Socialist Workers Party...

[The Feral Underclass]

I read the article about March 19th in their Socialist Worker and I was [slightly] surprised to discover that they aren't even trying to be revolutionary anymore. They have swapped revolutionary rhetoric for bourgeois reformist bullshit. They're moving further and further to the right every day...Good riddance in my opinion


Up to 200,000 people from across Britain marched through the streets of central London this Saturday 19 March to mark two years since the invasion of Iraq.

The march went past the US embassy where members of Military Families Against the War laid a coffin to remember all the dead caused by the war and a two minute silence was held.

The huge size of the protest showed the level of anger at the occupation of Iraq, attacks on civil liberties and George Bush’s threats against Syria and Iran. It also showed the vibrancy and determination of the anti-war movement.

Salma Yaqoob, from the Birmingham Stop the War Coalition, told the rally in Trafalgar Square, “I stand here with confidence because we have built the biggest movement which says that what unites us is more important than what divides us.

“The ‘war on terror’ is a war of terror. There is the economic terrorism killing 30,000 children a day. Let’s continue our fight to make war and poverty history.

Paul Mackney, the general secretary of the Natfhe lecturers union, said, “The TUC which represents seven million people has a policy to support a speedy withdrawal of troops from Iraq.

“The government says it acts in the name of human rights and for democracy — tell them that in Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib and Belmarsh.

“Blair, if you want to win this election, you need to get out of Iraq — you need to allow the Iraqi people to rule themselves. You need to abolish top up fees, renationalise the railways, fund pensions and support justice for Palestine.

“We have to be prepared to keep going on demonstrations like this until the troops get out of Iraq.”

Tony Benn said, “This is a peace movement on a global scale, 99 percent of the people in the world support the aims of this movement.

“The war in Iraq was illegal. America and Britain broke international law. This was not only an illegal war, it was an immoral war, with 100,000 Iraqis dead, with Fallujah destroyed and with Iraqis tortured.

We are the first generation in history who could destroy the human race — and we are also the first generation who are able, who have the resources to solve the problems of the world.”

Billy Hayes, the general secretary of the CWU postal and telecoms union, said, “What a great day, after two years of an unjust war to see 200,000 people demonstrate.

“The government treated you, the British people and the world like fools. But you refused to be fooled.

“Despite the election in Iraq the occupation will continue unless we oppose it. Many people say we should put Iraq behind us, but we will not put Iraq behind us until we see the back of the last US or British tank leaving Iraq.

“Lets keep campaigning. Troops out!”

Lindsey German, the convenor of the Stop the War Coalition, said, “Bush has said that the Syrian troops need to leave, that free and fair elections are not possible under foreign occupation. If that is right then US and UK troops get out.

“Blair has said that Iraq is not an issue for this election. Why not? If they are proud of what they have done, why not campaign on the issue?

“In July the murderers of the world will gather in Scotland for the G8. I hope to see everyone at the Make Poverty History demo.”

There was a deep feeling that people should use the expected general election to punish Tony Blair.

Tariq Ali, the activist and writer, said to huge cheers, “It’s no good simply marching. We need to get together and get the warmongering MPs out.

“We need to support those who voted against the war. We have to make sure that George Galloway MP gets back into parliament.

“If you don’t want to see Blair’s ghastly, triumphant face after the election make sure every MP is confronted over the issue of the war and make this a political campaign.”

George Galloway, the Respect MP, said, “Any US attack on any country will be opposed around the world.

“Every marcher should ask their MP whether they voted to kill 100,000 in Iraq and do they refuse to support immediate troop withdrawal.

“If the answer to those questions is yes, you must punish them at the ballot box. If they don’t pay for the crimes as big as this, why should they stop doing it? We should march and protest, but it is meaningless unless we vote in overwhelming numbers to clear out the warmongers in Downing Street and their puppets in Westminster.”

http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/article.p...article_id=6087 (http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/article.php4?article_id=6087)

[BOZG]

One of their leading members in Ireland, Kieran Allen, spoke at the platform at the M19 demo and actually said that we must support all forms of resistance in Iraq and that the nature of the occupation defined the nature of the resistance. And this isn't the first time that the leadership has given "hidden" support and commendation to suicide bombings and Islamic reaction. Previously at an anti-war forum a few weeks ago, another leading member, Rory Hearne, the editor of their paper, claimed that we should not call for a socialist resistance movement and that we should cease "telling the Iraqis how to wage their struggle".

Their March 19th special supplement to their newspaper, does not mention socialism or the need to build a socialist alternative to war, nor does it even point the finger at capitalism as the root cause of imperialist wars and rivalries. At its very best, which isn't much, the supplement rants about the need to build a movement based on "people power" rather than the power of the working class. Their newspaper article goes so far as to say that "with millions on the streets we can make sure OUR leaders cannot attack Iran or Syria without facing regime change at home". Since when do "revolutionary socialists" consider the native bourgeoisie, "our" leaders? If we shout loud enough maybe your beloved bourgeoisie will listen to us, eh. And not even lip service to working class action.

Their leaflet for the day is slightly better, but still remains quite liberal with vague references to the need for the working class to take action against "imperialism and neo-liberalism" but doesn't bother to directly attack capitalism with a minor reference for having an organised party that sees a "socialist society" as an absolute necessity.

In an article pointing out how the Socialist Environment Alliance, of which the SWP is a part, is standing in the elections in Northern Ireland in May, it raises the idea that the mainstream parties of Northern politics see themselves as the "local managers of capitalism" but not once argues for a socialist alternative in the North, either in response to secterianism nor to capitalism.

At the same as criticising Sinn Féin for "a pro-business agenda" and wanting to maintain their position in the establishment, a leaflet they handed out about a discussion between themselves ends with a paragraph detailing how they wish to build trust amongst the left and identify common goals to build "another world"? "Another world" with a party that they've labeled as "pro-big business" and "managers of capitalism".

[Severian]

To be expected; like a growing number of left parties they don't know what they're for and will be increasingly driven solely by what they're against.

If they want to "punish Blair" in the general election...Blair is mostly running against the Tories and Liberal Democrats there, right? Is this an argument that would logically lead people to vote Tory or Liberal Democrat

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2005, 09:04 PM
? Is this an argument that would logically lead people to vote Tory or Liberal Democrat
They are trying to gain electoral support for the RESPECT coalition, of which George Galloway is leader.

