Spew

[Futility Personified]

I used to be a member yonks ago but my life got a bit messy and i'm not really sure i'm inclined to be bothering about a "new worker's party" at the moment, or selling papers.

Are they doing any better now the SWP has lost a lot of membership? I always wondered if there would be a transference of individuals over. Is it true they adopted a Keynesian analysis to the financial crisis as well?

I wouldn't mind getting back involved as I haven't heard anything back from the LCI and I've got a case of the "do something, anything"-itis, but I don't want to waste my time completely.

[GiantMonkeyMan]

I used to be a member yonks ago but my life got a bit messy and i'm not really sure i'm inclined to be bothering about a "new worker's party" at the moment, or selling papers.
I think generally branches are quite relaxed about what activity members want to or not want to participate in. The selling of papers is more about using it as an opportunity to speak to people on the street about socialism, try to get them involved in campaigns/support strikes etc and generally trying to make a presence felt but understandably it's not something everyone wants to do and there are plenty of other ways you might want to get involved.


Are they doing any better now the SWP has lost a lot of membership? I always wondered if there would be a transference of individuals over.
I feel that the SWP had membership of two generalised types; the die hards Cliffites and the student/activist/campaigner types. There was generally a high turnover of the second, either through burnout/disillusionment or whatever campaign they had been involved in falling to the wayside and then the vast majority of them left over the scandal. None of the die hards were ever going to join SPEW but maybe a couple of the younger activist types have. I haven't noticed a huge influx, to be honest, and I think a lot of them have either drifted towards breakaway groups, invested themselves in things like Left Unity or just fallen out of politics altogether.


Is it true they adopted a Keynesian analysis to the financial crisis as well?
No, although there has been internal debates around the law of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall and it's perceived primacy in the 2007/8 crash and recession and claims that SPEW has focused on an underconsumptionist analysis. In general I feel that the party understands that crises in capitalism is a multifaceted and complex phenomenon and, from the perspective of someone who probably needs to brush up on their economic understanding so that I could probably follow the debate a little more clearly, it seems to me to be an argument about emphasis that in actuality wouldn't really effect my day to day organising in any way. I know those involved took it very seriously and it's one thing that I feel I need to brush up on so I could offer a better input towards.


I wouldn't mind getting back involved as I haven't heard anything back from the LCI and I've got a case of the "do something, anything"-itis, but I don't want to waste my time completely.
If you want I can put you into contact with your regional full-timer (south west maybe?) but, to be honest comrade, I would much prefer you join based on the fact that you agree with our programme than for you to join and simply feel alienated within your branch. It must be frustrating but if you really agree with the positions of the LCI more then perhaps just having some patience and waiting for a bit might be better and wouldn't waste your own or our time (that sounds a little blunt in fact but it's better in my opinion for you to be comfortable and active in another organisation than uncomfortable in my organisation and burnout).

Hope some of this helps you come to a decision.

[Futility Personified]

Thanks for taking the time to type that out GMM, it cleared things up.

The last paragraph was hardly blunt, it was apt and that's what i'll do.

Cheers!

[The Idler]

Join an organisation you agree with, not one based on how successful it is.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Teehee. Spew. Mehaha :lol:

[Futility Personified]

The Idler - I'm in the middle of nowhere. My friend told me he saw a few people from the Society for the Protection of Elvish Welfare the next town over campaigning for something and it revived my interest for involvement. One man cadres typically only have the ear of the pub-leteriat, and those are crowds prone to jeering.

[Q]

I used to be a member yonks ago but my life got a bit messy and i'm not really sure i'm inclined to be bothering about a "new worker's party" at the moment, or selling papers.
The peculiar perspective regarding setting up a "Labour party 2.0" (while we still have a Labour part 1.0 around) is never going to lead anywhere, as the last 20 years or so have shown in the diverse left initiatives (TUSC being the latest stillborn).

As for the hyperactivism (selling papers, walking from demo to demo, etc): It is doubtful how much of that energy is usefully spent, if any. But I guess it could make you feel good? Certainly, walking around, collectively or not, is good for your health.


Are they doing any better now the SWP has lost a lot of membership? I always wondered if there would be a transference of individuals over.Nothing much has changed in the past 20 years or so with the outline of SPEW. I suppose there is some glee in some ranks about the fate of the SWP and its splinters. I doubt there is much of a transfer though, as both organisations just hate eachothers guts and it would make more sense to just try and replicate the SWP in one of its more "radical feminist" splinters, than to switch ship.


