what are the main political problems in the Uk

[Kaelin]

What do you think are the main political problems in the Uk (e.g. fascism) and how do you think they should be combated? direct action, violence or more democratic methods? What do people think of the current UK political situation?

[Hate Is Art]

The main political problems? Well Capitalism mainly, but apart from that I'd the disgusting nature of the Labour party, the increased popularity of the BNP and the rise in Islamophobia.

Well the Labour party can be changed from within to form a real workers party, BNP need a bit of violence and Islamophobia just needs education.

[Hit The North]

Well the Labour party can be changed from within to form a real workers party

Fucking hell, next you'll be advocating that we dig up the corpse of the British Communist Party! :lol:

[Hate Is Art]

As far as our best hope of representative change (which is absolutly not a long-term strategy) it is with the Labour party. The fact we have no representation in parliament at all is beyond crazy. I'm not advocating using the Labour party as an evolutionary path to socialism, just the fact that we have no real Labour party is one of the UK's main political problems.

[Faceless]

Im with Digital Nirvana. Reclaiming the Labour Party is the main political problem. I think it is dissillusionment with Labour that often makes working people throw a protest vote to the BNP during election times (particularly council elections) so I think the two problems are intimately tied together. By and large violence won't help turn the tide against the BNP. If anything, it will be used to paint the left in bad colours and the BNP will cry for their "democratic" rights. forming a left-alternative in the LP is what will defeat the BNP.

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by Digital [email protected] 18, 2007 07:17 pm
As far as our best hope of representative change (which is absolutly not a long-term strategy) it is with the Labour party. The fact we have no representation in parliament at all is beyond crazy. I'm not advocating using the Labour party as an evolutionary path to socialism, just the fact that we have no real Labour party is one of the UK's main political problems.
What do you mean, a real Labour Party like Callaghan's in the 1970s where public spending was slashed at the behest of the IMF and average workers wages went into decline?

The fact of the matter is that we've never had a 'real' Labour Party, if by that you mean a socialist Labour Party. For insatnce, the Labour Party has never officially supported a strike - ever!

Moreover, the Left inside the Labour Party has always been, at best well meaning but ineffective; at worst, allying themselves with the bosses or party leadership when it came to the crunch.

It's a bonus when we can get a socialist voice in parliament, but the main problem we face isn't that we don't have representation in Parliament but that we don't represent a power within the working class. It is therefore more pressing that we re-build a presence in the grassroots of the class - in trade unions, community groups, etc.

The class struggle doesn't follow the Labour Party. The Labour Party follows the class struggle.

[Hate Is Art]

I agree about the violence, it probably would create nothing but a backlash, it's just so tempting to smash their ugly little faces in.

I'm not too sure about a socialist alternative to the Labour Party, it would just split the vote and even if we acquired some seats in Parliament or Local Councils we would probably achieve no lasting change. Nothing will be achieved through parliamentary means, but I think the Labour Party will have a huge part to play in radicalising the working classes and creating class consciousness amongst them.

[Louis Pio]

Just to add a bit, it seems that the fight in the unions are then again linked up with the Labour party.
Sure Labour never been socialist, but that's not really the point. The point is it's relation with the workingclass, which despite all the degeneration's still there.
A curious trait we have seen iin the last ten years are that when people get disillusioned with Labour they don't turn to RESPECT, Socialist Alliance or whatever, they rather drift into inactivity. Which is once again why the work in the unions are so important, and the growing shift to the left in them will in turn have effect on the Labour Party. Put very crudely off course.

[Guerrilla22]

Its a cpaitalist country, an imperialist country and the main ally of the US.

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 07:28 pm
Im with Digital Nirvana. Reclaiming the Labour Party is the main political problem. I think it is dissillusionment with Labour that often makes working people throw a protest vote to the BNP during election times (particularly council elections) so I think the two problems are intimately tied together. By and large violence won't help turn the tide against the BNP. If anything, it will be used to paint the left in bad colours and the BNP will cry for their "democratic" rights. forming a left-alternative in the LP is what will defeat the BNP.

It's a truism that since the 2nd World War in Britain, the Nazis have grown in numbers and influence whilst Labour has been in government. This isn't accidental but a result of how Labour never meets the aspirations of the working class and sow disillusion amongst certain elements of the class, as you point out. However, there are good structural reasons why this is the case and they cannot be reduced to the 'left-wing nature' or otherwise of the personnel within that party.

