cheerfully sent its members to die in the trenches, or a different Second International? Just, seems to me that any lessons such an institution has for today are of a primarily cautionary nature, rather than a matter of unearthing any "profound truths".
That's certainly an interesting take on history. The Second International brought us the 8-hour work day and the International Workers Day and when the first world war broke out it dissolved thanks to the disagreements amongst members towards the war. Yes, some of the members advocated nationalist participation in the war but many held the internationalist perspective including a certain dead russian who helped lead a revolution on the basis of putting a stop to the war altogether. Certainly we should learn from the mistakes of the organisation as well as the positive triumphs whilst always being aware that these happened in a differing context and avoiding nostalgia-goggles.

[Fionnagáin]

I disagree that the collapse of the SI in the face of European war was in some way its redemption, Rather, I think that it represent history's most damning critique of the entire social democratic movement. It showed that the SI wasn't merely a working class organisation with bad leadership (that would certainly have allowed for disagreements about orientation towards the war, and potentially even splits, but not the sort of catastrophic rupture we actually saw), but was a fully-fledged participant in capitalism, a structure by which workers were integrated into the social machinery of capital. When workers attempted to seriously resist that machinery, not merely to demand better terms within it but to actually disrupt it on a continental scale, it was shattered by its own contradictions

[GiantMonkeyMan]

I disagree that the collapse of the SI in the face of European war was in some way its redemption, Rather, I think that it represent history's most damning critique of the entire social democratic movement. It showed that the SI wasn't merely a working class organisation with bad leadership (that would certainly have allowed for disagreements about orientation towards the war, and potentially even splits, but not the sort of catastrophic rupture we actually saw), but was a fully-fledged participant in capitalism, a structure by which workers were integrated into the social machinery of capital. When workers attempted to seriously resist that machinery, not merely to demand better terms within it but to actually disrupt it on a continental scale, it was shattered by its own contradictions
Workers are already integrated into the social machinary of capital by virtue of being the proletariat. It's pure fiction to presume that workers can simply extract themselves from capitalism whilst capitalism still exists. This is why factory-takeover movements like those in Greece and Argentina today, whilst fantastic evidence of the power of workers to organise themselves without bosses and the state, are nevertheless participants in capitalism.

I would also agree with you that the idea that its collapse being 'redeeming' as you put it is wrong and it wasn't my intention to convey that but I would say that it revealed the weaknesses of the tactics the SI employed and we can learn from that. By excluding trade unions, the SI limited themselves to struggle in the (capitalist) political spectrum. A mistake if there ever was one and, as you identified, lead to aspects of its leadership's disconnect from working class movements in opposition to the war. Indeed it's a lesson that limiting yourself to parliamentary action is detrimental no matter what huge gains can be achieved for the working class through agitation in these avenues (but not a lesson in abandoning parliamentary agitation altogether).

[Jolly Red Giant]

Some decent results for TUSC so far

TUSC candidate for Mayor of Doncaster secured 1,916 votes (3.1%) beating the LibDems.

Other results over 3.5%


Derbyshire County Council Bolsover North 247 (9.4%)

Gloucestershire County Council Hesters Way & Springbank 155 (8.1%)

Leicestershire County Council Loughborough East 170 (7.0%)

Gloucestershire County Council Barton & Tredworth 177 (6.7%)

Cumbria County Council Upperby 84 (6.1%)

Lincolnshire County Council Lincoln East 76 (5.3%)

Hertfordshire County Council Shephall 126 (5.1%)

Cambridgeshire County Council Romsey 118 (5.0%)

Derbyshire County Council Bolsover South 134 (4.8%)

Leicestershire County Council Burbage Castle 248 (4.7%)

Lincolnshire County Council Lincoln West 95 (4.3%)

Derbyshire County Council Shirebrook & Pleasley 87 (4.0%)

Hertfordshire County Council Broadwater 108 (3.9%)

Essex County Council Harlow West 270 (3.5%)

[Fionnagáin]

Workers are already integrated into the social machinary of capital by virtue of being the proletariat. It's pure fiction to presume that workers can simply extract themselves from capitalism whilst capitalism still exists. This is why factory-takeover movements like those in Greece and Argentina today, whilst fantastic evidence of the power of workers to organise themselves without bosses and the state, are nevertheless participants in capitalism.
That's exactly the point, though: the worker as worker is necessarily integrated into capital, that's what defines them, so authentic communist practice has to mean the disintegrating of the worker from capital. That doesn't mean somehow stepping outside of capitalism anymore than it means affirming it, but rather means disrupting the reproduction of the capitalist social relation. The Second International, in contrast, actively reproduced and reaffirmed that integration, and so played an ultimately conservative role.