[Severian]

OK. Thanks. Still a crappy reason to vote for anyone; they can't come up with a positive reason based on whaever RESPECT stand for (if anything) apparently. And of course prioritizing electoralism over mass action: "It's no good simply marching."

I did a little looking around...and it turns out even the CPGB (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/565/galloway.htm) is criticizing the SWP from the left. You're in bad shape when that happens.

RESPECT doesn't look like a working-class or socialist party in any meaningful sense beyond lip-service; more of a formless "radical" and "antiwar" party....somewhat like the middle-class Nader campaign in the U.S.

Which has been supported by the Brit SWP's US equivalent, the International Socialist Organization. Among other left groups.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Anybody remember when the SWP/ISO/IS represented the Ultra-Left and criticized the Soviet Union as State-Capitalist, and called for serious socialism from below?
I'm too young, but I imagine it might have been kinda cool. Now, at best, they're telling me to vote NDP. Ug.

On a related note, what's the deal with the American SWP, and how did they move from Trotskyism, their reason d'etre, to endorsing Socialism in One Country under Jack Barnes? OMGWTF?

[Severian]

Originally posted by Virgin Molotov [email protected] 23 2005, 05:01 AM
On a related note, what's the deal with the American SWP, and how did they move from Trotskyism, their reason d'etre, to endorsing Socialism in One Country under Jack Barnes? OMGWTF?
When, exactly, did the SWP (US) endorse socialism in one country? Or are you another prat spouting off about things you know nothing about?

[BOZG]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2005, 10:26 AM
I did a little looking around...and it turns out even the CPGB (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/565/galloway.htm) is criticizing the SWP from the left. You're in bad shape when that happens.

Even the Sparts over here are shocked at how horribly degenerative the SWP have become. Another of their leadership, Bríd Smith, declared that she was attending an anti-war conference to defend Irish neutrality and nothing more.

[BOZG]

On the point about Nader, I don't think you can really compare his campaign to that of RESPECT. Objectively you could possibly, but when you take into account the differences of consciousness and openness that exist in Britain, it's on an entirely lower level.

[YKTMX]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2005, 11:12 AM

When, exactly, did the SWP (US) endorse socialism in one country? Or are you another prat spouting off about things you know nothing about?



Oh, the irony. Let's see what Severian knows "nothing about".


OK. Thanks. Still a crappy reason to vote for anyone; they can't come up with a positive reason based on whaever RESPECT stand for (if anything) apparently

So, voting against mass slaughter and imperialism is a "crappy reason" is it? Voting for "peace" and "justice" is incredibly "positive", yes?


I did a little looking around...and it turns out even the CPGB is criticizing the SWP from the left. You're in bad shape when that happens.



The CPGB has no credibility. They're a rubbish little sect who spend expend every breath attacking the "left". They couldn't sound credible if they were attacking Pinochet "from the left".


RESPECT doesn't look like a working-class or socialist party in any meaningful sense beyond lip-service; more of a formless "radical" and "antiwar" party....somewhat like the middle-class Nader campaign in the U.S.


The aim of Respect is to give anti-war, annoyed Labour voters a voice in general election. Once again, it's not intended to be the Bolsheviks re-incarnate, so criticising it from that POV is totally meaningless.


I really snigger at all the "revolutionaries" who do nothing but partake in their own insignificant activities and if any movement ever comes along all they do is snigger and snipe. For example, see TAT's attitude to the ESF.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2005, 06:55 PM
So, voting against mass slaughter and imperialism is a "crappy reason" is it? Voting for "peace" and "justice" is incredibly "positive", yes?
Voting isn't going to change any of that, not even if, by some grace of the unknown George Galloway manages to become Prime Minister.

Voting for RESPECT is not going to bring about justice or peace, socialism or an end to the occupation of Iraq.


I really snigger at all the "revolutionaries" who do nothing but partake in their own insignificant activities and if any movement ever comes along all they do is snigger and snipe.

Because voting for RESPECT is what real revolutionaries do!

I don't see any sniggering or sniping going on here. The SWP have dropped revolutionary rhetoric in favour of reformism, not only in language but in actual policy.

The only thing left is for them to form an alliance with a reactionary religious organisation which is pro-life, homophobic, sexist and a supporter of the present economic system...oh wait, they already did.....

[YKTMX]

Voting for RESPECT is not going to bring about justice or peace, socialism or an end to the occupation of Iraq.


Spanish troops were brought out after a anti-war government came into power. Anyway, I said an anti-war was vote was "positive", nothing more.


The SWP have dropped revolutionary rhetoric in favour of reformism, not only in language but in actual policy.


Respect is reformist, I've accepted that. The SWP is a seperate entity, Respect is a COALITION. Anyone who reads the Workers knows that socialist politics is still central to the SWP.


The only thing left is for them to form an alliance with a reactionary religious organisation which is pro-life, homophobic, sexist and a supporter of the present economic system...oh wait, they already did.....

Hilarious.

A bit of Islamaphobia as well eh, TAT? The MAB represents lots of Muslims who are anrgy about the war. No one has to apologise for uniting with them.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Virgin Molotov [email protected] 23 2005, 12:01 PM
Anybody remember when the SWP/ISO/IS represented the Ultra-Left and criticized the Soviet Union as State-Capitalist, and called for serious socialism from below?
I'm too young, but I imagine it might have been kinda cool. Now, at best, they're telling me to vote NDP. Ug.
When I first joined the SWP back in 1997 at the tender age of 14, there was real radical presence. We had branch meetings with discussion, which I don't think exist anymore and which I think are an important part of being involved in a revolutionary socialist organsation.

I remember going to marxism and talking with Luxemburgists (council communists in Brighton were formally expelled in the late 90's) who were in the SWP and there was a real militant feeling

Then Tony Cliff died and John Rees suddenly started talking about moving out of the Scargill years, which apparently meant what the SWP has now become. Thank god I found the light!

[BOZG]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2005, 06:25 PM
Respect is reformist, I've accepted that. The SWP is a seperate entity, Respect is a COALITION. Anyone who reads the Workers knows that socialist politics is still central to the SWP.


The only thing left is for them to form an alliance with a reactionary religious organisation which is pro-life, homophobic, sexist and a supporter of the present economic system...oh wait, they already did.....

Hilarious.

A bit of Islamaphobia as well eh, TAT? The MAB represents lots of Muslims who are anrgy about the war. No one has to apologise for uniting with them.
From what I've been reading, socialist politics are apparently nothing but lip service, to take a back seat to the almighty "movement".