Is it true they adopted a Keynesian analysis to the financial crisis as well?Well, this has been true for many years, although it is always sprinkled over with magic "transitional" fairy dust. Bruce Wallace and a group around him have set up a website (http://marxistworld.net/) where they publish their differences with the SPEW leadership, which has indeed been arguing extensively that the leadership is following a Keynesian path. Bruce Wallace has incidentally been "suspended" from membership.

While I have my disagreements with comrade Wallace, I think that an open debate is long overdue on this issue (and more issues indeed).


I wouldn't mind getting back involved as I haven't heard anything back from the LCI and I've got a case of the "do something, anything"-itis, but I don't want to waste my time completely.What is the LCI? I know of the ACI (anti-capitalist initiative), which is dead in the water. Anyway, if you just want to burn energy, you could join any group, I suppose, that is, like you said, selling papers.


... from the perspective of someone who probably needs to brush up on their economic understanding so that I could probably follow the debate a little more clearly, it seems to me to be an argument about emphasis that in actuality wouldn't really effect my day to day organising in any way. I know those involved took it very seriously and it's one thing that I feel I need to brush up on so I could offer a better input towards.
I would go one step further and state that it is the responsibility of any serious communist organisation to educate its members or at the very least nurish a culture to promote self-education. In my time in the CWI I have seen very little, if any, emphasis on actually studying Capital. The educational focus, as far there is one, is almost solely based on the writings of Peter Taaffe et al. The high point of party education seems to veer around reading The Rise of Militant, which to be frank is a complete waste of paper.

So, of course you can't enter this kind of "high politics" debate. To be sure, the Bruce Wallace et al minority isn't helping much in explaining the issues in a way that resonate with the level of understanding of the rank and file. Bruce himself is more than once trying to play the authority card, which of course fails if you're not in Taaffe's chair and is frankly annoying. The leadership in the meantime is probably quite happy that such a public disagreement occured on such an "abstract" issue, so it can be handled in a mystified way by them and the grunts are told that it is better to stop trying to be a "talking shop" and move on selling papers and organise for that oh-so important demo next Saturday.

It would however be a very good thing to stop for a moment and sit down and think and reflect. Study the "heavy stuff" and discuss them with your peers in your branch. Communists are supposed to be worker-leaders and how can you be a leader if you're just "selling papers", if you can't disagree or even fully understand with what "internal debates" are all about?


I would much prefer you join based on the fact that you agree with our programme than for you to join and simply feel alienated within your branch.Yes, in these types of organisation (SPEW, SWP et al) you'll need to agree dear OP with the "programme", which is actually a pretty wide set of ideas regarding method, strategy, tactics and theory. I think communists ought to only have to accept the programme ("programme" as defined as a programmatical document to which the leadership can be held accounted to). But alas.

Sorry if I came over as overly negative, it's mostly a little cynicism that I had to get off my chest, nothing personal. I wub you GiantMonkey :wub:

[GiantMonkeyMan]

I would go one step further and state that it is the responsibility of any serious communist organisation to educate its members or at the very least nurish a culture to promote self-education. In my time in the CWI I have seen very little, if any, emphasis on actually studying Capital. The educational focus, as far there is one, is almost solely based on the writings of Peter Taaffe et al. The high point of party education seems to veer around reading The Rise of Militant, which to be frank is a complete waste of paper.
That's weird and not my experience at all. In fact, within my branch we're currently reading Capital right now as part of a study group. I've never read Taaffe's book and no-one's ever recommended it to me. I think the first thing that was recommended to me was 'Left Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder' and then I think 'Value, Price and Profit' or 'State and Revolution'.


So, of course you can't enter this kind of "high politics" debate. To be sure, the Bruce Wallace et al minority isn't helping much in explaining the issues in a way that resonate with the level of understanding of the rank and file.
That's a bit annoying, Q. I make a personal statement saying that I want to brush up on my economics so I can follow the debate more closely and you basically insinuate that's evidence of the organisation I belong to encouraging me not to participate at all... :confused:


It would however be a very good thing to stop for a moment and sit down and think and reflect. Study the "heavy stuff" and discuss them with your peers in your branch.
I've reflected quite a lot, particularly after these debates and issues such as the failure to respond with any clarity to the rape incident in the Swedish section that lead to two people I respect, Crux and Sentinel, leaving the organisation. We had plenty of discussions within the branch regarding the ltrpf debate and even I took time off work and paid for a train ticket to go to a regional debate where Steve Dobbs wanted to present his position. I haven't just arbitrarily decided to stay within the party.


