Can the Labour Party be regained?

[Ernestocheguevara]

Well can it? I have already explained my view in the 'top up fees' thread but I want to know the opinion of you all on this subject.Also was the Labour Party, to quote Kez, ever genuinely Socialist? I think perhaps not. Thanx. ECG.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Short answer NO. Why..because Labour are a political party that exist to be in power, not to stand for anything. The traditional socialist outlook is somewhat no langer fashionable. The manifesto was at one point quite socialist. They brought the welfare estate, publically owned industries and Healthcare, education etc. As the middle class grew, and Labour shifted to the left (Michael Foot era) they truelly did lose out.

Bang, Pow along comes bambi in 94/95 and there we have it an answer. Fuck the left, find the third way and win votes. They are popular, the conservatives will only get back if labour go to the left again.

We must concentrate on the electrate before the politicians. Meanwhile the politicians can not be let off the hook and that is what pressure groups are for.

[monkeydust]

For us on this board, ideology stil means a lot. In the current political atmosphere in Britian however, ideology is dead, and has been since the collapse of the Berlin wall.

Labour, clearly isn't socialist now. I personally don't think it's likely at the moment for it to be socialsit again.

At the moment I feel the LIb-dems are in fact further left. At a recent conference I attended the Lib dem shadow minister for eduacation commented on their policy to raise the tax band for those earning over £100,000 to 50%, currently it's around 41%. Half of this rise alone will pay for the current top up fee proposals. I also think that they wan't to put a penny on the pound in basic tax.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2004, 06:48 PM

Labour, clearly isn't socialist now. I personally don't think it's likely at the moment for it to be socialsit again.

At the moment I feel the LIb-dems are in fact further left. At a recent conference I attended the Lib dem shadow minister for eduacation commented on their policy to raise the tax band for those earning over £100,000 to 50%, currently it's around 41%. Half of this rise alone will pay for the current top up fee proposals. I also think that they wan't to put a penny on the pound in basic tax.
You are right, liberals are in fact further left. It is strange that they have the ideology of a more traditional labour. Labour of conservatives and Conservatives of liberals..as in classic liberal thought. Conservatives and Labour are closer now than 5s..70s and they were close then. Since the formationa and eveolution of the SDP there is only that party that offers much different.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2004, 06:09 PM
Short answer NO. Why..because Labour are a political party that exist to be in power, not to stand for anything. The traditional socialist outlook is somewhat no langer fashionable. The manifesto was at one point quite socialist. They brought the welfare estate, publically owned industries and Healthcare, education etc. As the middle class grew, and Labour shifted to the left (Michael Foot era) they truelly did lose out.

Bang, Pow along comes bambi in 94/95 and there we have it an answer. Fuck the left, find the third way and win votes. They are popular, the conservatives will only get back if labour go to the left again.

We must concentrate on the electrate before the politicians. Meanwhile the politicians can not be let off the hook and that is what pressure groups are for.
Well I was about to say something along those lines, but add something along the lines of what few remaining leftwing labour politicians are now so few as to be ineffectual, and that I doubt that they were ever true socialists. Not to mention that at this point in time they would rather be elected next election than stand up for them selves and try and change the party.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Too true. Although not anywhere near as far left Gordon Brown is about as left as it gets nowadays. If he and Blair didn't have to go with each other on issues who knows. Blair would have the Londenburg ralley on the go 2005. Brown might even have a tax rise.. I hope Brown takes leadership soon being realistic he is the least of evils.

[guerrillaradio]

I hope the Labour Party doesn't try and claim "leftie" points again. They put the country in enough of a mess for the first half of the 80s.

Seriously guys, quit putting your trust in paper politicians. We all know they're liars and frauds and money-motivated. Take this shit out onto the streets.

[Ernestocheguevara]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2004, 07:06 PM
Too true. Although not anywhere near as far left Gordon Brown is about as left as it gets nowadays. If he and Blair didn't have to go with each other on issues who knows. Blair would have the Londenburg ralley on the go 2005. Brown might even have a tax rise.. I hope Brown takes leadership soon being realistic he is the least of evils.
An optimistic view I feel, Brown is still giving tax relief to giants like: Glaxo Smith Kline boss Jean Paul Garnier (Pay and perks package last year :£22 Billion I know crazy ain't it) Terry Leahy of Tesco[supermarket, for over the water comrades](salary:2.5million) and Paul Walsh of Diageo [liquor group] (Salary:£3.75million).
Also Brown is threatening to 'slow the rate of public spending' and talks of "providing incentives for investment in wealth creation and greater rewards for success".

"Brown and new Labour have slashed corporation taxes since they came into power just as merrily as did their Tory predecessors. Many billions of pounds have been returned to the coffers of big business in Brown's budget"(The Socialist issue332) So saying he is the lesser evil is a bit like saying an incurable cancer isn't quite as bad as A.I.D.S or Hitler wasn't as bad as PolPot. They are as bad as each other! :D

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2004, 07:09 PM
I hope the Labour Party doesn't try and claim "leftie" points again. They put the country in enough of a mess for the first half of the 80s.

Seriously guys, quit putting your trust in paper politicians. We all know they're liars and frauds and money-motivated. Take this shit out onto the streets.
Personally I have found schools and shops to be more effective. Although I agree with you that more of us need to practice rather than preach. And that it needs to be aimed at people directly.

The parties as above only exist to be in power. Otherwise tehre is no point in being part of such an institution. Out in the real world movements can make ral differences to peoples lives and rather than the ballot box it is actions of people such as donations of time and money that gve them the mandate. The policies concentrate on improving lives of the many and not the few because in the real world the many matter in politics it is the few.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2004, 07:26 PM

An optimistic view I feel, Brown is still giving tax relief to giants like: Glaxo Smith Kline boss Jean Paul Garnier (Pay and perks package last year :£22 Billion I know crazy ain't it) Terry Leahy of Tesco[supermarket, for over the water comrades](salary:2.5million) and Paul Walsh of Diageo [liquor group] (Salary:£3.75million).
Also Brown is threatening to 'slow the rate of public spending' and talks of "providing incentives for investment in wealth creation and greater rewards for success".

"Brown and new Labour have slashed corporation taxes since they came into power just as merrily as did their Tory predecessors. Many billions of pounds have been returned to the coffers of big business in Brown's budget"(The Socialist issue332) So saying he is the lesser evil is a bit like saying an incurable cancer isn't quite as bad as A.I.D.S or Hitler wasn't as bad as PolPot. They are as bad as each other! :D
I agree totally and it was really a daft thing to say but he has strengthened the economy even if only for the good of a few. Labour slightly lesser eveil than conservatives...so I would rather see them in power. Brown not as bad as Blair, so same again.

Yes I know it is stupid, but in the same way I would rather have Hitler in charge than Pol Pot. So until things improve we may as well be realistic.

[guerrillaradio]

Originally posted by hegemonicretrobution+Feb 3 2004, 07:30 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (hegemonicretrobution @ Feb 3 2004, 07:30 PM)
[email protected] 3 2004, 07:09 PM
I hope the Labour Party doesn&#39;t try and claim "leftie" points again. They put the country in enough of a mess for the first half of the 80s.

Seriously guys, quit putting your trust in paper politicians. We all know they&#39;re liars and frauds and money-motivated. Take this shit out onto the streets.
Personally I have found schools and shops to be more effective. Although I agree with you that more of us need to practice rather than preach. And that it needs to be aimed at people directly.