I would also agree with you that the idea that its collapse being 'redeeming' as you put it is wrong and it wasn't my intention to convey that but I would say that it revealed the weaknesses of the tactics the SI employed and we can learn from that. By excluding trade unions, the SI limited themselves to struggle in the (capitalist) political spectrum. A mistake if there ever was one and, as you identified, lead to aspects of its leadership's disconnect from working class movements in opposition to the war. Indeed it's a lesson that limiting yourself to parliamentary action is detrimental no matter what huge gains can be achieved for the working class through agitation in these avenues (but not a lesson in abandoning parliamentary agitation altogether).
I don't think a merely strategic critique is sufficient to comprehend the implosion of the Second International, or its significance. Our critique has to be historical, means looking not just at the choices made by this-or-that leadership, but the social forces which their choices expressed. We have to understood the role that the Second International played in international capitalism pre-1914, the extent to which it challenged it and the extent to which it, reproduced it. To say "oh, they did that wrong" is to suppose all sorts of things about their nature of their activity, not least that they were in any position to act differently, none of which can be taken for granted.

The past, I think, does not offer us the sort of lessons you want to derive from it. There are no general mechanisms at work in history, and no way to derive the nature of such mechanisms from past events. The processes at work are too complex, the events too particular, to imagine even for argument's sake that we were running some sort of contrived experiment from which we can infer any general rules. The only knowledge of the future we can derive from the past with any weight to it, and that scarce enough, are trajectories, an idea of the direction in which things are moving, and it's foolishness to think that this movement is so stable or coherent as to permit us any sort of grand strategy.

[MarxSchmarx]

^^^ Comrade, those sects do fit into those criteria. The "transitional" sects vacillate between the mass strike left and the frontist left. I've stressed before and again the need for a revival of independent but institutional approach to class organization, updating the profoundly true and important lessons of the original Socialist ("Second") International to today's circumstances.

I grant that most Trotskyist groups haven't embraced the approach of 2nd international groups. But I think that is a different thing from embracing the shortcomings you list, right? A group could not follow the approaches of the 2nd international but also be neither frontist nor "part of the established left".

I think the issue isn't so neatly dichotomous. Do you think that is an accurate characterization of trotskyist groups as they operate today? Some are frontist in part, sure, but I don't think most would characterize themselves as focusing on the mass strike as their primary means of overthrowing capitalism. Even the groups that employ fronts really shouldn't IMO be characterized as "frontist" I think in the traditional sense because they see the fronst they are involved in as one of many strategies (unlike, say, the American WWP whose entirely raison d'etre is based on a front).

[blake 3:17]

A Left trade unionist break from Labour is very very welcome. Good on all involved.

[Blake's Baby]

He has an ultra left sectarian position which is similar to what you guys say, so in this situation I couldn't really tell...

So, because Stalinists think the Soviet Union wasn't capitalist, and you think the Soviet Union wasn't capitalist, you're a Stalinist, is that what you're saying?

[Lord Hargreaves]

I don't see how supporting the TUSC necessarily implies anything about your wider socialist ideas. You're ultimately just trying to get working class trade unionists into local government, even if that goal in itself seems like an almost impossible struggle nowadays.

Arguing that their "transitional demands" for nationalising the height of the economy is "reformist" or even "counter-revolutionary" seems to me an exceptionally moronic pursuit, and a complete waste of time to boot. There is no possible way in which increasing the success of the TUSC is incompatible with the growth of any other left movement (which may have different views to it.)

[Blake's Baby]

Unless you really do see the TUSC as part of the capitalist apparatus. In which case, strengthening it is stupid.

[Lord Hargreaves]

Unless you really do see the TUSC as part of the capitalist apparatus. In which case, strengthening it is stupid.