Are you claiming that the MAB and Islam itself (like any religion) does not have reactionary positions? The MAB is very clearly, sexist, homophobic and in no way a socialist organisation. How is pointing this out Islamophobic? It's stating what the MAB stands for quite clearly.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2005, 07:25 PM
Respect is reformist, I've accepted that. The SWP is a seperate entity, Respect is a COALITION. Anyone who reads the Workers knows that socialist politics is still central to the SWP.
What kind of socialist politics?


A bit of Islamaphobia as well eh, TAT?

Not on a personal level, But I have absolutly nothing but contempt for their religion. Just with all religion.

And the MAB is homophobic, sexist and reactionary in every sense. I don't think the SWP need to apologise, I'm sure they don't feel any remorse for their actions; they're the SWP.

[YKTMX]

From what I've been reading, socialist politics are apparently nothing but lip service, to take a back seat to the almighty "movement

Respect (http://www.respectcoalition.org/)

Look for yourself.



Are you claiming that the MAB and Islam itself (like any religion) does not have reactionary positions?

Of course not. The question is not whether the MAB is reactionery or not, the question is whether you want to offer a viable electoral alternative to imperialism, racism and neo-liberalism. TAT thinks not, I think yes.


It's stating what the MAB stands for quite clearly.


Maybe so, I mean I'm not sure whether the MAB is as monolithic as you suggest. I'm quite sure abortion and women's rights are things we would disagree on.

The reason its Islamaphobic is because "Islam" is viewed as more reactionery than "western religions". For instance, I didn't here anyone complaining when we worked with Tony Benn in the STWC. Tony is a Chrisitian, I mean doesn't the bible say homosexuality is a sin and that slavery for "victors" is allowed?

That's were the hypocrisy comes in. You all immediately assume, "oh, Muslims, they must be horrible!"

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2005, 11:02 AM
On the point about Nader, I don't think you can really compare his campaign to that of RESPECT. Objectively you could possibly, but when you take into account the differences of consciousness and openness that exist in Britain, it's on an entirely lower level.
You mean that RESPECT is on an even lower level than Nader? That's pretty bad then: Nader's whole campaign was aimed at pushing the Democratic Party to the left (as maybe RESPECT is re the Labor Party - "punishing" Blair?) is full of economic nationalist stuff about keeping "our jobs" from going to Mexico....and Nader gave an interview to Patrick Buchanan, America's version of LePen, for Buchanan's magazine, in which Buchanan gave him quite friendly treatment based on their common economic nationalist positions.

Here's the interview on Nader's site - (http://www.votenader.org/why_ralph/index.php?cid=73) in an interview with a notorious anti-Semite, he starts out by saying the U.S. government in "subservient" to Israel.

And here's a Buchananite libertarian, Justin Raimundo of antiwar.com, writing that Nader sounds to him like a man of the Old Right. (http://www.amconmag.com/2004_11_08/cover2.html)

Even if it was a "better" or more consistenly left middle-class campagin, of course supporting Nader would still be an abandonment of working-class political independence.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2005, 11:55 AM
Oh, the irony. Let's see what Severian knows "nothing about".
I bothered to read some Socialist Worker articles, and the RESPECT site, and comment on what I saw there, not preconceptions.

If VMC bothered to do the same with some Militant articles......he wouldn't be such an annoying prat.



So, voting against mass slaughter and imperialism is a "crappy reason" is it?
Voting to "punish Blair" - the repeatedly stated reason in the Socialist Worker article posted in this thread - is a crappy reason. No better than the motivations of the "anybody but Bush" people.

It's not who you're against, it's what you're for.


Voting for "peace" and "justice" is incredibly "positive", yes?

I'm not aware of anybody, including Bush and Blair, who don't say they're for peace and justice. That's so vague as to be meaningless.

And nowhere else have you been able to clarify exactly what RESPECT is for.


The CPGB has no credibility. They're a rubbish little sect who spend expend every breath attacking the "left". They couldn't sound credible if they were attacking Pinochet "from the left".

I won't argue with that...but if even that pathetic remnant of Stalinism is to your left, you've moved pretty far right.

Size doesn't define a sect. "The sect sees the justification for its existence and its "point of honour"--not in what it has in common with the class movement but in the particular shibboleth which distinguishes it from it." From Marx's letter to Schweitzer, head of the rather large Lassalean sect. (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1868/letters/68_10_13-abs.htm)

So is RESPECT a class movement....or a shibboleth? Or perhaps merely a means of advancing the organizational interests of the British SWP - recruitment and so forth?

(I might comment the redudant phrase "socialism from below", as well as the "state capitalist" theory, were long ago turned into such shibboleths by the British SWP/ISO/etc its international tendency.)


The aim of Respect is to give anti-war, annoyed Labour voters a voice in general election. Once again, it's not intended to be the Bolsheviks re-incarnate, so criticising it from that POV is totally meaningless.

Duh. But is it any kind of working-class party? That's kinda a principle, y'know. Marxist, not just Bolshevik.

What's evident here is you're not even giving lip service any kind of class-based basis for deciding your actions. Nothing explaining how you hope supporting RESPECT will increase the class consciousness and organization of working people.

Which is the only reason communists do anything.

But perhaps you, and the British SWP, are so far from that kind of criteria that indeed "criticising it from that POV is totally meaningless."

Instead, the motivation is to "give antiwar, annoyed Labour voters a voice" and to "punish Blair". Which really seems to imply an effort to affect the Labour party, get it to repent its sins.

And an electoral campaign does not a "movement" make...but to Tariq Ali, at least, mass action is less important than voting. You haven't said where you, or the SWP, stand on that.

I might comment as well that there are different criteria for who one unites with for a street action, and who one supports in an electoral campaign. A demonstration can be single-issue, and unite everyone who agrees on that one issue, but an electoral campaign is necessarily multi-issue, so...you end up supporting reactionary positions on a lot of issues. As we see in this example.

[YKTMX]

No better than the motivations of the "anybody but Bush" people.


False. It's not "anybody but Blair", it's a vote for a Socialist anti-war party. Kerry wasn't a meaningful alternative, that was the big flaw in the ABB campaign.


It's not who you're against, it's what you're for.


From Respect website:

Peace, Equality, Socialism, Enviroment, Trade Unionism.