The parties as above only exist to be in power. Otherwise tehre is no point in being part of such an institution. Out in the real world movements can make ral differences to peoples lives and rather than the ballot box it is actions of people such as donations of time and money that gve them the mandate. The policies concentrate on improving lives of the many and not the few because in the real world the many matter in politics it is the few. [/b]
I agree with Marx in that power corrupts. I really don&#39;t think any politician can and will ever speak for us and I think you&#39;re kidding yourself if you see any hope in the Labour Party or any of its Socialist outcrops, which are too busy rowing with each other to affect change. As for the Labour Party, you&#39;re right to say it exists for power, not for moral policy. A politician by definition is a spineless liar.

[zapata&#39;s_ghost]

no, the labour party like all main political parties are made up of a bunch of upper class suits.
labour havent been a true socialist party since its beginning in the early 20th century, and they never will be again as the vast majority believe in conservative morals and guidelines. labour is just another name for torie. . . .

[Kez]

now that we got the petit sloganeering out of the way, maybe we can get down to serious debate.

I am currently pissed, so i will come back to this 2morrow

However, points to consider:

Why cant Labour shift left like it did from Callaghan to Foot in early 80&#39;s?
Where are unions affilated to? Labour
Where do workers turn to in times of crises? Labour
What political shift has occured in Unions and is continuuing to do so? huge left shift
What are unions position on Labour? Reclaim it

I think many middle class comrades should go into the estates and see who workers turn to.
Why can Labour party not be turned into present day RSDLP?

your fraternally

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2004, 12:00 AM
now that we got the petit sloganeering out of the way, maybe we can get down to serious debate.

I am currently pissed, so i will come back to this 2morrow

However, points to consider:

Why cant Labour shift left like it did from Callaghan to Foot in early 80&#39;s?
Where are unions affilated to? Labour
Where do workers turn to in times of crises? Labour
What political shift has occured in Unions and is continuuing to do so? huge left shift
What are unions position on Labour? Reclaim it

I think many middle class comrades should go into the estates and see who workers turn to.
Why can Labour party not be turned into present day RSDLP?

your fraternally
Maybe it is a pissed reply :P But Foot? I thought I said earlier that when they had Foot they sucked in terms of seats won. What? That election they had like 27% of the vote or something. Marginally more than the SDP who had just been formed.

The "longest suicide in history" is why they can&#39;t do taht. They are there to win elections. If they shift that far to the left then they probably won&#39;t, end of story.

[Kez]

"What? That election they had like 27% of the vote or something. Marginally more than the SDP who had just been formed"
- Labour won 34% of the vote, that was with a socialist platform, the trouble was they didnt fight hard enough for their manifesto, while the capitalist press slated it.

"The "longest suicide in history" is why they can&#39;t do taht. They are there to win elections. ."
-It was actually called "the longest suicide note in history" refering to Labours socialist manifesto, this was done by the scum right wing press who now attack the assylum seekers so visciously, if you want to echo this collective piece of scums headlines be my guest, but dont call yourself a communist
-"If they shift that far to the left then they probably won&#39;t, end of story"
What? Are you suggesting we adopt a centre-left manifesto in parliament so it will be easier to campaign on?

Some people on che-lives truly amaze me with their bullshit comments

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2004, 09:03 AM
"What? That election they had like 27% of the vote or something. Marginally more than the SDP who had just been formed"
- Labour won 34% of the vote, that was with a socialist platform, the trouble was they didnt fight hard enough for their manifesto, while the capitalist press slated it.

"The "longest suicide in history" is why they can&#39;t do taht. They are there to win elections. ."
-It was actually called "the longest suicide note in history" refering to Labours socialist manifesto, this was done by the scum right wing press who now attack the assylum seekers so visciously, if you want to echo this collective piece of scums headlines be my guest, but dont call yourself a communist
-"If they shift that far to the left then they probably won&#39;t, end of story"
What? Are you suggesting we adopt a centre-left manifesto in parliament so it will be easier to campaign on?

Some people on che-lives truly amaze me with their bullshit comments
Sorry I was fully aware it should have read "not" that was atypo and it was almost 1am.

I am not condoning the backlash of the pres. I do think there should be a left party. All I am saying is, because of the nature of Britain today, it will not be voted for.

I have little faith in parliament...governments are popuarlist by definintion.

I don&#39;t think there should be centre left manifesto but if it is the lesser of evils then yes.

We must first change the electorate, then THEY will change the government...being active outside of theose places is more effective.

[RedAnarchist]

Originally posted by zapata&#39;[email protected] 3 2004, 07:52 PM
the vast majority believe in conservative morals and guidelines. labour is just another name for torie. . . .
Are you sure? Most people i know seem to be quite left-wing...

How can we try to change this so that more people are left-wing than right?

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by XPhile2868+Feb 4 2004, 10:23 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (XPhile2868 @ Feb 4 2004, 10:23 AM)
zapata&#39;[email protected] 3 2004, 07:52 PM
the vast majority believe in conservative morals and guidelines. labour is just another name for torie. . . .
Are you sure? Most people i know seem to be quite left-wing...

How can we try to change this so that more people are left-wing than right? [/b]
Change will come from a cultural revolution. We have to change the very essence of society, via the same agencies that gave us the conservative outlook. People have to be convinced that thinking outside of themselves has rewards at all levels. They must be shown, through good examples and enjoyable times, that not being apathetic changes things.

The electoral system cannot do this, because one person does NOT make a difference. It must be done by enjoyable acts that many can partake in an dmake real differences as a result of this. The stigma attatched to such lefty, liberal hippie style organisations must be removed. There needs to be a complete rebranding of the entire left movement that is accesible for a consumer driven world, whilst still holding true the very ideals that it exists for.

[Voice of the Revolution]

Most of the people I know come from torie backgrounds (I live in Kenneth Clarkes constituency), and therefore will entertain left-wing ideals but then put them down. The future is however with the young, and as a young person myself and from my own experiences (and from historical precedents) the young are more subsiptibal to ideals and have an inate will to rebel. When tapped into that can be a powerfull force. (BTW, how many of those on che-lives are school aged? Probably a disproportionate ammount)

[Kez]

"I am not condoning the backlash of the pres. I do think there should be a left party. All I am saying is, because of the nature of Britain today, it will not be voted for."
- You genius, give the man a gold medal

"I have little faith in parliament...governments are popuarlist by definintion."
- so what? we avoid parliament altogether? What you think about Comrade Mahmood in Pakistan who is pakistans 1st marxist mp, who then turned 2 other MP&#39;s into marxists, clearly he is wasting his time, maybe he should stand outside shopping centres and sell the socialist worker....that will be great&#33;

"I don&#39;t think there should be centre left manifesto but if it is the lesser of evils then yes."
-Do you have any understanding of the revolutionary process? First you put forward a transitional programme, from which u gain support, and while u have the ear of the workers u explain that this can only be permanent with the abolition of capitalism, what the fuck can a centre left manifesto acheive?

"We must first change the electorate, then THEY will change the government...being active outside of theose places is more effective."
-Yes, lets get our commie magic potion out and change them.....You use the parliament and the position as a platform to change the "electorate", while in power u use the means available to you to urge workers to revolution, not just voting more marxists in...

Sorry to be harsh, but this is just plain stupidity

VOTR,
I agree, we as the youth have a fundamental role to play in these times, and thats why we must not waste the opportunities we have and should fully use all the means we can to make our generation the revolutionary generation

[Hegemonicretribution]

I will try not to be as abusive in my reply. I can see where you are coming from, and it might be a more traditional standpoint, but I do not see it as effective. I would appreciate if you would not call some views obvious and some stupid. That does not help me as a lesser being learn


"I am not condoning the backlash of the pres. I do think there should be a left party. All I am saying is, because of the nature of Britain today, it will not be voted for."
- You genius, give the man a gold medal

So when I clarify my point I needn&#39;t have bothered because it was so obvious? That was my response to why Labour couldn&#39;t shift to the left like with Foot. i.e. get real they won&#39;t be voted for, when you consider what we are today.