Communists are supposed to be worker-leaders and how can you be a leader if you're just "selling papers", if you can't disagree or even fully understand with what "internal debates" are all about?
Yeah man, I have I lot to learn. I'm not ashamed of admitting that. I've been a communist for three-four years, not my whole life. But saying that we're 'just' selling papers is disingenuous or strangely misinformed (especially considering I thought you were a member once?). Maybe you've just had radically different experiences with the party than I have. I mean, at the CWI school this year I had the opportunity to talk with socialist artists from all across the world and we agreed to set up a loose network to discuss a marxist perspective of art in the 21st century. It's been a really cool experience for me and not really anything to do with papers at all... like the vast majority of the stuff we do. :confused:


Yes, in these types of organisation (SPEW, SWP et al) you'll need to agree dear OP with the "programme", which is actually a pretty wide set of ideas regarding method, strategy, tactics and theory. I think communists ought to only have to accept the programme ("programme" as defined as a programmatical document to which the leadership can be held accounted to). But alas.
A semantic polemic if I ever saw one. That's like Rafiq or Five Year Plan stuff.... 'agree'/'accept'... why make an issue over that? I'd love to have Heinous Bifter in the party, he seems like a cool dude, but what's the point if he's just going to get frustrated and leave soon after?


Sorry if I came over as overly negative, it's mostly a little cynicism that I had to get off my chest, nothing personal. I wub you GiantMonkey :wub:
I understand that you haven't had the same experience with the party than what I have had, it's particularly obvious if you're perpetuating that trope about selling papers etc, but using what was a personal admittance that I wanted to study more and taking that as some sort of proof that the party doesn't encourage study was just annoying, man, (I mean, what? Sorry that I'm only on Capital Volume I and haven't yet worked my way through to Volume III where the majority of the discussion is based around?). I like you too and I know it wasn't personal but that part irked me... :o

[Q]

That's weird and not my experience at all. In fact, within my branch we're currently reading Capital right now as part of a study group.
Very commendable effort! I wish you well in this undertaking.


I've never read Taaffe's book and no-one's ever recommended it to me. I think the first thing that was recommended to me was 'Left Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder' and then I think 'Value, Price and Profit' or 'State and Revolution'.
Those pamphlets are all ok to read of course, but that is as far as my experience of CWI educational efforts go. I'm genuinely surprised your branch has taken up a study of Capital. Is this happening in more branches perhaps? Is there a real effort of the party to get people read up on it? Or is it more of a 'fluke' so to speak, a unique effort by your branch?


That's a bit annoying, Q. I make a personal statement saying that I want to brush up on my economics so I can follow the debate more closely and you basically insinuate that's evidence of the organisation I belong to encouraging me not to participate at all... :confused:
No, I was just getting of a little tangent. I do think your personal statement is representative for a more typical experience of a rank and file member though, also based on my own experiences, and I treated it as such.


I've reflected quite a lot, particularly after these debates and issues such as the failure to respond with any clarity to the rape incident in the Swedish section that lead to two people I respect, Crux and Sentinel, leaving the organisation. We had plenty of discussions within the branch regarding the ltrpf debate and even I took time off work and paid for a train ticket to go to a regional debate where Steve Dobbs wanted to present his position. I haven't just arbitrarily decided to stay within the party.
That again is a positve sign, as such incidents aren't normally talked about. It would appear that the massive outage of it on places like Facebook and indeed Revleft did contribute to a more open stance. Although the cynic in me is yelling "crisis management".


Yeah man, I have I lot to learn. I'm not ashamed of admitting that. I've been a communist for three-four years, not my whole life.
There have been plenty of comrades active for much longer that are still barely educated and, vice versa, you could actually achieve much in education in a span of three to four years. My point was that there was no organised effort to go beyond the most bare education possible. As you've pointed out, this could actually have changed for the better.