It's also an historical fact that the Nazis have to be physically and ideologically opposed - and that the Labour Party is incapable of doing this.

Again, if you want to fight the BNP, it is more important for socialists and anti-racists to build organizations within the class which are independent of the Labour Party.

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by Digital [email protected] 18, 2007 07:45 pm
I agree about the violence, it probably would create nothing but a backlash, it's just so tempting to smash their ugly little faces in.

I'm not too sure about a socialist alternative to the Labour Party, it would just split the vote and even if we acquired some seats in Parliament or Local Councils we would probably achieve no lasting change. Nothing will be achieved through parliamentary means, but I think the Labour Party will have a huge part to play in radicalising the working classes and creating class consciousness amongst them.
I hate repeating myself but here goes...

The class struggle does not follow the Labour Party. The Labour Party follows the class struggle.

The idea that Labour can radicalize the class is wishful thinking - it has never happened. It's always the other way around.

[Louis Pio]

But then again a large protion of the radicalised turn to Labour at that point, how to deal with that "problem"?

[Hate Is Art]

I think you have entirely misinterpreted what I've been try to say.


What do you mean, a real Labour Party like Callaghan's in the 1970s where public spending was slashed at the behest of the IMF and average workers wages went into decline?

I mean a real Labour party in support of progressive change.


Moreover, the Left inside the Labour Party has always been, at best well meaning but ineffective; at worst, allying themselves with the bosses or party leadership when it came to the crunch.

I agree entirely, thats why I said I doubt any change can ever be achieved through the Parliamentry Labour Party. I just think the fact that we don't have a voice in Parliament needs to be addressed.


It's a bonus when we can get a socialist voice in parliament, but the main problem we face isn't that we don't have representation in Parliament but that we don't represent a power within the working class. It is therefore more pressing that we re-build a presence in the grassroots of the class - in trade unions, community groups, etc.

The class struggle doesn't follow the Labour Party. The Labour Party follows the class struggle.


Agreed 100%.

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 08:09 pm
But then again a large protion of the radicalised turn to Labour at that point, how to deal with that "problem"?
I agree that it is a very large problem for us.

The only solution is for there to be an independent and principled socialist organisation which is large enough and rooted in the class enough to act as a poll of attraction.

So, once again, socialists in Britain would be better off putting their energies into building one rather than joining the Labour Party and helping to sow illusions.

[Louis Pio]

So, once again, socialists in Britain would be better off putting their energies into building one rather than joining the Labour Party and helping to sow illusions.

The thing is I think that with the correct policy we wouldn't be sowing illusions.
But rather being prepared if a split occurs in a radicalised situation.
I am not saying all energy should be focused on Labour, unions, strikes and different campaigns are extremely more important now.
But looking on Britain from abroad it's quite clear that for example John McDonnel with his campaign is getting quite a big echo. The different pettitions for a new workers or marxist party are nothing compared to that.
Think it shows something about the deeply rooted relations between Labour and the working class in Britain.

[Faceless]

It's a truism that since the 2nd World War in Britain, the Nazis have grown in numbers and influence whilst Labour has been in government. This isn't accidental but a result of how Labour never meets the aspirations of the working class and sow disillusion amongst certain elements of the class, as you point out. However, there are good structural reasons why this is the case and they cannot be reduced to the 'left-wing nature' or otherwise of the personnel within that party.

I agree that fascist sectlets grow whilst Labour is in power, and I agree that this is entirely to do with the failures - or should I even say the utter betrayals - of the Labour governments. However, I disagree with two things you have said.

Firstly, the BNP etc. do not represent resurgent Fascism I don't think, not in the same sense that Fascism in the 20's and 30's. Real fascism is used, by the capitalist class, to smash the working class organisations that exist after a period of intense class struggle in which the workers have been defeated and largely rests on a frenzied middle-class/ the less advanced workers.

What we see in Britain is that the BNP are getting a vote FROM the working class as a protest to their traditional party - incidentally one which they tend to be able to get only in council elections, not in parliamentary elections. This is not fascism in the sense that it is following on from an intense period of class struggle and is used to finally crush the workers by the bourgeoisie, and ultimately the BNP does NOT have a mass base.

The second thing I disagree is your conlusion that we must start over in building a worker's party. To the problem of the fact that the mass of the working class looks to the LP, you said:

I agree that it is a very large problem for us.