"I have little faith in parliament...governments are popuarlist by definintion."
- so what? we avoid parliament altogether? What you think about Comrade Mahmood in Pakistan who is pakistans 1st marxist mp, who then turned 2 other MP&#39;s into marxists, clearly he is wasting his time, maybe he should stand outside shopping centres and sell the socialist worker....that will be great&#33;

We are not Pakistan.

Yes you could avoid parliament, at least until it won&#39;t avoid us. There is not enough socialist support there to make much of an impact as of yet. Developing nations tend to be more open to radical policies and ideas. We are obviously going to be more conservative at the moment because the current system has not been to unkind to us.


"I don&#39;t think there should be centre left manifesto but if it is the lesser of evils then yes."
-Do you have any understanding of the revolutionary process? First you put forward a transitional programme, from which u gain support, and while u have the ear of the workers u explain that this can only be permanent with the abolition of capitalism, what the fuck can a centre left manifesto acheive?

Yes I have an understanding of the revolutionary process. However this is not post-feudal Russia. This is not China, this is Britain. Post-modern Britain depending on what school of sociology you are from. The proletariat now includes the middle class. They make up a large percentage in Britain, and they are not going to be quite as accepting of far left ideas. They are not like the traditional working class who think "me, me" but failed. The bourgeois ideology has filtered through and they don&#39;t care, because they still do alright out of it.

A centre left manifesto could be transitional, but transition will have to be delicate, because of the conservative nature, nothing travelling at rocket speed will get through. I agree kind of with the basics of you revolutionary process...although I say gain the ear of the workers with high profile campaigns...be it charities or whatever. People pay more attention to this than the political parties..why..because that is where they can make a difference and learn to think about others. Over time, and only if things HAVE changed for the better with the methods presented, should and will more left wing ideas be accepted.

[/QUOTE]"We must first change the electorate, then THEY will change the government...being active outside of theose places is more effective."
-Yes, lets get our commie magic potion out and change them.....You use the parliament and the position as a platform to change the "electorate", while in power u use the means available to you to urge workers to revolution, not just voting more marxists in...


Yes lets use are parliament magic powder and change them? Same idea, but agencies outside of parliamnt have the attention of workers more than parliament itself does..hence low turn out rates, when compared to how many people are literate or own T.V.s or computors. Back in the real wolrd you need votes to have the power in parliament to change people..a little like the chicken and the egg..but a more logical outcome. The way I proposed, i.e. change voters first, you could be in parliament and then do as you said. Your method misses out the bit where no one gives a shit about todays left movement.


Sorry to be harsh, but this is just plain stupidity
I know I feel so stupid, I might have to read "Marx 4 kidZ" and learn a thing or to.

VOTR,
I agree, we as the youth have a fundamental role to play in these times, and thats why we must not waste the opportunities we have and should fully use all the means we can to make our generation the revolutionary generation[/QUOTE]

Its nice that we can agree on one thing :)




I don&#39;t think our ideas are that different. It is just I have less faith in the current parliamental situation, and because you need to be voted in, we will get no where until we convince people that we should get voted in.

[Scottish_Militant]

Can I just add something, it&#39;s an extract from an article called "Marxism versus sectarianism"

When the ultra-left groups attack us on the question of our work in the mass organizations, they believe that they are attacking our weak side. As a matter of fact, they are attacking one of our strongest sides - that side that always distinguishes a genuine Marxist tendency from a sect: our firm and persistent orientation towards the mass organizations of the working class. When we hear this kind of criticism, we merely shrug our shoulders. It is ABC that a Marxist tendency must always strive to conduct revolutionary work in the mass organizations of the proletariat. This was explained by Lenin and Trotsky (or, for that matter, by Marx and Engels) a long time ago. A child of six should be able to understand this. But since the leaders of the PO do not understand it, we are obliged to restate some of the fundamentals.

The ultra-left groups are fond of quoting Lenin&#39;s writings from the period 1914-17, when he insisted repeatedly on the need for an independent revolutionary party and call on the British Marxists to leave the Labour Party. This was answered in advance by Trotsky when he wrote. "But Lenin had in mind a break with reformists as the inevitable consequence of a struggle against them, and not an act of salvation regardless of time and place. He required a split with the social patriots not in order to save his own soul but in order to tear the masses away from social patriotism." (Trotsky, Writings 1935-36, p.156.)

The need to build an independent revolutionary party is ABC for Marxists. However, after the ABC, there are more letters in the alphabet, and a child who only repeated the first three after a few years at school would not be considered very bright. In the present epoch, the revolutionaries are faced with powerful mass reformist organizations - both mass parties and trade unions - which have the support of millions of workers. Our ability to grow depends decisively on our ability to win over the base of these organizations, especially the trade unions, but also the mass reformist parties.

In the founding document of the Marxist movement, The Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels explain that the Communists do not form a separate party opposed to other working class parties:

"They have no interest separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole.

"They do not set up any sectarian principles of their own, by which to shape and mould the proletarian movement.

"The Communists are distinguished from the other working class parties by this only: 1) In the national struggles of the proletarians of the different countries, they point out and bring to the front the common interests of the entire proletariat, independently of all nationality. 2) In the various stages of development which the struggle of the working class has to pass through, they always and everywhere represent the interests of the movement as a whole.

"The Communists are, therefore, on the one hand, practically, the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others: on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the line of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement." (Marx and Engels, Selected Works, Vol.1, pp.119-120).

These remarks are a closed book for the PO leaders, yet they express the essence of what separates real Marxism from a sectarian caricature.The ultra-left groups always forget that the mass forces of the Communist International were only formed on the basis of great events, in the period 1917-23. In most cases, the mass parties of the new International were formed out of splits in the old parties of the Second International. Moreover, in some cases the Communists actually won a majority of the old organisations, as in France, Germany, Bulgaria and Czechoslovakia.

A sectarian attitude to the old reformist mass organizations was characteristic, not of Lenin and Trotsky, but of the ultra-lefts in Holland, Britain and Italy, against which Lenin and Trotsky waged a relentless struggle. Although they tried to quote Lenin&#39;s writings of the period of the First World War against him, they had understood nothing of Lenin&#39;s dialectical method. Lenin&#39;s book "Left Wing Communism - an Infantile Disorder" was written in the early days of the Communist International to answer the arguments of the "Lefts", which re-appear at every stage in the writings of the ultra-left groups. Lenin explained that it was a crime to split away the advanced workers from the mass, and that such tactics, far from undermining the trade union bureaucracy, actually serves to strengthen it:

"To refuse to work in the reactionary trade unions means leaving the insufficiently developed or backward masses of workers under the influence of the reactionary leaders, the agents of the bourgeoisie, the labour aristocrats, or workers who have become completely bourgeois...

"If you want to help the &#39;masses&#39; and win the sympathy and support of the &#39;masses&#39;, you should not fear difficulties or pin-pricks, chicanery, insults and persecution from the &#39;leaders&#39; (who, being opportunists and social-chauvinists, are in most cases directly or indirectly connected with the bourgeoisie and the police), but must absolutely work wherever the masses are to be found. You must be capable of any sacrifice, of overcoming the greatest obstacles, in order to carry on agitation and propaganda systematically, perseveringly, persistently and patiently in those institutions, societies and associations - even the most reactionary - in which proletarian or semi-proletarian masses are to be found." (Lenin, Collected Works, Vol.31, p.53.)