But saying that we're 'just' selling papers is disingenuous or strangely misinformed (especially considering I thought you were a member once?).
Again, more a tangent than anything. I was referring to the hyperactivism, the "doing something" mentality, which I encapsulated in the "selling papers" scarequotes.


Maybe you've just had radically different experiences with the party than I have. I mean, at the CWI school this year I had the opportunity to talk with socialist artists from all across the world and we agreed to set up a loose network to discuss a marxist perspective of art in the 21st century. It's been a really cool experience for me and not really anything to do with papers at all... like the vast majority of the stuff we do. :confused:
Do keep us posted on that!


A semantic polemic if I ever saw one. That's like Rafiq or Five Year Plan stuff.... 'agree'/'accept'... why make an issue over that?
There is actually a big issue involved here. Although the words are used most often in a synonymous manner, they mean two different things. To accept something is to abide by a majority position that you may very well disagree with and open argue for why that is the case. Asking comrades to agree with all kinds of aspects of the party leaves little room for disagreement and therefore undermines a proper democratic functioning of the organisation.


I'd love to have Heinous Bifter in the party, he seems like a cool dude, but what's the point if he's just going to get frustrated and leave soon after?
I agree. The OP would certainly bail out soon if he didn't agree. Perhaps even injuring mental health in burnout or other stress related causes.


I mean, what? Sorry that I'm only on Capital Volume I and haven't yet worked my way through to Volume III where the majority of the discussion is based around?
No need to apologise. I haven't touched volumes two and three myself yet, which is a subject for later study. Again, I can only encourage you to continue on your studies.


I like you too and I know it wasn't personal but that part irked me... :o
Yeah, I just used you a little as an example. Sorry if that was abuse :p

[GiantMonkeyMan]

Those pamphlets are all ok to read of course, but that is as far as my experience of CWI educational efforts go. I'm genuinely surprised your branch has taken up a study of Capital. Is this happening in more branches perhaps? Is there a real effort of the party to get people read up on it? Or is it more of a 'fluke' so to speak, a unique effort by your branch?
I want to give all of your reply a decent response of my own at some point but I'm in a bit of a dark place today so I'm not sure I can do it justice.

Suffice to say, other branches have reading groups and we actually somewhat emulated another branch in how they arrange it (who is relatively close to us and we have the occasional inter-branch meeting with). Our choice of reading Capital was a concious decision on the part of myself and another comrade as we both wanted to be able to add a more informed opinion to economic debates rather than just being able to follow the gist of it and not knowing if quotes are completely out of context etc but I'm pretty sure other branches might choose to read and discuss different things. The regional full timer who we most interact with has been encouraging us to form the reading group for a while but he basically said that he didn't want to hold our hands and do it all for us but for us to organise it ourselves and get out of it what we want to put into it etc. I don't know why you'd be surprised that Marxists would want to study one of Marx's most important works.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

A semantic polemic if I ever saw one. That's like Rafiq or Five Year Plan stuff.... 'agree'/'accept'... why make an issue over that? I'd love to have Heinous Bifter in the party, he seems like a cool dude, but what's the point if he's just going to get frustrated and leave soon after?

In my experience, when CPGB types say that they expect members to "accept" the decisions of the group, they mean that members should be free to break democratic-centralist discipline and openly argue against the majority position in non-group forums.

[Sentinel]

I think there probably are differences when it comes to different sections in these internationals (not only the CWI!), on the question of education vs (hyper)activism. But I have to say Q:s analysis rings true to me, being a former member. It needs a bit clarification perhaps though.

There were efforts to read Capital and other works as a study group within the party in Sweden as well, during my membership which spanned over some 3,5 very busy years. But unfortunately, I simply didn't have the time & energy to participate, being an active worker member.

And that is the problem; it's not like such study groups are discouraged by the leadership or whatever. On the contrary. It's more that they take place as a kind of complement for those who still have energy left after partaking in other activities most days of the week, a huge portion of the time meant to recovery from wage work that is.

As I for example worked full time for my capitalist employer while I was also building the party in two different countries, as well as writing and translating something most of the time, organising meetings and indeed selling papers etc - I simply had to prioritise most studies away, as there was so much to do, all the time. And I don't even have a partner and/or kids!

While that wasn't the reason I personally quit, hyperactivism leading to stress, burnouts and less education is clearly a huge issue which these organisations will have to deal with, in order to cease being revolving doors and start growing. But there is clearly a refusal to see this on top level in these orgs, instead the lack of progress is blamed mostly on current material and social factors and so on.