The only solution is for there to be an independent and principled socialist organisation which is large enough and rooted in the class enough to act as a poll of attraction.
Which in a sense presupposes a mass base. In a non-revolutionary situation, the whole of the Marxists of a country constitute only a tiny proportion of the population. If you added up all the marxist sects in Britain, you might get maybe 5,000 say? I would say that would be pushing it (although there probably are more sects than 5000 in this country :D ). If the Militant Labour (ie the Socialist Party) went into terminal decline having had 8000 members, once it left the Labour Party, how much more proof do you need that no left-wing sect is going to act as a pole of gravitation towards the working class which can compete against Labour.

I do not mean to fetishise the LP, and if a revolution could happen merely by unfurrling the flag of socialism I would be all for it, but having a platform inside the only mass party of the working class is necissary, without which the 'problem' above is intractible.

[Hit The North]

Teis:


But looking on Britain from abroad it's quite clear that for example John McDonnel with his campaign is getting quite a big echo.

Really? From inside Britain I didn't hear a thing. Maybe I missed it. But I think the truth is that McDonnell lacks the presence to make any sound-waves at all.

My Mum stands more chance of winning the leadership of the Labour Party than McDonnell (and she's a Tory! Like Tony.) .

And after the contest is over, after we've all applauded John for making a stand and putting forward a few lefty reform proposals, what will we be left with? McDonnell is going to get so severely trounced by Brown that it'll be a massive disincentive for socialists to join the Labour Party (if they're reading the situation right!).


Think it shows something about the deeply rooted relations between Labour and the working class in Britain.

That used to be true but I think Blair and Brown have more or less broken the back of that one. This gives us an opportunity.

[Hit The North]

Faceless:

What we see in Britain is that the BNP are getting a vote FROM the working class as a protest to their traditional party - incidentally one which they tend to be able to get only in council elections, not in parliamentary elections. This is not fascism in the sense that it is following on from an intense period of class struggle and is used to finally crush the workers by the bourgeoisie, and ultimately the BNP does NOT have a mass base.

I used the term Nazi loosely. I can't be bothered to make distinctions between one type of scum over another.

The BNP don't conform to the classic model you outline there. But Fascism isn't a bourgeois conspiracy as you seem to be suggesting. The BNP will continue to pursue opportunist policies and grow steadily if we allow it to function in a state of normalcy, waiting for the time when it can capitalize on real social upheaval. Meanwhile the ruling class will continue to despise it until it needs it.

Fascism has never had a mass base in Britain. Every time it gets so big we kick it in the head (Cable Street/ Lewisham and so on).


Which in a sense presupposes a mass base. In a non-revolutionary situation, the whole of the Marxists of a country constitute only a tiny proportion of the population. If you added up all the marxist sects in Britain, you might get maybe 5,000 say? I would say that would be pushing it (although there probably are more sects than 5000 in this country biggrin.gif ). If the Militant Labour (ie the Socialist Party) went into terminal decline having had 8000 members, once it left the Labour Party, how much more proof do you need that no left-wing sect is going to act as a pole of gravitation towards the working class which can compete against Labour.


I agree with you. It's a big ask. But what is the alternative? You will not find the Labour Party 'fit for purpose'. It has a dwindling paper membership and absolutely no activist base at all.

On Militant: I think a big problem with them is that they weren't independent of Labour - they recruited on the basis of being inside Labour. To an extent it was a symbiotic relationship in that Militant needed Labour to grow and Labour relied on Militant making them look attractive to activists. But when they were flushed, like an undeveloped foetus, out of the body of the LP they shrivelled and died.

I think it's a vital lesson which illustrates the problem with entryist politics.

[Louis Pio]

That used to be true but I think Blair and Brown have more or less broken the back of that one. This gives us an opportunity.


Everybody said the same after the war, it wasn't the case though (meaning WW2 of course)

It seems that some people have rejoined the labour party after McDonnels campain. Moreover the ones that are going to deicde are the membership, and if activating those he could be succesfull in some way(succesfull not necessarily meaning wining). I know there's all kinds of regulations to prevent people like him having succes. But then again his campaign can spark something off.
At least he should be supported instead of just asking him what to do if he's not elected.