Luis Oviedo suffers an apoplectic attack when the mass trade union confederations in Argentina (CTA and CGT) are mentioned, let alone the Bolivian Workers&#39; Union (COB). They are "bureaucratic", you see. Yet Lenin explained how the Bolsheviks even conducted illegal work in the "Zubatov" unions, set up by the Tsarist police to keep the workers away from revolutionary ideas. Without knowing it, the leaders of the PO are repeating the arguments, not of Lenin and Trotsky, but of the "Left Communists" whom Lenin criticized so ferociously in the early years of the Communist International. At the Second Congress of the Comintern, Lenin and Trotsky waged a struggle against the "infantile disorder" of ultra-leftism. The Manifesto of the Second Congress, written by Trotsky, states that:

"The Communist International is the world party of proletarian uprising and proletarian dictatorship. It has no aims and tasks separate and apart from those of the working class itself. The pretensions of the tiny ultra-left groups, each of which wants to save the working class in its own manner, are alien and hostile to the spirit of the Communist International. It does not possess any panaceas or magic formulas but bases itself on the past and present international experience of the working class; it purges that experience of all blunders and deviations; it generalises the conquests made and recognises only such revolutionary formulas as are formulas of mass action." (Trotsky, The First Five Years of the Comintern, Vol.1, p.131.)

"Waging a merciless struggle against reformism in the trade unions and against parliamentary cretinism and careerism, the Communist International at the same time condemns all sectarian summonses to leave the ranks of the multi-millioned trade union organisations or to turn one&#39;s back upon parliamentary and municipal institutions. The Communists do not separate themselves from the masses who are being deceived and betrayed by the reformists and the patriots, but engage the latter in an irreconcilable struggle within the mass organisations and institutions established by bourgeois society, in order to overthrow them the more surely and the more quickly."


read it in full here http://www.marxist.com/Theory/marxism_vs_sectar.html

[Hegemonicretribution]

The Communists do not separate themselves from the masses who are being deceived and betrayed by the reformists and the patriots, but engage the latter in an irreconcilable struggle within the mass organisations and institutions established by bourgeois society, in order to overthrow them the more surely and the more quickly.

To struggle withing these institutions you need the support of those workers outside. The support will not be raised unless you have already influenced them before the elections.

Thanks for that article btw.

As for a revolutionary party, I agree that we should have one, but I doubt that at the moment it will have much impact.

I agree you mustn&#39;t be scared of abuse, but parliament is not where the masses are to be found, so deal with the abuses in the media we have.

[Kez]

christ almighty,

"We are not Pakistan.
Yes you could avoid parliament, at least until it won&#39;t avoid us. There is not enough socialist support there to make much of an impact as of yet. Developing nations tend to be more open to radical policies and ideas. We are obviously going to be more conservative at the moment because the current system has not been to unkind to us."

-Yes, go to a fuckin working class estate and ask if its been kind.
Go to a union meeting and ask about the robbing of pensions and ask if its been kind
Go use the NHS and not ur BUPA issurance and ask if its kind to those who are dying
Go ask those killed in Hatfield and ask if the system is kind, then ask those who are late every fucking day to work coz of trains and ask if its kind

"Yes I have an understanding of the revolutionary process. However this is not post-feudal Russia. This is not China, this is Britain. Post-modern Britain depending on what school of sociology you are from. The proletariat now includes the middle class. They make up a large percentage in Britain, and they are not going to be quite as accepting of far left ideas. They are not like the traditional working class who think "me, me" but failed. The bourgeois ideology has filtered through and they don&#39;t care, because they still do alright out of it."
-See above

"A centre left manifesto could be transitional, but transition will have to be delicate, because of the conservative nature, nothing travelling at rocket speed will get through. I agree kind of with the basics of you revolutionary process...although I say gain the ear of the workers with high profile campaigns...be it charities or whatever. People pay more attention to this than the political parties..why..because that is where they can make a difference and learn to think about others. Over time, and only if things HAVE changed for the better with the methods presented, should and will more left wing ideas be accepted."
- So your in the same camp as blair then? we should bend our principles so its easier to seem attractive to workers? Not only will this not work, but your lying to the workers as you show a programme which you yourself dont subscribe to.

"Yes lets use are parliament magic powder and change them? Same idea, but agencies outside of parliamnt have the attention of workers more than parliament itself does..hence low turn out rates, when compared to how many people are literate or own T.V.s or computors. Back in the real wolrd you need votes to have the power in parliament to change people..a little like the chicken and the egg..but a more logical outcome. The way I proposed, i.e. change voters first, you could be in parliament and then do as you said. Your method misses out the bit where no one gives a shit about todays left movement."
-How the fuck do you propose to change voters views if your not in their organisations (ie the unions) and are not in their party (ie the Labour Party)

"To struggle withing these institutions you need the support of those workers outside. The support will not be raised unless you have already influenced them before the elections."
- No, you struggle inside the institutions and hence gain support, it wouldnt be a struggle if you just walked in and said "hey, sup g, vote for me, coz i iz what you want", no you get in, you show your stance, you fight for your stance, and workers will listen to you. However, i will forgive you for believing this as you have never been close to any institutions which the workers are in, and seem quite satisfied living the life of the middle class left wing twerp, good show ol&#39; boy&#33;

"As for a revolutionary party, I agree that we should have one, but I doubt that at the moment it will have much impact."
-It wouldnt have impact as its working AGAINST the workers parties, ie the parties that the workers are to be found in.

"I agree you mustn&#39;t be scared of abuse, but parliament is not where the masses are to be found, so deal with the abuses in the media we have."
- What media? The workers consistently turn to Labour, Labour is in parliament, get the fuck out of your dreamy world, and get real. If you want to gain the same platform as the capitalist you must use the same tools, and this includees parliament, unless you wish to start your own soviet, infact, you could have it at your country club just after the cricket, ya bellend.

As for the real workers who are actively campaigning in the struggle within Labour, i just got this report 2day
http://www.marxist.com/Europe/miners_and_t...e_printers.html (http://www.marxist.com/Europe/miners_and_the_printers.html)

[Hegemonicretribution]

I would not class myself as middle class. Working class at best. However I can come across as an educated little ponce when necesary because it fits better withing certain institutions.

I have seperated parents, I grew up on benifits, my father has not been able to work since he had an accident in a job he took on whilst on leave from another...my mother supported me on a part time job whilst she also tried to complete her degree.

fwah fwah I am a bellend old boy, toodle pip...fuck off. I do take offence at somethings

Yes I agree the people that will look to us are those people, just like there are certain people that will look to the BNP...we just have to make sure more ccepting people go our way and not theirs.

However go to a working class estate and ask how many voted... the people that feel fucked over by the system are often sick of playing. They don&#39;t alays bother voting.

Those that do vote still, including many trade unions already do and always will vote labour (unless there is a radical change). Why? Because they go off what they used to stand for and know it is the only vote that can count. Apart from torries who are even worse.

This is not the support that needs to be gained, and there is not a high enough proportion of voters to win with it anyway. The middle classes must be hit as well.

As a matter of fact I saw my NHS dentist this very morning :P however in my left wing utopia I get private care free if I choose but I don&#39;t.

I also resent the Blair jab. I thought I made it quite clear that I don&#39;t think that the main change should be in policies of the main left party to fit the electorate, but changes to the main electorate, so they are more accepting of a party.