I'm not aware of anybody, including Bush and Blair, who don't say they're for peace and justice. That's so vague as to be meaningless.


To use Christoper Hitchens' favourite word: "casuistry"! :lol:

When Blair and Bush go for "peace" while levelling Iraq and "justice" while endorsing Sharon, it is meaningless. Presumably you can see the distinction?


And nowhere else have you been able to clarify exactly what RESPECT is for.


Go to the website and look.


I won't argue with that...but if even that pathetic remnant of Stalinism is to your left, you've moved pretty far right.


Not really. The CPGB exists to pester the SWP, that is their sole function. I read the Weekly Worker online and apart from being shit, it is dull - week after week of exploring the SWP's "crisis". The reason they criticise the SWP from the left is not out of any principles they hold, it's just pure sectarianism.


So is RESPECT a class movement....or a shibboleth?

Actually, the CPGB "critically supports Respect". The issue of the day is war and we're building a broad socialist anti-war alternative. I know this sounds like obscene class colloboration to some but I don't really care. The sects and the Anarchists have been attacking the SWP for ages - it's nothing new or particuarly interesting.

Trust me, when you go to Marxism every year and see all these groups come out and attack us for being everything from "supporters of Imperialism" (because we supported Ken Livingston in the Mayoral elections, you understand) to "undemocratic Leninists", then you to would get immune to it.


Or perhaps merely a means of advancing the organizational interests of the British SWP - recruitment and so forth?



God forbid that a Marxist party actually tries to get some members. :o

What's the world coming to?


Nothing explaining how you hope supporting RESPECT will increase the class consciousness and organization of working people.


I would hope that a socialist, anti-war, pro-union, anti-privatization, anti-globalisation and pro-enviroment party would raise class consciousness.

[Prol]

I dont understand why you were suprised anarchist tension. I've know this for a very long time.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Look, I'm just going by what I read in the Wikipedia article on the American SWP, and what I've heard from other sources. a) The goddamn paper doesn't lay out their position in full every issue and b) I don't live in the United States, so my interest in the SWP doesn't extend much beyond what's covered in the Wikipedia article. If you'd like to correct what you seem to think are errors in that article, then do so . . . but I am legitimately curious.

[Prol]

I can only speak for the SWP in England but im sure they are just as crap world wide.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 05:10 PM
I can only speak for the SWP in England but im sure they are just as crap world wide.
Are you a member of an organisation in the UK?

[BOZG]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 04:10 PM
I can only speak for the SWP in England but im sure they are just as crap world wide.
The American SWP is not the same as the British SWP.

[Prol]

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+Mar 24 2005, 04:35 PM--> (The Anarchist Tension @ Mar 24 2005, 04:35 PM)
[email protected] 24 2005, 05:10 PM
I can only speak for the SWP in England but im sure they are just as crap world wide.
Are you a member of an organisation in the UK? [/b]
Yes

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Prol+Mar 24 2005, 06:14 PM--> (Prol @ Mar 24 2005, 06:14 PM)
Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 24 2005, 04:35 PM

[email protected] 24 2005, 05:10 PM
I can only speak for the SWP in England but im sure they are just as crap world wide.
Are you a member of an organisation in the UK?
Yes [/b]
......which one?

[Prol]

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+Mar 24 2005, 05:24 PM--> (The Anarchist Tension @ Mar 24 2005, 05:24 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 06:14 PM

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 24 2005, 04:35 PM

[email protected] 24 2005, 05:10 PM
I can only speak for the SWP in England but im sure they are just as crap world wide.
Are you a member of an organisation in the UK?
Yes
......which one? [/b]
One of the British ones. Not a political party.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Prol+Mar 24 2005, 06:27 PM--> (Prol @ Mar 24 2005, 06:27 PM)
Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 24 2005, 05:24 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 06:14 PM

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 24 2005, 04:35 PM

[email protected] 24 2005, 05:10 PM
I can only speak for the SWP in England but im sure they are just as crap world wide.
Are you a member of an organisation in the UK?
Yes
......which one?
One of the British ones. Not a political party. [/b]
Is there any particular reason why you wont name it?

[Faceless]

Not really. The CPGB exists to pester the SWP, that is their sole function. I read the Weekly Worker online and apart from being shit, it is dull - week after week of exploring the SWP's "crisis". The reason they criticise the SWP from the left is not out of any principles they hold, it's just pure sectarianism.

OK so this is pure sectarianism? So I take it a good non-sectarian position would swallow the SWP line in the name of unity? haha, its the duty of any thinking marxist to be ruthlessly critical of any organisation regardless even if they are generally in support of that organisation. THAT is not sectarianism. Someone needs to point to the anti-democratic methods of the SWP in everything from RESPECT to the ESF.

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

I was shocked recently when I discovered all about this in college at a Muslim conference, the SWP actually had a stand outside and its members were attending.

Now the books they had included, Myths of Zionism, Islamic Fundamentalism and Socialism: An Alternative etc.

Absolute bollocks and although I never liked them this is as low as I've ever seen a leftist party in Ireland sink. I actually wonder what is behind the SWP sometimes, it's just too fucked up.

[antieverything]

First, I'd like to offer my opinion on the issue of participation in elections:

Socialism is more than an idealized political and economic system, it is the politicalization of survival tactics--and in capitalism, of resistance. Socialism is more than the "siezing of state power"--it is an all-transforming, revolutionary social and cultural process aimed at extending the scope and transforming the meaning of democracy (or of affirming this meaning which has been subverted).

Socialism isn't an ideal that "the masses" will one day open up to, it is the emobodiment of the human struggle for individual liberation given collective character and mass consciousness.

If we as [supposedly] commited radicals refuse out of our arrogance to participate in the politicalization of survival by any and all means necessary we become hypocrites in the eyes of "normal" people struggling against the negative effects of capitalism in their communities...and rightfully so.

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=34026

Revolution is as much the individual transformations which take place as a result of revolutionary struggle as it is insurrection. These transformations occur largely by breaking down the walls of what individuals previously thought to be possible by means of collective action--direct or electoral action. The tactics used are less important than the fact that results are achieved and in our societies, at this present time, results can only be achieved through organization and mobilization--through amassing support for a desired and desirable result and ultimately exercising it to result change in both the material conditions and--momentarily, at least--in the balance of political power between elite and popular opinion. Interest, at least in the popular sense, may be another thing entirely from opinion but as the scale of results achieved increases (both electorally and by politicalizing the means of collective self-defense at a non-state and local level), the scale of class consciousness (as Marx called it or self consciousness as I would prefer to call it if only for tactical reasons) expands as thus does the potential for a victorious outcome in the final stages of revolutionary and, in whatever measure necessary, insurrectionary struggle.