How is it part of the capitalist apparatus? (unless you mean in the trivial sense that we all are)

[Blake's Baby]

No, in the sense that seeks to manage capitalism rather than destroy it. Many of us consider Trotskyists and Stalinists as part of the left of capital. It isn't just an insult, it's a political evaluation of their theory and practice.

[Lord Hargreaves]

No, in the sense that seeks to manage capitalism rather than destroy it. Many of us consider Trotskyists and Stalinists as part of the left of capital. It isn't just an insult, it's a political evaluation of their theory and practice.

In the sense that nationalisation of the commanding heights of the economy is managing capital rather than smashing it?

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

In the sense that nationalisation of the commanding heights of the economy is managing capital rather than smashing it?

Precisely. And what's with that arbitrary and nonsensical division between "commanding heights" and the rest of the economy? Sheer idiocy.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

If by "established left" you mean the direct action left, the mass strike left, the council/assembly left, etc., along with the frontist left and coalitionist left, then I'm very tempted to agree with you.

You don't need to agree with me then. Seriously, stop trying to put words in my mouth. I don't need your jargonist shit, OK?

I mean the parties, the SWP, SPEW, CPGB offshoots and all their coalitionist 'fronts' and campaigns for mass parties or new parties or whatever.

You obviously know I didn't mean anything about people who want to strike and form local, democratic councils and workers' assemblies, though i'm not sure there are many of these anyway.

[Jolly Red Giant]

Some more results for TUSC

BristolCity Council Hillfields 188 votes (9.14%)

Bristol City Council St George East 110 votes (5.21%)

Warwickshire County Council Nuneaton Camp Hill 67 votes (6%)

Warwickshire County Council Nuneaton Abbey 76 votes (5.02%)

Warwickshire County Council Bedworth West 139 votes (6.62%)

Warwickshire County Council Nuneaton Galley Common 69 votes (5.03%)

[Lord Hargreaves]

Precisely. And what's with that arbitrary and nonsensical division between "commanding heights" and the rest of the economy? Sheer idiocy.

No, I don't see the distinction as arbitrary and nonsensical. Clearly there is a difference between the oil companies, the national banks, etc. and the local newsagent. Where the "cut off point" lies is somewhat arbitrary but that doesn't mean the distinction itself is meaningless.

Anyhow its a transitional programme, not a model for a final communist society. It is the immediate goal of the revolution.

We could argue all day about the need for a transitional stage (in my view it is just semantics, I don't see the issue at all) but to dismiss any communist, who makes the strategic calculation that it might be necessary, by calling them capitalist, or as just being another unwitting capitalist appendage, is unhelpfully divisive and sectarian.

[Blake's Baby]

It's a funny sort of revolution that you vote for in district council elections, I'd say.

No-one, as far as I'm aware, denies the need for a 'transitional stage'. I don't think any of us think that we could potentially fall asleep tonight and if we were heavy sleepers or had ear-plugs in, wake up in communist society tomorrow. What we dispute is that a 'Workers' Party' should be eleceted to government office to orchestrate the nationalisation of large companies.

[Lord Hargreaves]

It's a funny sort of revolution that you vote for in district council elections, I'd say.

Well obviously, no one thinks getting socialist councillors elected constitutes a revolution. The question is whether this would be better than nothing, or somehow worse than nothing. That's all I meant when I said that such aims don't contradict with the growth of other socialist actions.


No-one, as far as I'm aware, denies the need for a 'transitional stage'. I don't think any of us think that we could potentially fall asleep tonight and if we were heavy sleepers or had ear-plugs in, wake up in communist society tomorrow. What we dispute is that a 'Workers' Party' should be eleceted to government office to orchestrate the nationalisation of large companies.

I conflated the two. The transitional stage suggests to me also the temporary existence of more-centralised-than-the-ideal political organisations, parties (a belief in The Workers' Party, as if there would only be one, is nonsense to me too) and the temporary existence of some nationalised industries, before full communism.

I don't believe socialism will be brought in through election under the current system, but to my knowledge this isn't necessarily the position of the TUSC either. They want to elect local councillors to resist the cuts agenda and put forward alternatives, while popularizing socialism, fighting for left unity, and rallying around a few core ideas. As far as I'm aware, that's it.

[Fionnagáin]

No-one, as far as I'm aware, denies the need for a 'transitional stage'.
Communisation theory?