I advocated change OUTSIDE of parliament first, so that a decent party could become effective, I am sorry if you couldn&#39;t interperet my incoherent rambling...but I am of the lowest income bracket <_<

[Ernestocheguevara]

Oh Kez get a grip&#33;&#33;&#33;

Yes, go to a fuckin working class estate and ask if its been kind.
Go to a union meeting and ask about the robbing of pensions and ask if its been kind
Go use the NHS and not ur BUPA issurance and ask if its kind to those who are dying
Go ask those killed in Hatfield and ask if the system is kind, then ask those who are late every fucking day to work coz of trains and ask if its kind

"All this is because of your party&#33; The Labour party&#33;&#33;&#33;"


How the fuck do you propose to change voters views if your not in their organisations (ie the unions) and are not in their party (ie the Labour Party)

"I think you&#39;ll Find the SP(a revolutionary party) are already working very hard in the trade unions&#33; You only have to look at the PCS to realise that the unions are moving away from the lying Labour Party and looking for Solace in a Party that actually hears there voice&#33; We have supported endless trade unions and we actually sympathise with their cries of &#39;low pay&#39; and poor working conditions instead of snubbing them like the current Labour Government is&#33;&#33; Our FIVE councillors are doin very well and are listening to the workers&#33;"

What media? The workers consistently turn to Labour, Labour is in parliament, get the fuck out of your dreamy world, and get real. If you want to gain the same platform as the capitalist you must use the same tools, and this includees parliament, unless you wish to start your own soviet, infact, you could have it at your country club just after the cricket, ya bellend.

"Get outta YOUR &#39;dreamy world&#39;&#33;&#33; Why are the workers turning to Labour? When? When they brought in top-up fees? Or when they denied the workers a living wage and a decent health service? Or when THEY sold out to big business in the name of profit? Get a life this capitalist party can never be regained, just as the BNP have Nazi roots the Labour party have Capitalist roots&#33;&#33;"

Ps have a nice day :D

[monkeydust]

Just a few more points:

- I think someone mentioned that Brown&#39;s has strengthened the economy. Well, yes he has in a way, however the vast amounts that Labour have borrowed are what, I feel is propping up this strengthening. Thatcher and Major did much better in my opinion.

-The thing about &#39;the longest suicide note in History&#39; was, if I remember correctly a term actually used by a Labour Shadow cabinet member, I think it was for the 1987 election. I believe it was actually Neil Kinnock not Foot, I may be wrong however.


As much as I distrust and hate the current Labour government, I can&#39;t help but detest the media as well, many on here seem to believe the Myth&#39;s that they put out. For example, Top Up fees, despite being a clearly bad thing (in my opinion) are nowhere near as bad as the Press has made them out to be. Further European co-operation has also been slated by the press for ridiculous reasons. It&#39;s clear the current Labour government aren&#39;t to be trusted, but don&#39;t trust the media either.

I think Guerillaradio claimed all politicians are &#39;spineless liars&#39;, this again, is a myth. Several MP&#39;s, usually not the big names I&#39;ve seen around, or at conferences are still honest, decent people who do have the interests of common good at heart. Don&#39;t forget that nobody goes into politics for the money, unless they&#39;re exceedingly stupid.

[guerrillaradio]

Is Kez Kamo under a new handle??

[Ernestocheguevara]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2004, 06:45 PM



1)As much as I distrust and hate the current Labour government, I can&#39;t help but detest the media as well, many on here seem to believe the Myth&#39;s that they put out. For example, Top Up fees, despite being a clearly bad thing (in my opinion) are nowhere near as bad as the Press has made them out to be. Further European co-operation has also been slated by the press for ridiculous reasons. It&#39;s clear the current Labour government aren&#39;t to be trusted, but don&#39;t trust the media either.

2)I think Guerillaradio claimed all politicians are &#39;spineless liars&#39;, this again, is a myth. Several MP&#39;s, usually not the big names I&#39;ve seen around, or at conferences are still honest, decent people who do have the interests of common good at heart. Don&#39;t forget that nobody goes into politics for the money, unless they&#39;re exceedingly stupid.
1) I don&#39;t get my facts from the lying media&#33; I think they are all scum including the so called &#39;lefty&#39; papers like the Guardian or the Independant.
2) No I agree&#33; Most go in with all good intentions but the draw of ££££&#39;s or &#036;&#036;&#036;&#036;&#39;s is too strong to resist&#33;&#33;

[guerrillaradio]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2004, 06:45 PM
I think Guerillaradio claimed all politicians are &#39;spineless liars&#39;, this again, is a myth. Several MP&#39;s, usually not the big names I&#39;ve seen around, or at conferences are still honest, decent people who do have the interests of common good at heart. Don&#39;t forget that nobody goes into politics for the money, unless they&#39;re exceedingly stupid.
The majority have the intention of following the party line, which is motivated by money. And yes, a politician has to lie. It&#39;s how they win their seat in the first place. Let&#39;s not beat around the bush...

[Voice of the Revolution]

People go into politics for power. It is as simple as that. There are many other occupations which have a much higher financial rewards than politics. The prime minister (of britain) &#39;only&#39; earns 150,000 a year.

[monkeydust]

That&#39;s what I&#39;m saying. Don&#39;t think I disagree with you in general, I merely feel that sometimes politicians get stereotyped by the dregs of the political world.

Voice of the Revolution , I agree that many politicians do go into the profession for power, however I genuinely believe that there are still some who want to do what they consider to be &#39;right&#39;, and to try and do what they feel is best for those they &#39;represent&#39;

Guerillaradio , as much as I agree with you on the fact that many politicians lie, some backbench and opposition Mp&#39;s that I&#39;ve met or seen at conferences genuinely do strike me as honest people. For an example (alebeit a poor one) of someone who is motivated by principals rather than power, look at Robin Cook, he resigned from his post in the Labour cabinet and didn&#39;t vote in favour of top up fees; despite the fact that this lost him much official power in the party. Like you say, the majority have the intention of following the party line, however as we have seen, many are willing to go against this on a basis of principal.

Ernestocheguevara , I never claimed that you got your facts from the media, I apologise if that&#39;s the impression I gave. I still feel however, that many people here will be willing to follow some of the media&#39;s slants indirectly. How? Simply because there&#39;s a strong tendency to listen to others who are influenced by the media, to believe what they say without formulating objective opinions of your own, based on fact. I do it myself sometimes. An example here is the case of top up fees, generally people round the debt figure to £30,00 generalisng it in the case of all circumstances. The truth, as you probably know, is that in most cases it won&#39;t be near that figure, especially as it&#39;s unlikely for people to end up paying it all anyway.


I apologise if I seem a bit confrontational on this issue, I just get a bit annoyed when all politicians are condemned, simply becuase of a minority who truly deserve to be. still, I firmly agree with you opinion that the Labour party (as a whole) deserves criticism due to it&#39;s ideological shift.

[Voice of the Revolution]

Good points, what I meant was that all politicians go into politics for power, some for the power to do what is right.

[Intifada]

power corrupts

[monkeydust]

Originally posted by Voice of the [email protected] 4 2004, 07:30 PM
Good points, what I meant was that all politicians go into politics for power, some for the power to do what is right.
Point taken, I very much agree. :D

[guerrillaradio]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2004, 07:20 PM
Guerillaradio , as much as I agree with you on the fact that many politicians lie, some backbench and opposition Mp&#39;s that I&#39;ve met or seen at conferences genuinely do strike me as honest people. For an example (alebeit a poor one) of someone who is motivated by principals rather than power, look at Robin Cook, he resigned from his post in the Labour cabinet and didn&#39;t vote in favour of top up fees; despite the fact that this lost him much official power in the party. Like you say, the majority have the intention of following the party line, however as we have seen, many are willing to go against this on a basis of principal.
Well yes, politicians are people too, but I sincerely doubt that honest ones exist. Let&#39;s not forget that their aim is to make everyone they meet think that they are honest, hence they have to be quite good at saying the right things. Which would explain your relatively high opinions of your MP acquaintances.

As for Mr Cook, I would love to believe that he&#39;s a genuine person doing everything out of conscience, but after reading Servants of the People by Andrew Rawnsely (Observer editor), I was left feeling that he&#39;s a bitter man who dislikes Blair, Brown and most of his fellow Labour MPs and his actions seem at least partly motivated by that. He was one of Blair&#39;s bright sparks back in 1997 remember, all too happy to kow tow and do whatever would earn him promotion (he dumped his wife in an airport lounge on Campbell&#39;s orders, let&#39;s not forget).