Students of the 20th century Marxist tradition propably recognize this as similar to the Gramscian conceptions of building a historical bloc and cultural hegemony. This observation would be on target as my beliefs surrounding revolution and the role of electoral politics exist comfortably within the tradition of Marxist thought going through Kautsky and Bernstein, Gramsci, and even some strands of post-marxism. Still, I believe it is important to heed the warning given by Rosa Luxembourg, that:

On the one hand, we have the mass; on the other, its historic goal, located outside of existing society. On one hand, we have the day-to-day struggle; on the other the social revolution. Such are the terms of the dialectical contradiction through which the socialist movement makes its way. It follows that this movement can best advance by tacking betwixt and between the two dangers by which it is constantly being threatened. One is the loss of its mass character; the other, the abandonment of its goal. One is the danger of sinking back into the condition of a sect: the other the danger of becoming a movement of bourgeois social reform”.

In an age where the Left is facing almost total insignificance, we shouldn't fail to understand the importance the the tactical coalition if we are to avoid remaining a collection of ineffectual sects.

...

All that being said, I've observed the British Left with some interest for the past several years (alas, I was with ye during that Socialist Alliance nonsense) and it seems that the SWP is at one level barking up the Gramscian tree while at the same time attempting to hijack everything around in order to sate the leadership's thirst for power. I'm not too sure about the SWP's leadership structure but the US ISO tends toward the authoritarian end of the spectrum, to the chagrin of many potential members I've known.

Unfortunately, such sectarian, leader-focused groups are hard to crack because they like to expell folks...like those council communists someone brought up. Which is a pity because it seems that what is needed now is a merger of pragmatic practice and autonomist-collectivist theory so that the movement can take on direct action, community defense characteristics while still providing support to a state-electoral buffer-zone between state repression and radical practice.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 07:49 PM
If we as [supposedly] commited radicals refuse out of our arrogance to participate in the politicalization of survival by any and all means necessary we become hypocrites in the eyes of "normal" people struggling against the negative effects of capitalism in their communities...and rightfully so.
One fundamental problem with what your saying though; It doesn't work.


Revolution is as much the individual transformations which take place as a result of revolutionary struggle as it is insurrection. These transformations occur largely by breaking down the walls of what individuals previously thought to be possible by means of collective action--direct or electoral action.

I agree largely with what you're saying, but the problem is that participating in electoral politics strengthens the myth that it is somehow a legitimate means of change. It isn't.

I suppose you can, and organisations like the SWP did, at least they use to, propagate at the same time the real nature of elections and the tactics involved in being apart of them, but what's the point?

You talk of transformations occurring because of the break down in apathy and a general empowerment to create action - that is the basis of struggle.

As a revolutionary force your objection is clear. The destruction of capital and the state. Those things can only happen through confrontation, after confrontation, after confrontation.

Real change has only ever come about through resistance, never bourgeois politics.

Instead of calling on the working class to vote for moderately left wing organisations in the hope of gaining a concession, these collective actions should reflect the nature of the struggle you have as your basis.

We oppose capitalism, it's system of controls and domination and the machine that keeps it alive. We don't want to participate in it, we want to destroy it, and that is the rhetoric that should be applied in every instance.

Are the workers afraid of that rhetoric? Maybe. But they aren't children, they don't need to be handled with cotton gloves and above all, we're right.


tactics used are less important than the fact that results are achieved and in our societies, at this present time, results can only be achieved through organization and mobilization--through amassing support for a desired and desirable result and ultimately exercising it to result change in both the material conditions and--momentarily, at least--in the balance of political power between elite and popular opinion.

What a confusing message?

You talk of "organization and mobilization--through amassing support for a desired and desirable result..." Which is what? What is this desirable result?

Changing a momentary balance of power between those who control and those who are controlled is a waste of effort, resources and breath. While you attempt to "momentarily" change that balance, you are sliding away from revolutionary rhetoric in order to cater for a wider general audience. You're compromising fundamental principles to sound nicer, and more acceptable. Cowardly!

The truth is, we don't want to sound nice or acceptable. We want to smash capitalism and the state. And that is the message; this what you should be massing support for.

We need to stop being afraid of what we want!


Interest, at least in the popular sense, may be another thing entirely from opinion but as the scale of results achieved increases (both electorally and by politicalizing the means of collective self-defense at a non-state and local level), the scale of class consciousness (as Marx called it or self consciousness as I would prefer to call it if only for tactical reasons) expands as thus does the potential for a victorious outcome in the final stages of revolutionary and, in whatever measure necessary, insurrectionary struggle.

Something that we need to defend ourselves against is something which is our enemy! How then can we collectively defend ourselves against that enemy if we're apart of?

Defending ourselves roughly translates to resistance and I’m confused to why we can't fight for concessions and ultimately revolutionary change simply by that defence?

You said "Socialism...is an all-transforming, revolutionary social and cultural process aimed at extending the scope and transforming the meaning of democracy." That sings from the roof tops: "We are not you! We are different, and we are better!"

You talk eloquently of the nature of our struggle, and you identify that we are righteous in it. That we want to change personally and ultimately change our world; But in the same breath you talk about joining in with their bullshit!

We don't want their bullshit! We don't want to be apart of it, and we don't want to accept it!

[Reuben]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2005, 06:43 PM

From what I've been reading, socialist politics are apparently nothing but lip service, to take a back seat to the almighty "movement

Respect (http://www.respectcoalition.org/)

Look for yourself.



Are you claiming that the MAB and Islam itself (like any religion) does not have reactionary positions?

Of course not. The question is not whether the MAB is reactionery or not, the question is whether you want to offer a viable electoral alternative to imperialism, racism and neo-liberalism. TAT thinks not, I think yes.


It's stating what the MAB stands for quite clearly.


Maybe so, I mean I'm not sure whether the MAB is as monolithic as you suggest. I'm quite sure abortion and women's rights are things we would disagree on.

The reason its Islamaphobic is because "Islam" is viewed as more reactionery than "western religions". For instance, I didn't here anyone complaining when we worked with Tony Benn in the STWC. Tony is a Chrisitian, I mean doesn't the bible say homosexuality is a sin and that slavery for "victors" is allowed?