[Blake's Baby]

In my understanding, communisation doesn't deny the need for a 'transitional phase' but for the lower stage of communism. In other words, there's still a revolutionary transformation under the DotP, but there isn't a stage of communism where free access isn't guaranteed.

Please note the 'in my understanding' that preceeds that explanation. If any comrades who ascribe to communisation theory think that point needs correction, I'm happy to be corrected. I'm not a communisation theorist and am happy to learn about it from someone more knowledgeable.

[Q]

Some decent results for TUSC so far

...


Some more results for TUSC

...

Not to spoil the party, but none of those results are worthy of mentioning. Especially given the undemocratic first-past-the-post system.

So the question then becomes: What is TUSC campaigning for? What is it agitating for, what is it trying to get into people's heads?

Is it arguing socialist policies? Is it arguing for republican demands? Is it making the case for real democracy? Is it trying to submit the trade unions to these ideas, transform them in the process into "schools of communism"?

No. We see socialists submitting themselves to trade unionist politics, if I have to base myself on this wishlist (http://www.tusc.org.uk/policy.php) for the 2010 general elections. These trade unionist, or Labourite, politics necessarily stay within the system, it has to be pointed out, as trade union leaderships have a material interest to keep capitalism around. Transcending the system therefore is out of the question as long as Bob Crow is allowed to veto policy.

So, what is then the point of TUSC, if it isn't arguing for radical democracy and the conquest of political power for our class, that is, the revolutionary self-emancipation of the proletariat?

I think we need to take a step back and breath for a moment, to be able to overthink what kinds of politics we're committing ourselves to.

[Geiseric]

Not to spoil the party, but none of those results are worthy of mentioning. Especially given the undemocratic first-past-the-post system.

So the question then becomes: What is TUSC campaigning for? What is it agitating for, what is it trying to get into people's heads?

Is it arguing socialist policies? Is it arguing for republican demands? Is it making the case for real democracy? Is it trying to submit the trade unions to these ideas, transform them in the process into "schools of communism"?

No. We see socialists submitting themselves to trade unionist politics, if I have to base myself on this wishlist (http://www.tusc.org.uk/policy.php) for the 2010 general elections. These trade unionist, or Labourite, politics necessarily stay within the system, it has to be pointed out, as trade union leaderships have a material interest to keep capitalism around. Transcending the system therefore is out of the question as long as Bob Crow is allowed to veto policy.

So, what is then the point of TUSC, if it isn't arguing for radical democracy and the conquest of political power for our class, that is, the revolutionary self-emancipation of the proletariat?

I think we need to take a step back and breath for a moment, to be able to overthink what kinds of politics we're committing ourselves to.

The point of tusc seems to organize class conscious working class people to support transitional demands, aren't you Mod for the Trotskyist usergroup?

[GiantMonkeyMan]

Not to spoil the party, but none of those results are worthy of mentioning. Especially given the undemocratic first-past-the-post system.

So the question then becomes: What is TUSC campaigning for? What is it agitating for, what is it trying to get into people's heads?
It's campaigning on an anti-cuts platform, arguing that the austerity measures that are effecting so many workers are unnecessary and alternatives are possible. It's trying to emphasise that workers themselves can run their workplaces using the terminology 'nationalise under democratic worker control'.


Is it arguing socialist policies? Is it arguing for republican demands? Is it making the case for real democracy? Is it trying to submit the trade unions to these ideas, transform them in the process into "schools of communism"?
It's not arguing for some fetishised conception of 'real' democracy but what TUSC sees as achievable in the current political and social climate. What is achievable is the reversing of cuts, the nationalisation and expansion of essential services, the housing of all homeless and the establishment of better working conditions and more jobs. The Communist Manifesto once argued for the 'Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form' something that was seen by Marx as 'pretty generally applicable'. I think anti-austerity measures are pretty applicable myself.

What I want to ask is: does fighting against austerity measures necessitate a stance that is opposed to emancipating the proletariat from capitalism? I'm not asking whether one leads to the other (clearly, it won't and I doubt anyone in TUSC would think so either) but whether or not you think a person can utilise bourgeois parliament to harry the bourgeoisie, prevent their anti-worker policies and simultaneously advocate the very abolition of said parliament at the same time.