That said, I was glad when he and Short resigned their meagre, pointless roles in the Cabinet.

The top up fees vote and the war vote was won in Commons by Tory MPs voting for it, not Labour. More Labour MPs voted against those ballots than for them.

[guerrillaradio]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2004, 07:38 PM
power corrupts
Aren&#39;t there expressed "rules" (for want of a better word) against posts like these in these forums??

[monkeydust]

The top up fees vote and the war vote was won in Commons by Tory MPs voting for it, not Labour. More Labour MPs voted against those ballots than for them.


I was unaware of this, may I ask where you found this information? I always assumed that no records were taken of who votes what, merely a number counted based on who walks which way in the partition for a vote.

[Intifada]

Aren&#39;t there expressed "rules" (for want of a better word) against posts like these in these forums??

yes, however all i wanted to say was that power corrupts.

[guerrillaradio]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2004, 09:10 PM
The top up fees vote and the war vote was won in Commons by Tory MPs voting for it, not Labour. More Labour MPs voted against those ballots than for them.


I was unaware of this, may I ask where you found this information? I always assumed that no records were taken of who votes what, merely a number counted based on who walks which way in the partition for a vote.
Are you sure that no record is kept?? I can&#39;t vouch for the top up fees vote, but I&#39;m pretty sure I saw a full listing of every MP&#39;s vote in the Telegraph. Something like 90 Labour MPs voted against both this bills.

EDIT: Actually fuck it, take the quote in bold back. I&#39;m tired and talking shit.

[guerrillaradio]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2004, 09:15 PM

Aren&#39;t there expressed "rules" (for want of a better word) against posts like these in these forums??

yes, however all i wanted to say was that power corrupts.
I&#39;d already said that wise guy.

[Invader Zim]

As GR said, all politicians are by definition lying bastards, a good honist politician is by definition an oxymoron. Thus it is practically impossible for the labour party to become leftwing in the consievable future, so on that basis alone I reject Kamo&#39;s argument. But the mair reason I reject it is because a leftwing labour government like the 70&#39;s one would be unelectable in modern society. They implemented some good policies but did not go far enough, and with piss poor policies they went way to far with them. So they smashed the economy, and achieved quite literally bugger all apart from making that witch Thatcher look like a good and viable alternative, to the point where she lasted 12 years.

Way to fuckin go labour.

[Kez]

To the dear Taafite comrade,

Do you even know the history of the LP? you say that Labour has capitalist roots, when in fact it was created as a voice for workers in parliament. The party has been a bourgeois-workers party, even when your glorious leader was in our camp fighting within Labour, could you tell me what fundamental changes were made in 1990 for comrade Taafe to split his 6000 members away, then?

As for Unions, they all their fighting for Labour, thats fact, and they wont join no "socialist party", simple as that.

[Kez]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2004, 10:37 PM
As GR said, all politicians are by definition lying bastards, a good honist politician is by definition an oxymoron. Thus it is practically impossible for the labour party to become leftwing in the consievable future, so on that basis alone I reject Kamo&#39;s argument. But the mair reason I reject it is because a leftwing labour government like the 70&#39;s one would be unelectable in modern society. They implemented some good policies but did not go far enough, and with piss poor policies they went way to far with them. So they smashed the economy, and achieved quite literally bugger all apart from making that witch Thatcher look like a good and viable alternative, to the point where she lasted 12 years.

Way to fuckin go labour.
Whats your point exactly?

What the Labour government should have done was fought more fiercely for its principles, not to change its policy

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by Kez+Feb 4 2004, 10:45 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Kez @ Feb 4 2004, 10:45 PM)
[email protected] 4 2004, 10:37 PM
As GR said, all politicians are by definition lying bastards, a good honist politician is by definition an oxymoron. Thus it is practically impossible for the labour party to become leftwing in the consievable future, so on that basis alone I reject Kamo&#39;s argument. But the mair reason I reject it is because a leftwing labour government like the 70&#39;s one would be unelectable in modern society. They implemented some good policies but did not go far enough, and with piss poor policies they went way to far with them. So they smashed the economy, and achieved quite literally bugger all apart from making that witch Thatcher look like a good and viable alternative, to the point where she lasted 12 years.

Way to fuckin go labour.
Whats your point exactly?

What the Labour government should have done was fought more fiercely for its principles, not to change its policy [/b]
My point is they were shit when they were leftwing, and they are still shit now they are conservative.

Why should we support a shit party, which fails to represent the views which I hold?

[Kez]

what the fuck....

thats the whole point of why we should be getting rid of the shit ie the right wing.

You havent even read the thread, you just wanted to shout out your great slogans, well done

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2004, 10:50 PM
what the fuck....

thats the whole point of why we should be getting rid of the shit ie the right wing.

You havent even read the thread, you just wanted to shout out your great slogans, well done
what the fuck....


Just what I was thinking about your pro-labour views...

thats the whole point of why we should be getting rid of the shit ie the right wing.

Why so we can have a moderatly leftwing capitalist party with about 3 members, who will likley as not cock it up again with their petty half assed marginally leftwing policies which dont nearly forfil the expectations of any self respecting leftist. Admittedly thats better bLiar, but to be honist I would rather have niether.

You havent even read the thread

Well I had read the thread until it became just another platform for the blinded people who still vote labour because they used to be leftwing, and are under the idiotic impression that Labour will just change to their old selves after all this time... sorry but if I wanted to listen to a bunch of shit I would go to *************** and read about the master race, and that shite.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Yes politicians are generally scum, they have to be. Many DO go in with good reasons, but the institution changes them, because as they want to have more of an effect, it rapidly starts becoming one that they didn&#39;t desire to have. The only M.P.&#39;s that do what they think is right, are those that represent their constituency, regardless of their own views, or the parties, because they believe that is why they are there. These people by definition are therefore minor members, and are still not what we are loking for.
(sorry if I am reitterating anything here)
ihatebush: how does power corrupt? An answer longer tahn..it just does would be benificial I am sure.

Kez...apart from general assertion, I have only picked up a few things...


As for Unions, they all their fighting for Labour, thats fact, and they wont join no "socialist party", simple as that.

I can&#39;t work out if you are for, or against labour anymore. Is it for, assuming they become another party?

By the way, we are fighting against shit (at least I am) from the left and right wing political spectrum. There is no point in replacing shit from the right with shit from the left, because that is even harder to fight against. What do we tell the workers then? Rise up against these bureaucratic egalitarian fuckheads? :unsure:

[Kez]

Enigma,
because u didnt read the thread, u didnt know why im a labour party member, im a member because of what they hold, not their historical policies. i dont have time for people who dont even read the context of the question b4 being loud mouth twats.

Comrade Hegem,
I am for marxists to enter Labour party and be next to the workers, i cudnt give a flying fuck about the Labour party per ce, what im saying is thats where workers are, therefore we shouldnt be fighting the party the workers are in.
Very importantly the unions are with Labour, so we must obviously be with unions if we want revolution

[guerrillaradio]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2004, 10:37 PM
As GR said, all politicians are by definition lying bastards, a good honist politician is by definition an oxymoron. Thus it is practically impossible for the labour party to become leftwing in the consievable future, so on that basis alone I reject Kamo&#39;s argument. But the mair reason I reject it is because a leftwing labour government like the 70&#39;s one would be unelectable in modern society. They implemented some good policies but did not go far enough, and with piss poor policies they went way to far with them. So they smashed the economy, and achieved quite literally bugger all apart from making that witch Thatcher look like a good and viable alternative, to the point where she lasted 12 years.