That's were the hypocrisy comes in. You all immediately assume, "oh, Muslims, they must be horrible!"
surely even somebody made stupid by membership of the SWP can see the difference between working with an individual who happens to be a muslim and enterring into a formal coalition with an organisation specifically set up to defend and promote islam.

[Severian]

Originally posted by Virgin Molotov [email protected] 24 2005, 07:18 AM
b) I don't live in the United States, so my interest in the SWP doesn't extend much beyond what's covered in the Wikipedia article.
Fine, you're not obligated to be informed on that or any other subject. But why not refrain from shooting your mouth off on the subjects you can't bother to be well-informed about?

Wait, I know, it's because you have the emotional maturity of a blueberry muffin, to quote a character on Buffy. I have a very limited interest in educating you if you have so little interest in educating yourself.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2005, 10:31 AM
Wait, I know, it's because you have the emotional maturity of a blueberry muffin, to quote a character on Buffy. I have a very limited interest in educating you if you have so little interest in educating yourself.
Come on Severian, let's keep it civil please. This isn't nececssary.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 12:49 PM
First, I'd like to offer my opinion on the issue of participation in elections:
That's not really the question here, or not the only question.

It's how do you participate in electoral politics. Is it a tool for spreading ideas and building mass actions....or is it the other way around, when mass actions are just a means of getting a crowd together so you can preach the importance of elections?

Communism is all about the self-emancipation of the working class.....not about the emancipation of the working class by some elected official.

It's also possible to support a party that's not revolutionary...but not without regard to its class character.

On unity, also, you gotta ask: are you just trying to unite "the left", or trying to unite the working class and allied layers of working people?

Even if you united every group on the far left, you still wouldn't have that much in terms of size, and if you've sacrificed clarity and the ability to act because the different tendencies spend all their time squabbling....what have you accomplished really?

IMO it's poison to think like a small group. No matter how small a group actually is, you gotta think big.....think in terms of the class, not just "the left." Otherwise you end up driven by the petty organizational interests of the group...and obsessing about factional maneuvers with other groups...whether squabbling with 'em or constantly trying "regroupments" without basis in real political agreement, the effect's much the same.

"You Know"s argument seems to boil down to: we're bigger than the other groups, so they're just a bunch of irrelevant sects.

That's a pretty weak argument from a group which is still, I would guess, much smaller than the CP in its heyday, never mind the Labour Party, or so-called Socialist and Communist Parties in some other countries. Everything "You Know" has said here, larger parties could even more easily say about the British SWP.

[Severian]

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+Mar 25 2005, 03:36 AM--> (The Anarchist Tension @ Mar 25 2005, 03:36 AM)
[email protected] 25 2005, 10:31 AM
Wait, I know, it's because you have the emotional maturity of a blueberry muffin, to quote a character on Buffy. I have a very limited interest in educating you if you have so little interest in educating yourself.
Come on Severian, let's keep it civil please. This isn't nececssary. [/b]
I'll be civil with those who are civil with me. Given VMC's record of snotty-nosed posts, I'm not going to respect his right to dish it out without having to take it.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2005, 10:49 AM
i'm not going to respect his right to dish it out without having to take it.
I think you're smarter than that.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Originally posted by Severian+Mar 25 2005, 09:31 AM--> (Severian @ Mar 25 2005, 09:31 AM)
Originally posted by Virgin Molotov [email protected] 24 2005, 07:18 AM
b) I don't live in the United States, so my interest in the SWP doesn't extend much beyond what's covered in the Wikipedia article.
Fine, you're not obligated to be informed on that or any other subject. But why not refrain from shooting your mouth off on the subjects you can't bother to be well-informed about?

Wait, I know, it's because you have the emotional maturity of a blueberry muffin, to quote a character on Buffy. I have a very limited interest in educating you if you have so little interest in educating yourself. [/b]


Wikipedia Article / Socialist Workers Party (US)
The result of this process and the leadership's increasingly rigid discipline was the development of opposition within the group. This opposition was not homogenous and was itself beset by differences between different factions.

A key factor in the growing divisions within the SWP was the move by Jack Barnes, Mary-Alice Waters and others in the leadership away from Trotskyism, the ideology that had been the raison d'être of the SWP since its founding. In 1982, Barnes gave a speech which was later published as Their Trotsky and Ours: Communist continuity today in which Barnes rejected Trotsky's theory of Permanent Revolution arguing that it had been disproven by the process of the revolution in Cuba. Barnes also implicitly endorsed the theory of socialism in one country which had been assailed by Trotsky, again using Cuba as an example. This was the culmination of a move towards Castroism that had begun in the 1970s and indicated that the SWP was formally rejecting Trotskyism and was also a sign that Trotskyists were no longer welcome in the party.

I do appologise for the one admittedly childish post I made in the CC. Any other posts I've made which you disagree with, you have yet to respond to in such a way as to educate me, or make me change my opinion. Having taken information for a typically reliable source and asked a question about it, I didn't think I was even being particularly confrontational (something I'm prone to, now and then ;) ).

[Severian]

Originally posted by Virgin Molotov [email protected] 25 2005, 04:41 AM
I do appologise for the one admittedly childish post I made in the CC.
Try two. In the CC alone, that is.

Heck, I don't think I've ever seen you make a post that wasn't childish.

And Wikipedia is a collection of articles by anonymous internet posters. Reliable?

In this case, probably somebody who left in that split and has a grudge; that's typically who writes such articles about the SWP (US) for some reason.

[T_SP]

Lets face it the SWP are now pretty much RESPECT, they have continually watered down their political programme for years and are now about as Socialist as Red Ken and Tony Benn!! Respects programme is fucking, yes fucking, laughable. An election leaflet I read (yvonne Ridley- Leicster) was purely aimed at Muslims and the Muslim vote it had literally nothing else in it other than: I'm Yvonne, I'm a Muslim vote for me!! This is blatant opportunism and is nothing but a sly, snidy stab at gaining votes as oppossed to offering the masses a proper Socialist Alternative!

The SWP have changed their stance so many times since Cliffes' death it is unreal! They critisiced us (The Socialist Party, link in my sig) for standing in elections and lo and behold they're doing it themselves! Whatever credibilty they had has crumbled and gone, Rees is more concerned with RESPECT as is Judy Cox.
RESPECT's programme is based on nothing more than ending the war/occupation of Iraq and of course getting the massive Muslim vote in this country, they offer proper working class people nothing else, they are a joke and should be ignored! The real revolutionaires within RESPECT are leaving in droves I have first hand experience of this myself having recruited 2 members locally to the party!