Which do contribute by all means, but unless serious issues of organisational culture, internal democracy etc are dealt with I'm afraid no favourable conditions on earth will lift these parties and groups up. And to make it clear, once again I'm talking about most trot orgs I've come across and not just the CWI, here.

***

Thanks for your kind words GMM.

[Jolly Red Giant]

If you don't mind GMM, I will comment on some of the issues here


The peculiar perspective regarding setting up a "Labour party 2.0" (while we still have a Labour part 1.0 around) is never going to lead anywhere, as the last 20 years or so have shown in the diverse left initiatives (TUSC being the latest stillborn).
There is no perspective to set up 'labour party 2.0' - there is a perspective of the need for the working class to build a mass party representing the working class (and this is the case in every country in the world). There is no such thing as 'labour party 1.0' - New Labour is a completely different political animal than even the LP of 25 years ago, never mind 50-100 years ago.

Furthermore, dismissing the various initiatives like TUSC demonstrates a lack of knowledge and understanding of the building of a mass working class party. I have an indepth knowledge of the efforts over several decades to build a labour party in Ireland in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Between 1870 and when the LP was officially launched by the TUC in Ireland, there were several major attempts that all ended in failure - to name three of them, the Democratic Labour Federation, the Trade and Labour League and the Irish Land and Labour Association (which is actually the biggest political party to ever exist in Ireland with well over 100,000 members), and yet they all failed to build a long-term and sustainable labour party. The ILLA (which was primarily organised among rural labourers) after suffering a fall in membership was eventually subsumed into the Irish Transport and General Workers Union in 1919 and dramatically increased the membership of the union. There is one key element that can drive the establishment of a mass working class party and that is the active involvement of the trade union movement. At this point, in most countries, the trade union bureaucracy is firmly welded to the capitalist system and until their hold is broken through mass struggle, it is unlikely that a mass party will emerge anywhere that will be sustainable. Probably the only place that the potential currently exists is in South Africa with the NUMSA initiative.

Now, despite the lack of movement in the trade unions it does not mean that you don't raise the demand for such a new political force of the working class - it is important to initiate and promote debate within the labour movement and the wider working class on what is necessary for working class political action.


As for the hyperactivism (selling papers, walking from demo to demo, etc): It is doubtful how much of that energy is usefully spent, if any. But I guess it could make you feel good? Certainly, walking around, collectively or not, is good for your health.
There is a difference between hyperactivism and the commitment necessary as a result of being involved in revolutionary socialist activity. Many organisations, the SWP being the prime example, focus on hyperactivism, many others attempt to balance the role of members as revolutionaries while ensuring that members do not burn out. My branch has recently gone through a significant phase of hyperactivism as a result of leading local campaigns against austerity and succeeding in winning council positions (the first time in 95 years that revolutionaries have held council positions in my town). Following the election there was significant potential for continuing the hyperactivism and extending the campaign to surrounding areas. Yet the members of the branch recognised that the potential existed for burn-out and the threat it posed to the branch and consciously took a decision to pull back on the activism and focus for the immediate period in consolidating the membership, focus on political education and re-establish a proper balance among the members between activism, political education and internal consolidation. This does not mean that the branch has withdrawn from activism among the working class, but it has been far more selective in the work it has pursued and how it has engaged in that work. Individual members may/will still likely engage in hyperactivism and some may burn-out. That can happen despite the best efforts of the branch leadership - it is the nature of revolutionary organisations and revolutionary activity.


Nothing much has changed in the past 20 years or so with the outline of SPEW.
The primary basis of all revolutionary organisations has not changed in 100+ years - but the perspective and focus of the CWI most certainly has changed in the past 20 years. There was a fundemental alteration in the outlook of the CWI 25 years ago and that perspective has continued, but the work and approach of the CWI as a whole and its individual sections have altered as and when necessary. Two prime examples of this are the developments in Seattle (where a short number of years ago there was zero prospect of launching a major electoral challenge) and South Africa (where the DSM took a conscious decision to agitate and organise among the workers in the platinum mines after - alone maong revolutionary groups - developing the perspective that the mine workers who be the focus for the convulsions in the class battles that exploded in 2012)