Way to fuckin go labour.
Forget about Labour. It&#39;s a lost cause. They sucked when they were pseudo-left in the 70s/80s and they suck now. An "elected" party won&#39;t do shit for us. As Enigma (I think) says, they don&#39;t have any moral policies, they merely jumped on populist causes and ideas as an opposition party and now as government, they&#39;re the Tories all over again.

I don&#39;t understand why we&#39;re even debating this. We need to go further to the left to find people who will speak for us, or even better, speak for yourselves&#33;&#33;

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2004, 12:17 AM

Comrade Hegem,
I am for marxists to enter Labour party and be next to the workers, i cudnt give a flying fuck about the Labour party per ce, what im saying is thats where workers are, therefore we shouldnt be fighting the party the workers are in.
Very importantly the unions are with Labour, so we must obviously be with unions if we want revolution
That I can understand :). I agree with you somewhat, and it was because I didn&#39;t know what you meant I was saying it wouldn&#39;t work. No new party is going to make a massive impact immediately, and therefore it would be better if we could reclaim the Labour party for the workers.

Union support would be fundamental for a revolution. However I think that they would have to be strengthened first. The only disagreement I guess we now have is that I still don&#39;t think that a far left labour party will succeed, until the electorate are ready for it. The gap between Conservative and Labour is shrinking not growing, and while there are swing seats we can&#39;t be too optimistic. There are some voters who will vote Labour regardless, and they can be used. There are the oppressed who can become politically active and they can be used. There are the wealthy who can fuck off, although I am sure some anarcho-bourgeois throwbacks will probably vote left anyway. Then there are the middle-classes, and although we would not require all, we would require quit a bit of their support.

I still say that the circumstances would have to be right, i.e. they (the middle-classes) would have to be willing to vote left, before Labour can really think about changing. I also think that the support we could gain from non-voters is best done, initially, outside of the ballot box and electoral campaign.

[Ernestocheguevara]

Surely you&#39;ve been trying to &#39;reclaim&#39; this retched party for the past 20years&#33;&#33;&#33; It ain&#39;t gonna happen&#33;

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2004, 05:46 PM
Surely you&#39;ve been trying to &#39;reclaim&#39; this retched party for the past 20years&#33;&#33;&#33; It ain&#39;t gonna happen&#33;
Not necessarily. From socialist, Marxist ideas, to Keynesian more centre left ideas...then to neo clacisism. It would not surprise me if they became classic, laissez faire liberals. Key factor in the changes...was it it political belief and morality? No because that won&#39;t get you a job...winning votes will.

I would say they stand for their times, they are a main party and want power....it is the electorate that makes the party not the other way around.

[Kez]

The only reason Labour turned right was because of COMPLETE lack of activity in the unions, when the unions did fuck all, and just sucked the bosses dicks.

Now this is not the case, and as a bottom-up party, we can begin to see the reflection in the party now.

Ernesto,
you know your leader was part of those struggling inside that "wretched party"?

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2004, 06:59 PM
The only reason Labour turned right was because of COMPLETE lack of activity in the unions, when the unions did fuck all, and just sucked the bosses dicks.

Now this is not the case, and as a bottom-up party, we can begin to see the reflection in the party now.


I would not say that the Unions are the only reason that they turned right, although their apathy and inactivity allowed this turn. It is simple they turned for votes, because when you are not in power you can&#39;t do anything.

However whoever said power corrupts is correct. Labour have been changed by their change, I know it sounds stupid...but it is true. I am not sure if they would risk losing their role as a dominant party, no matter what. The party line is still the same. The hope we have got though is taht the whipping system appears to be failing, and dissenters are increasingly acting on grounds of conscience. Just have to hope that there is a large rebellion on policies.

[BOZG]

power corrupts

Unquestionable, the point however is to prevent that power from ever coming to the hands of a small group of people. At a point where you could actually have a group of socialist politicians strong enough to actually run society and maintain a government, consciousness would be at a revolutionary point, in turn smashing bourgeois parliamentarianism and preventing power from corrupting.



Damn these Grantite bastards, they’re everywhere :D But seriously comrade Grant deserves great respect for what he has done in his lifetime and even to what he does now. There is no doubt that this man dedicated his life to revolutionary struggle and I do have great respect for the comrades who maintain their struggle within the Labour Party though I do think they’re misdirecting their energies.




The party has been a bourgeois-workers party, even when your glorious leader was in our camp fighting within Labour, could you tell me what fundamental changes were made in 1990 for comrade Taafe to split his 6000 members away, then?

Split??? If you knew your history of the LP, you’d know that Militant members were EXPELLED. That incident signified the smashing of the left within the Labour Party and a complete turn to supporting capitalism. This was the end of the Labour Party being a bourgeois-workers party and the taking of a pure capitalist ideology. And stop taking the fucking patronising, childish “glorious leader” approach.




As for Unions, they all their fighting for Labour, thats fact, and they wont join no "socialist party", simple as that.

You and I both know how right-wing the majority of union leaders are. Of course they won’t fight for a new workers’ party, it’s not in their interests. There have also been major discussions with many unions about disaffiliation from the Labour Party or at least an end to providing funds. You know why they won’t join the SP because the SP has for one never called for the unions to affiliate to the SP, we’ve put forward the position that they should launch a new workers’ party. And Kamo, don’t try and take it that I’m trying to portray that if the SP calls, the Unions follow.

It’s also interesting to note that private individuals contribute more than the Unions to Labour these days.




I think many middle class comrades should go into the estates and see who workers turn to.

I’ve been in many, many estates Kamo and the SP in Ireland takes the same position on the LP as it our British section does and I’ve never come across a person who actually thinks the Labour Party has any future with workers. The majority of people I talk to, who do not support the traditional capitalist parties, give their support to Independants and other “anti-establishment” parties.


I’m not going to go on and on about the argument for a new workers’ party by the SP. If anyone is interested I would suggest going to http://www.socialistparty.org.uk and searching for the pamphlet “Resisting Capitalism – The Case For A New Workers’ Party”.



As for the references of the Parties seeking to take power. I do not deny this and I think anybody who does, is completely disillusioned. But what’s important is in what context and in whose benefit does any party seek to take power. For the vanguard party, previous events have shown that it has been this party which has taken power but that does not always have to be the case.

[Kez]

BOZG,
thanks for mature response, seems the at least some of the culture of the militants discussion remains in the SP which is good.

"Split??? If you knew your history of the LP, you’d know that Militant members were EXPELLED. That incident signified the smashing of the left within the Labour Party and a complete turn to supporting capitalism. This was the end of the Labour Party being a bourgeois-workers party and the taking of a pure capitalist ideology. And stop taking the fucking patronising, childish “glorious leader” approach."

-Comrade BOZG, 100-150 militant members were actually expelled, from this discussions came, and Militant became Militant Labour Party, which then became the Socialist Party. They were 6000, now they are 1000
-Those left in Labour (ie us) became Socialist Appeal

"You and I both know how right-wing the majority of union leaders are. Of course they won’t fight for a new workers’ party, it’s not in their interests. There have also been major discussions with many unions about disaffiliation from the Labour Party or at least an end to providing funds. You know why they won’t join the SP because the SP has for one never called for the unions to affiliate to the SP, we’ve put forward the position that they should launch a new workers’ party. And Kamo, don’t try and take it that I’m trying to portray that if the SP calls, the Unions follow."

- Hooold up comrade, please have a look at the union leadership shift in the last 18 months, the majority of the "Sir" bastards have gone, and all the ones in major parties have gone more importantly. Tony Woodley, i keep using his example, has explicitly said he wants a "Socialist Britain" see his opening speech for complete reading. He has called for reclaiming of Labour with the T&G
-RMT Boss Crow, the mad head he is, even he has shiftedd back to calling for reclaiming Labour.