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

RE: Sevy

You know, I'm not sure how seriously I'm going to take accusations that all my posts I'm childish from somebody who a) implies anybody who criticizes the SWP (US) "has a grudge" and b) still hasn't answered my fuckin' question. Is the article out-and-out-wrong? Is "Their Trotsky and Ours" a product of some bitter ex-member's imagination? Is the SWP (US) line still Trotskyite, or was Jack Barnes a nutty Castroite as suggested by Wikipedia, this site (http://reds.linefeed.org/groups.html), and others?

[RevolutionarySocialist MadRedDog]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 04:10 PM
I can only speak for the SWP in England but im sure they are just as crap world wide.
Well their dutch section is definitely just as crap: they don't use the transitional program, which is rather weird for a so-called "Trotskist"-organisation, and makes them idealists (in the past) or reformists (more or more in the present day).

Also they are sectarian, because they have never chosen to work in parties or unions. Where they work in parties or mass formations of parties though, they mostly take on a deep entrist position and/or (when they alone form a certain party) don't openly proclaim anymore that they stand for a socialist alternative (because this would scare away certain layers of workers :huh: ).

[BOZG]

I've been told by a comrade in Germany, that during the formation of a new broad left party (WASG), a member of the German SWP who was speaking from the platform argued against WASG having a socialist programme because it would alienate workers. He argued that the party should have a Keynesian programme.

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Indeed, imagine if it ever happens an Irish broad left bloc, let me think who would try take that over quick fast.

[BOZG]

Well the SWP have been looking for a broad left electoral for quite a while now as a stepping stone to some sort of broad grouping. On the Sinn Féin leaflet that I mentioned they were handing out, the final paragraph about greater trust among the left and the like smells very much like an attempt to try some sort of electoral alliance with the Shinners.

[antieverything]

One fundamental problem with what your saying though; It doesn't work.

I agree largely with what you're saying, but the problem is that participating in electoral politics strengthens the myth that it is somehow a legitimate means of change. It isn't.
Actually, it does work...in fact, I've seen it work. I've not only seen oppressed communities come together (reluctantly and not without outside agitation) for self-defense purposes, I've also seen state-level electoral action combined with old-fashioned education, mass-media usage, and street demonstrations change laws and bring down regional drug task forces here in Texas. Will such tactics be sufficient to overthrow capitalism? No. Unfortunately, however, we aren't dealing with the final insurrectionary overthrow of the capitalist system, we are still in the very first steps of laying the foundations and sowing the seeds for a culture of resistance...a process which requires that victories be achieved to work...a process which requires that larger victories be launched from the institutional and educational basis of past victories. It takes a hell of a long time for a class to become a class for itself..."correct" ideology in the preliminary steps of this process can retard the process irrepairably. Essentially, you are replicating the mistakes made by the American Anarchist movement of the 20th century--remember that the moment an anarchist assassinates a president, the game is up and radicalism is put back 20 years. It has happened before, we shouldn't let it happen again.



As a revolutionary force your objection is clear. The destruction of capital and the state. Those things can only happen through confrontation, after confrontation, after confrontation.

Real change has only ever come about through resistance, never bourgeois politics.
Confrontation? We have no radical communities to defend from state repression. We don't even have a movement? At this stage, movement building is key...there's simply no other way--assuming you want to get results, that is, or if you want an emerging challenge to capitalism to be truly grassroots rather than based on a handful of raving college radicals.

"Real" change has always come through the combination of bourgeois politics and direct action. Your conception of the state is so archaic that your political strategy dips into delusion--the state is more than an instrument of class domination, it is an arena of struggle. When Marx or Lenin or Luxembourg talk about the state, you must remember, their forms were completely different and the level of achievements through popular struggle was much lower. The state, while ultimately a repressive institution, is still a valid tool for self-defense as it is a very real arena for mobilizing some level of popular power. It has happened...again and again. The threat of violence is an indespensible part of the process but politics are not a complete dead end...they simply aren't sufficient on their own.



Are the workers afraid of that rhetoric? Maybe. But they aren't children, they don't need to be handled with cotton gloves and above all, we're right.
Hell, we don't even need workers since we've figured it all out beforehand, right?


Changing a momentary balance of power between those who control and those who are controlled is a waste of effort, resources and breath. While you attempt to "momentarily" change that balance, you are sliding away from revolutionary rhetoric in order to cater for a wider general audience. You're compromising fundamental principles to sound nicer, and more acceptable. Cowardly!
If the balance never changes, even momentarily, how can people become aware that they can change the balance of power permanently through collective action? Is the fleeting victory achieved in a street demonstration which occupies an intersection or shuts down a city insignificant? Why is a temporary collective, electoral victory so insignificant? Especially if it is able to change something where the demonstration alone fails?


The truth is, we don't want to sound nice or acceptable. We want to smash capitalism and the state. And that is the message; this what you should be massing support for.
Good luck with that.


You said "Socialism...is an all-transforming, revolutionary social and cultural process aimed at extending the scope and transforming the meaning of democracy." That sings from the roof tops: "We are not you! We are different, and we are better!"
No it doesn't.


We don't want their bullshit! We don't want to be apart of it, and we don't want to accept it!Neither do I...we just haven't got a choice. Any means necessary means exactly that. Get over it.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2005, 08:05 PM
Actually, it does work...I've also seen state-level electoral action combined with old-fashioned education, mass-media usage, and street demonstrations change laws and bring down regional drug task forces here in Texas.
That depends on what you regard as your objective?

Changing some by-law or small piece of state legislature may be simple with all these means, but you have wasted all that time, resources and effort to alter something which is insignificant to what you actually want.

Ultimately all this effort has brought legitimacy to that process.

What is your message? Do you agitate the real nature of these tactics to people? Do they understand? Because if they do; what's the point?


Will such tactics be sufficient to overthrow capitalism? No

That should be the basis of any tactic employed by revolutionary socialists.


Unfortunately, however, we aren't dealing with the final insurrectionary overthrow of the capitalist system, we are still in the very first steps of laying the foundations and sowing the seeds for a culture of resistance

I'm not sure what the situation in Texas is, but I have a relative grasp on workers struggles here in the UK and I can assure you there already exists a culture of resistance.