I suppose there is some glee in some ranks about the fate of the SWP and its splinters. I doubt there is much of a transfer though, as both organisations just hate eachothers guts and it would make more sense to just try and replicate the SWP in one of its more "radical feminist" splinters, than to switch ship.
The utter mess that the SWP made of the 'delta' allegations and the implosion of the SWP, has been a major setback for the wider left in the UK. There is no 'glee' among the members of the CWI, all recognise that the implosion of the SWP makes revolutionary activity for all groups more difficult. Futhermore, the CWI does not 'hate' the SWP. The members of the CWI certainly do not like the methods and approach of the SWP, and very many feel that working within the working class would be a lot easier without the SWP around - but the CWI is not in competition with the SWP as it has a different approach and methodology and the SWP have shifted significantly in their political outlook. For example in Ireland, the SWP appear to be rapidly moving in the direction of becoming an electoralist organisation - they seem to have, for all intents and purposes, dissolved into the PBPA. I would agree that there is unlikely to be any cross over from the SWP to the CWI - primarily because of the differences in approach and methodology.


Well, this has been true for many years, although it is always sprinkled over with magic "transitional" fairy dust. Bruce Wallace and a group around him have set up a website (http://marxistworld.net/) where they publish their differences with the SPEW leadership, which has indeed been arguing extensively that the leadership is following a Keynesian path. Bruce Wallace has incidentally been "suspended" from membership.
It is utter rubbish to suggest that the CWI has adopted a 'Keynesian' approach. The fundemental outlook of the CWI has not altered, but the CWI does consider that Keynesianism will develop as the main approach in the coming period in opposition to neo-liberal austerity. As such it is necessary to develop an approach that can address the debate that will emerge on the keynesian/neo-liberal axis in the coming period. Furthermore the 'debate' with Wallace is not about Keynesianism, it is about the nature and cause of the crisis and what that analysis should lead to.


While I have my disagreements with comrade Wallace, I think that an open debate is long overdue on this issue (and more issues indeed).
There are very many issues that need to be debated in the CWI (and the wider left) - economics and the cause of the crisis is just one of them. The issues raised by Wallace could potentially have led to a very constructive and fruitful debate - unfortunately Wallace adopted what I would regard as a typical arrogant, academic, hamfisted approach to the debate that did nothing more that piss people off and led to taking the debate down all kinds of tangents. It was unfortunate because Wallace, with his knowledge of economics, could have played a very constructive role in developing the understanding of the CWI in Britain and wider, if he had adopted a different approach than he engaged in (and he was rightly suspended from membership because of the destructive approach he was taking - I would have suspended him a lot earlier).



I would go one step further and state that it is the responsibility of any serious communist organisation to educate its members or at the very least nurish a culture to promote self-education. In my time in the CWI I have seen very little, if any, emphasis on actually studying Capital. The educational focus, as far there is one, is almost solely based on the writings of Peter Taaffe et al. The high point of party education seems to veer around reading The Rise of Militant, which to be frank is a complete waste of paper.
Of course it is the responsibility of any revolutionary organisation to engage in political education. The CWI certainly could improve in its approach to political education - but at the end of the day - it is necessary to try and strike a balance between activism and education, with the key focus being on the development of cadres.

I have never read Capital - I tried once a couple of decades ago and gave up quite quickly. I do not and never have had an aptitude for developing an indepth understanding of the marxist analysis of economics.

It is rubbish, however, to claim that all the 'education' revoloves around Peter Taaffe. To start with, if you are in the CWI and you want to educate yourself on the 'national question', you don't read anything by Peter Taaffe, you read the works of Peter Hadden (who in my view had a far superior understanding of the 'national question' of any recent or current Marxist theoretician). Taaffe, rightly, is widely respected within the CWI, but he is not put on any kind of pedestal when it comes to political education. Furthermore, when my branch discusses political topics, a wide range of political material is circulated in advance, most of it coming from sources outside the CWI.