"It’s also interesting to note that private individuals contribute more than the Unions to Labour these days."
-According to the Times (scum paper) most of the tory supporters are now going back to Conservatives to back, i mean the major millionair backers, this only makes it easier for unions to increase pressure, and polarises parties furthermore

"I’ve been in many, many estates Kamo and the SP in Ireland takes the same position on the LP as it our British section does and I’ve never come across a person who actually thinks the Labour Party has any future with workers. The majority of people I talk to, who do not support the traditional capitalist parties, give their support to Independants and other “anti-establishment” parties."
-I hear the Irish LP is much different to British, and from what i know doesnt have the links with the unions as the Brtish LP does. If i were in Ireland i would be with u supporting the SP, i think they have best stance there at the moment, so as far as Ireland goes, im with u lot comrade.

I look forward to your reply BOZG,
yours fraternally

[Ernestocheguevara]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2004, 06:59 PM
The only reason Labour turned right was because of COMPLETE lack of activity in the unions, when the unions did fuck all, and just sucked the bosses dicks.

Now this is not the case, and as a bottom-up party, we can begin to see the reflection in the party now.

Ernesto,
you know your leader was part of those struggling inside that "wretched party"?
which Yes Tamo/Kez and he was sensible enough at the time when Labour began heading in the wrong direction to take his expulsion and go instead of appealing.

Interesting you should mention Bob Crow and the RMT because I heard today that the LP is ready to disaffliate and that Bob Crow said, and I quote, "There is not one Labour Policy I can say I agree with"
In the past YES the workers have turned to Labour but they have only been burnt and I think they are just too pissed off with Labour to ever want to turn to them again. I can see so many workers now turning to the Tories :( which is BAD especially since Micheal Howard took over and I can see them playing the old race card when it comes election time and telling workers they will &#39;deal&#39; with the asylum issue and bang more petty criminals in jail instead of trying to rehablitate, and promising more funds for this and that and then they will simply fall back into there old ways&#33;

I only think that the LP can&#39;t be regained simply because there policies, not just Blair&#39;s, do not represent the working class and what they need, you&#39;d have to turf out most of the party to gain any ground&#33; Those who support the LP at the mo must be like minded individuals who think the war was a good thing and not a bunch of lies like it actually was. And must support Blair hugely&#33; Even if we did take turf out the &#39;bad apples&#39; whose gonna take over? The 100 or so members of SA? You say we have few members (nearer 2000 actually) but you have even less.

[BOZG]

Comrade BOZG, 100-150 militant members were actually expelled, from this discussions came, and Militant became Militant Labour Party, which then became the Socialist Party. They were 6000, now they are 1000


Yes I know that only a small number were actually expelled but the expulsions represented far more than just figures. Actually the membership figures of the England/Wales section is nearer to the 2500+ mark. Most socialist parties seen a decline in their membership in the 80s and 90s.



Tony Woodley, i keep using his example, has explicitly said he wants a "Socialist Britain" see his opening speech for complete reading

I did read it and it seems quite radical but if you go to that thread you can read some of my problems with Woodley.




-According to the Times (scum paper) most of the tory supporters are now going back to Conservatives to back, i mean the major millionair backers, this only makes it easier for unions to increase pressure, and polarises parties furthermore


I have not read that so I can&#39;t comment on it. I think it&#39;s important to note the changes in the structures of the Labour Party which has reduced the strength of the Unions and constituency branches in influencing LP policy.




I hear the Irish LP is much different to British, and from what i know doesnt have the links with the unions as the Brtish LP does. Generally a correct statement though the unions would officially orientate towards the LP. The differences between both parties are different for the time being but there&#39;s definately a "New Labourish" shift.

[Kez]

"which Yes Tamo/Kez and he was sensible enough at the time when Labour began heading in the wrong direction to take his expulsion and go instead of appealing."
-But there was no qualititive change for him to change his position, his only reason was that of complete idiocy.

"Interesting you should mention Bob Crow and the RMT because I heard today that the LP is ready to disaffliate and that Bob Crow said, and I quote, "There is not one Labour Policy I can say I agree with""
- The Unions told Crow to put the funds back into Labour or get out, Crow said fuck you to Labour, the other unions, and his members. His members have no voice in Parliament, no voice in Labour. 80,000 workers now can influence no-body. Nice move Crow. The worse part is now constituency unions can indicidually funds Greens, Liberals, Plaid Cymru all at the same time&#33; which one party represents them? No one

"In the past YES the workers have turned to Labour but they have only been burnt and I think they are just too pissed off with Labour to ever want to turn to them again. I can see so many workers now turning to the Tories which is BAD especially since Micheal Howard took over and I can see them playing the old race card when it comes election time and telling workers they will &#39;deal&#39; with the asylum issue and bang more petty criminals in jail instead of trying to rehablitate, and promising more funds for this and that and then they will simply fall back into there old ways&#33;"
The workers have only been burnt by the right wing of the party, which was for a time smashed when the SDP prats left, was the NHS a move which burnt workers? or was it the Welfare state?

"I only think that the LP can&#39;t be regained simply because there policies, not just Blair&#39;s, do not represent the working class and what they need, you&#39;d have to turf out most of the party to gain any ground&#33; Those who support the LP at the mo must be like minded individuals who think the war was a good thing and not a bunch of lies like it actually was. And must support Blair hugely&#33; Even if we did take turf out the &#39;bad apples&#39; whose gonna take over? The 100 or so members of SA? You say we have few members (nearer 2000 actually) but you have even less. "
-You seem to overlook the fact the unions ARE the labour party, its not just 300 MP&#39;s or whatever.
-I dont think youve ever been to a local Labour constituency meeting, they are not in agreeance with Blair, and i dont know what source u use to say they are the same as Blair.
-As for the numbers, sigh, firstly, my source was a SP member, it doesnt concern me anyway, its not even numbers that concern me, but quality. The bolsheviks had 1000 comrades in Feb 1917, by November they won the revolution and had 8000 comrades, we&#39;ll wait till november yea Ernesto? See what SP is upto then.

[Ernestocheguevara]

we&#39;ll wait till november yea Ernesto? See what SP is upto then.

-- Yea, okay, and will see how much more the LP can F##k the country up by then huh?

was the NHS a move which burnt workers? or was it the Welfare state?

Yeah the NHS rules, "any more room in the corridor sister? We have an emergency coming in&#33;&#33;"

Welfare state? It does nothing for those who really need it&#33; It needs seriously overhauling to stop lazy people who can gain more money by sitting on their asses instead of working, of course that has alot more to do with the shit wages in this country, something else LP is doing nothing about, minimum wage my ass&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;

[Ernestocheguevara]

and i dont know what source u use to say they are the same as Blair.

If they&#39;re still pumping money into the party (as members they will be) they are still supporting him. If they are putting money into the party and are in disagreement with him they are Hypocrits&#33;&#33;

[Kez]

well i pay Labour (my party), somehow i dont think im a blairite. Like i sed, go to grassroots meetings to see feeling and how isolated Blair has got in last 18 months

As for NHS, i think u seem to have overlooked 18 years of Tory rule under Thatcher/Major as a factor to a shitter NHS, but u go ahead and overlook that so it fits in with the party line ey?

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2004, 09:15 PM
well i pay Labour (my party), somehow i dont think im a blairite. Like i sed, go to grassroots meetings to see feeling and how isolated Blair has got in last 18 months

As for NHS, i think u seem to have overlooked 18 years of Tory rule under Thatcher/Major as a factor to a shitter NHS, but u go ahead and overlook that so it fits in with the party line ey?
Conservatives are to blame for a lot, but the policies are simply rebranded and furthered under labour..

[Kez]

Hege,
i agree, but only till Blair is there, thats why the unions, the most effective institution of the working class must smash the motherless prostitute of the capitalists, not shy away, Labour party is our party, send blair out.