[Faceless]

The BNP don't conform to the classic model you outline there. But Fascism isn't a bourgeois conspiracy as you seem to be suggesting. The BNP will continue to pursue opportunist policies and grow steadily if we allow it to function in a state of normalcy, waiting for the time when it can capitalize on real social upheaval. Meanwhile the ruling class will continue to despise it until it needs it.

Fascism has never had a mass base in Britain. Every time it gets so big we kick it in the head (Cable Street/ Lewisham and so on).
I wasn't suggesting it was a conspiracy, I fully acknowledge the fact that even the Italian/German fascists started out at some point as a tiny sectlet. However, it was only when they came to be backed by big business that they finally broke through into a new form of bourgeois class rule. I still agree, we need to fight these pathetic sectlets, but saying that I still think it is important for Marxists to have a keen understanding of what exactly these various scum represent as to know exactly how to beat them. At the time of the Cable Street riots, the BUF were a very serious force. If I am right they had about 40,000 members, not to mention support from certain sections of big-business and the media. About 500,000 workers stood against them. In this sense the battle was very different to advocating violence against individual bastards.

I don't see as the debate on McD and he LP is going to go very much further than it has already. I will say briefly on the John McDonnell campaign, if people in the left-sects generally believed it was irrellevant, they wouldn't turn up in droves to his meetings to sell their assorted papers. The J McD campaign can do nothing but show workers that there IS a left alternative in the Labour Party. On the contrary, not standing would make people think being in the LP is pointless, and they certainly wouldn't then flock to RESPECT, but would quickly drop out of activity, as Teis pointed out.


On Militant: I think a big problem with them is that they weren't independent of Labour - they recruited on the basis of being inside Labour. To an extent it was a symbiotic relationship in that Militant needed Labour to grow and Labour relied on Militant making them look attractive to activists. But when they were flushed, like an undeveloped foetus, out of the body of the LP they shrivelled and died.
As for Militant, it is a misconception on the Left that the whole of the organisation was flushed, most of the militant remained in the LP whilst a good part of the leadership was thrown out. Of course a source of attraction was that they were inside Labour. If anything though this proves the thesis that only by being inside the workers movement to you get a platform which workers will listen to you from.

However, militant always took a fiercly independent marxist perspective. In no manner were they opportunists.


I agree with you. It's a big ask. But what is the alternative? You will not find the Labour Party 'fit for purpose'. It has a dwindling paper membership and absolutely no activist base at all.
This is not in dispute, however, the LP remains a mass party. It has "no" activist base - but has 180,000 members. People consider it a shell at 180,000 members. swp on the other hand is a "healthy" sect by comparison and has maybe 1000 members. It is infact not just a big ask, but is impossible. The SWP/WorkersPower/SP/CPGB... have been proving this for decades.

[Hit The North]

If anything though this proves the thesis that only by being inside the workers movement to you get a platform which workers will listen to you from.

True, but don't confuse the Labour Party with the Labour Movement.


It has "no" activist base - but has 180,000 members. People consider it a shell at 180,000 members. swp on the other hand is a "healthy" sect by comparison and has maybe 1000 members. It is infact not just a big ask, but is impossible. The SWP/WorkersPower/SP/CPGB... have been proving this for decades.

And the entryists have been proving that if you get so big you'll be expelled. We could play that game for decades and still not get anywhere.

[Faceless]

And the entryists have been proving that if you get so big you'll be expelled. We could play that game for decades and still not get anywhere.
Well, like I said, not the whole of Militant was expelled, and in fact the bulk of militant remained in the LP. Effectively the reason that they finally left the LP was because the rank and file which was swelling were not properly educated in Marxist ideas and a quick enough rate. This left leaders with a delusion of grandeur to take advantage of this fact and expel the rest of the leadership for their own ends. What needs to be done in future, so as not to make this mistake again, is to put theoretical ideas first; to always educate, even though as a group grows, it is inevitably going to be more difficult to make sure that we concentrate on this.

[Louis Pio]

And the entryists have been proving that if you get so big you'll be expelled. We could play that game for decades and still not get anywhere.

Just to reject your misconception, I don't blame you for having it since CWI has been advocating it. The majority of the membership wasn't expelled, they were actually pulled out since CWI wanted to pursue "an independent line", The red 90'ies and so on. In fact they had a good base if they had stayed in Labour in my oppinion, but they choose the abandon it. Really didn't leave many people to fight Blair then.