So, of course you can't enter this kind of "high politics" debate. To be sure, the Bruce Wallace et al minority isn't helping much in explaining the issues in a way that resonate with the level of understanding of the rank and file. Bruce himself is more than once trying to play the authority card, which of course fails if you're not in Taaffe's chair and is frankly annoying. The leadership in the meantime is probably quite happy that such a public disagreement occured on such an "abstract" issue, so it can be handled in a mystified way by them and the grunts are told that it is better to stop trying to be a "talking shop" and move on selling papers and organise for that oh-so important demo next Saturday.
This is actually a lot of bullshit. As I said earlier, I have a very basic understanding of economics and the approach of analysing economics from a marxist perspective. But I do have a significantly better understanding of historical materialism, a somewhat better understanding of dialectics and 30+ years of experience of political activism. I have had and would have little difficulty in engaging in the 'high politics' of debate because I would not allow such a debate to be confined exclusively to a narrow economic debate (one of the fundemental flaws in the approach of Wallace). Furthermore, the nature of the economic crisis in Ireland is not based on the view of Wallace (and a dog with a mallet up his rearend could see that). The consequence of this is that the CWI in Ireland has to develop its perspectives based on the situation in Ireland and the influence of international developments on the Irish economy. If the CWI in Ireland had adopted the approach of Wallace and accepted his analysis as the basis for developing perspectives, the the CWI section in Ireland would have been cast into the political wilderness instead of developing a major and significant political influence that far outweighs its size and strength.


It would however be a very good thing to stop for a moment and sit down and think and reflect. Study the "heavy stuff" and discuss them with your peers in your branch. Communists are supposed to be worker-leaders and how can you be a leader if you're just "selling papers", if you can't disagree or even fully understand with what "internal debates" are all about?
1. you clearly do not understand the purpose of 'selling papers'
2. as I pointed out more than once, a revolutionary organisation need a balance between theory and activism - otherwise it becomes moribund.



That again is a positve sign, as such incidents aren't normally talked about. It would appear that the massive outage of it on places like Facebook and indeed Revleft did contribute to a more open stance. Although the cynic in me is yelling "crisis management".
Again I would have to disagree - in the 33 years I have been a member of the CWI there has never been an effort to inhibit debate. Anytime I have had differences with the majority view within the CWI or the section and branch I am a member of, I raise these issues through the normal democratic structures. I have printed and distributed alternative documents on issues that I felt needed to be discussed nationally and I have openly disagreed with the national leadership and defeated their position at national aggregates on more than one occasion (I will say that I have been defeated more often - and usually proved to have adopted an incorrect position through unfolding events). I have been involved in numerous political, trade union, community, sporting and cultural organisations over the period of my membership of the CWI and, as an organisation, it has been - by far - the most democratic and open organisation/group that I have been a member of.



There have been plenty of comrades active for much longer that are still barely educated and, vice versa, you could actually achieve much in education in a span of three to four years. My point was that there was no organised effort to go beyond the most bare education possible. As you've pointed out, this could actually have changed for the better.
Everybody has different stresses, responsibilities, commitments etc in life. I am currently trying to put my four children through college, pay for it (it is costing me an arm and a leg) and facilitate opportunities for them to become rounded individuals before they have to go into the capitalist workplace. No matter what 'organised' effort was made over the recent period for 'education' I would not have been in a position to take full advantage. I would agree, and have always argued, that political education should be a core activity of the CWI (and the wider left), but I always remember the adage 'an ounce of experience is worth a ton of theory' - and this is not to dismiss the importance of political education, but at the end of the day, the political education is only useful when put into practice and benefits enormously from practical experience and politcal activity.




There is actually a big issue involved here. Although the words are used most often in a synonymous manner, they mean two different things. To accept something is to abide by a majority position that you may very well disagree with and open argue for why that is the case. Asking comrades to agree with all kinds of aspects of the party leaves little room for disagreement and therefore undermines a proper democratic functioning of the organisation.
I agree with GMM that you are engaged in semantics. I do not 'agree' with something because I am asked to - I 'agree' with something that I have analysed, discussed, debated and drawn my own individual conclusion on. The 'agreement' comes after the disagreement and debate and is crucial for the proper democratic functioning of a revolutionary organisation. Coming to an 'agreement' does not mean 'accepting' something 100% hook, line and sinker, it means agreeing to work towards a common objective on the basis of an agreed approach. In my view it would be disingenuous to 'accept' something that you disagreed with on both a personal and political level. I would never act on the basis of 'accepting' something I disagreed with - I would act based on 'agreeing' an approach and perspective.

Last point – this discussion is actually quite constructive and one of the few discussions that have the potential to be constructive on what has often become a sectarian *****-fest on RevLeft (and can I add that I think it is inappropriate to use the thread title that the person who posted the thread used).