We see socialists submitting themselves to trade unionist politics, if I have to base myself on this wishlist (http://www.tusc.org.uk/policy.php) for the 2010 general elections. These trade unionist, or Labourite, politics necessarily stay within the system, it has to be pointed out, as trade union leaderships have a material interest to keep capitalism around. Transcending the system therefore is out of the question as long as Bob Crow is allowed to veto policy.
Agreed on some levels. My comrades and I like to say that Bob Crow is the richest council-house tenant in the UK on his full-timer wage. I'm critical of many aspects of TUSC as I think every marxist should be of the organisations that they participate within. It's only from working within those organisations that we can affect change.


So, what is then the point of TUSC, if it isn't arguing for radical democracy and the conquest of political power for our class, that is, the revolutionary self-emancipation of the proletariat?
Rosa Luxemburg once wrote: "Six months of a revolutionary period will complete the work of the training of these as yet unorganised masses which ten years of public demonstrations and distribution of leaflets would be unable to do." I think every committed communist is just waiting for those 'six months' but in the meantime I want to engage in something that conceivably would alleviate the shit that is currently being piled on the working classes, ie stop and reverse cuts to jobs, welfare and services.


I think we need to take a step back and breath for a moment, to be able to overthink what kinds of politics we're committing ourselves to.
I'm committed to the emancipation of the working class but also to making the lives of the working class (myself included, I guess) as comfortable as possible. I'm going to use every avenue available to do so.

[blake 3:17]

@Q -- Their demands are left social democratic & given the nature of today's world those are very radical. I don't think it makes much sense to mount an external political campaign about changing the nature of trade unions. What you do is make a union or a local or coalition/umbrella into something effective and engaging that actually accomplishes things.

Most people aren't Trots in waiting, suddenly seeking to overthrow the evil bureacracy, but if they probably do want a reasonably effective union. There's a funny anecdote in Tim Wohlforth's memoirs where he talks about starting an opposition caucus in a local only to discover their program was nearly the same as the local's leadership's.

[Tim Cornelis]

Can someone, a Leninist or otherwise, enlighten me as to what's the point of having a "transitional/minimum programme"? Why insist on nationalisation of key industries which would lead workers to believe you're advocating some kind of Chavismo system (which in fact you may do indeed, as a transitional phase). Why not, as a transitional programme, demand the conquest of political power by the proletariat; the expropriation of all private property of productive resources, to be put at the disposal of the organs of workers' power?

What advantage does a transitional/minimum programme give?

[Blake's Baby]

...
Most people aren't Trots in waiting, suddenly seeking to overthrow the evil bureacracy, but if they probably do want a reasonably effective union...

Do you actually believe this?

If you think Trotskyism isn't going to apeal to most working people - if working people aren't therefore 'Trots in waiting' - then that must mean either 1 - Trotskyism is so esoteric that only an enlightened elite can understand and be convinced by it; or 2 - Trotskyism is wrong.

And if you think it's 1, I'd say that counts as 2 anyway.

[blake 3:17]

I think Trotskyism is wrong. Or right about some very particular things. I was never an Ortho Trot. I joined the regroupment wing of USFI in 94 & have certainly become less orthodox since...

[Die Neue Zeit]

I would also agree with you that the idea that its collapse being 'redeeming' as you put it is wrong and it wasn't my intention to convey that but I would say that it revealed the weaknesses of the tactics the SI employed and we can learn from that.

That was my point.


By excluding trade unions, the SI limited themselves to struggle in the (capitalist) political spectrum.

Now you've lost me. How did the SI exclude trade unions? If anything else, they incorporated them too much. The trade union wings were the ones with the most vested interest in being pro-war. Not even the pacifists around Bernstein could "control" them.

[blake 3:17]

The trade union wings were the ones with the most vested interest in being pro-war. Not even the pacifists around Bernstein could "control" them.

Bernstein had no base in the unions at all. One of the gross things looking at the SPD was looking at how someone like Luxemburg was used to rally the troops against Bernstein, and make him some kind of enemy of the people, when he had a far superior outlook than many. I disagree with Bernstein scientifically, but I disagree with Kautsky and Luxemburg scientifically. If they were all wrong, where does that leave us?