Last year in Sheffield the entire Bus Drivers Union in South Yorkshire went on strike for 2 weeks to resist low pay. The National Union of Teachers went on strike just recently in Sheffield to resist long working hours and short holidays.

Look at the recent Student Strikes in Canada or the 400 hospital workers who went on strike this week. The strikes in Romania to block anti-union legislation, the mass anti-G8 mobilisation organised through out the world and in France, the massive workers strike against the Olympic bid.

The foundations have already been laid. It requires effort and dedication from individuals to become apart of that. This is something I feel allot of people don't realise.


Essentially, you are replicating the mistakes made by the American Anarchist movement of the 20th century--remember that the moment an anarchist assassinates a president, the game is up and radicalism is put back 20 years. It has happened before, we shouldn't let it happen again.

I'm not at all suggesting that we assassinate any Presidents, it's as worthless as voting for them.


Confrontation? We have no radical communities to defend from state repression.

You don't necessarily need a radical community to be confrontational, although there is the possibility of agitating a community into action.

In Sheffield, the City Council are re-housing people who have lived in their properties all their lives so they can redevelop this particular area.

Before they do that however, they will wait 3 years so that the properties they now own, can increase in price and will be worth more in the future.

There is potential there to call for squatting. Refusal to vacate and resistance to the authorities who attempt to evict them.

Confrontation can also come with things such as in Greece when 100 anarchists attacked a police station in retaliation for police brutality and racism.

Building a "culture of resistance" cannot come through voting for politicians. That's exactly what they want us to do. Regardless of the small concessions which can be gained by them. We don't want concessions.


We don't even have a movement?

Do you live in your room?

Go outside, look at the political organisations thread. There is definitely a movement. Your just not apart of it.


assuming you want to get results, that is, or if you want an emerging challenge to capitalism to be truly grassroots rather than based on a handful of raving college radicals.

What is necessary is for people to connect with workers, either in the work place or in the community and create a forum for debate. It maybe difficult, but that is the objective. Once you have achieved that you can propagate your idea's.

Listen to what people say and give humble, logical answers to their anger or differences. These forums of debate then have the potential to develop into something more.

Taking on local disputes or national campaigns and engaging in them in a provocative manner creates necessary conditions [of resistance.]

Direct action/resistance doesn't even have to be so aggressive. Repairing a school roof, organising free school meals or youth clubs for kids or free night classes for workers who are illiterate; are forms of resistance which are also extremely effective. Raving radicals who do this make a name for themselves in communities.


Your conception of the state is so archaic that your political strategy dips into delusion

That's not a new criticism and one that's rarely ever backed up.


the state is more than an instrument of class domination, it is an arena of struggle.

The state is one of the most reactionary institutions that can ever exist. How is it an "arena of struggle"? Did I misunderstand?


The state, while ultimately a repressive institution, is still a valid tool for self-defense

Replace the word valid with effective and I would agree with you. The State is a very effective tool for defending a revolution and it has succeeded time and time again in that objective.

But the state as a transitional stage to the creation of communism is completely outdated and fundamentally flawed. It creates so many contradictions that it is impossible to reconcile.

The state and the conditions it creates become so complex and so out-of-control that any prospect of it "withering away" becomes impossible. The only possible way to destroy it is not by maintaining it, as history proves. It's by smashing it.




Are the workers afraid of that rhetoric? Maybe. But they aren't children, they don't need to be handled with cotton gloves and above all, we're right.
Hell, we don't even need workers since we've figured it all out beforehand, right?

I don't really understand the connection?


If the balance never changes, even momentarily, how can people become aware that they can change the balance of power permanently through collective action?

By telling them they can.



Is the fleeting victory achieved in a street demonstration which occupies an intersection or shuts down a city insignificant?

Not at all.


Why is a temporary collective, electoral victory so insignificant?

It's not insignificant, it's just counter-productive.


Especially if it is able to change something where the demonstration alone fails?

Yes, you might change something, but you have also given that process legitimacy. Do you think it's legitimate?



The truth is, we don't want to sound nice or acceptable. We want to smash capitalism and the state. And that is the message; this what you should be massing support for.
Good luck with that.

Luck isn't what is needed. Commitment, dedication and force of conviction is what is needed



You said "Socialism...is an all-transforming, revolutionary social and cultural process aimed at extending the scope and transforming the meaning of democracy." That sings from the roof tops: "We are not you! We are different, and we are better!"
No it doesn't.

Yes it does. Unless you think that the present state structure is the same as what we want and is perfectly acceptable?


Neither do I...we just haven't got a choice.

How can you build a revolutionary movement when the basis of your attitude is that? of course you have a choice. That's the whole point.


Any means necessary means exactly that. Get over it.

Let's keep this civil shall we.

Simply saying "any means necessary" is not good enough. You have to analyse each of these tactics and show whether or not they are productive to your objective. Do they create the right conditions and attitude to achieve what you want? And what you want, I'm assuming is communism

What you are advocating does neither of those things. In which case, they should be abandoned.

[Severian]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 30 2005, 03:58 AM

Will such tactics be sufficient to overthrow capitalism? No

That should be the basis of any tactic employed by revolutionary socialists.
That's silly; by way of analogy imagine if someone made such a proposal about military tactics.

A:"If we attack here, we can cut off the supply lines of that enemy batallion and force it to retreat.

B: "But that tactic can't possibly lead to the surrender of their entire army. So it's worthless."

Nope.

I think the Manifesto had it right here: communists

have no interests 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 mold 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 against the bourgeoisie has to pass through, they always and everywhere represent the interests of the movement as a whole.

The Communists, therefore, are 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 lines of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement.

The question is, does a tactic advance the class struggle along those "lines of march", from the particular place where we are at the moment.

That isn't an endorsement of antieverything's conclusions; but he seems closer than most to asking the right question.

I would add that it is necessary to keep in constantly mind those "ultimate general results" and not start thinking that some reform is an end in itself.

[Anti-Fasist]

Can't we join to SWP in Turkey. I believe that an united organization in the world will be succesful in our fight.

[Cokane]

Thats a big blunder you have in you name there anti-fasist

[Anti-Fasist]

what is blunder in my name?

[The Feral Underclass]

It says Fasist instead of Fascist, but it says that because the name Anti-Fascist already exists.

This thread is not about Anti-Fasist's name, so talk about it somewhere else please :)