Sects - How to deal with them

[Kez]

To use the British example sects are an appauling example of how the left has been split by the opportunnist leadership of groups such as SWP, SP, CPGB which mislead thousands of communists away from the road to revolution in order to attain great figures for their dreams.

Revolution can only come about from the workers.
What is the sect approach? to gain individual members.
The marxist approach is that of to work through the layers of workers in Trade Unions, the labour movement, the student movment and womens movement.

Sects have done nothing but damage and derail the workers movement from the revolution.

What are your opinions?

Comrade Kamo

[bolshevik1917]

I couldnt agree more comrade. Sectarian parties like the SWP are anti-marxist and anti-working class, they are ignored by and laughed at by a huge majority of people in Britain, and I dont see this changing in a hurry

[Edelweiss]

totally agree Kamo!
THAT is the biggest problem of today's communist movement. Most communist parties in western countries are sectarian, especially if they are dedicating themself to a certain branch of communism like Trotzyism, Maoism, Stalinism, etc.

[Valkyrie]

That's the machinations of The State at work, Kamo. Political parties competing for political power.

Like the World Communist Party and World Socialist Party in general.. If you look at their platforms side-by side, there differences are so vague, what exactly are there differences? If they united they would have that much more of a voting bloc.

Baffling really.

[MJM]

It comes down to ego and personalities i'd say. What should we do? Take out everything since lenin and start again? It seems there is where the trouble began, once lenin died we got trotsky, stalin and mao. These are the three biggest problems I'd say.
So did they add anything to leftist theory or not?
Thats the question if their input was miniscule we should call ourselves marxist leninists or just plain marxists.
State planning offered by all three, still keeps the workers chained to dead capital, not that great a leap forward.
Socialism in one country or continuos revolution, mao did both really, take him off the list. Stalin vs Trotsky on the debate then, is the theory so great that it must split the workers parties of the world.
I'm against socialism in one country and continuos revolution I know little about, so I can live without both.

So I say go back to Lenin again.
Or maybe Marx and Engels (the most under rated marxist of them all IMO.)

[redstar2000]

Did you ever hear the story of "the cargo cults"?

During World War II, many primitive Pacific islanders had their first contact with western "civilization" and were, of course, enormously impressed by the material wealth these newcomers possessed and casually discarded.

After the war was over, the rich newcomers left...and were greatly missed. So, according to the proper rules of magic, the islanders constructed replicas of radios, control towers, landing strips, etc....in order that the rich westerners might be "drawn back" to the islands, bringing their wealth with them. Hence, "cargo cults."

I tell this story to ground a comment of one comrade I know: he says that all the modern "communist" parties, especially in the west, are "Leninist cargo cults." They think that what you have to do is set up an apparatus that's as faithful as possible to the Bolshevik model, carefully repeat Lenin's formulas for all occasions, and <boom!> communist revolution will return.

My comrade also suggests that communism is in a "theoretical crisis"...we've never learned how to use Marxism as analysis, much less been able to devise new models for revolutionary movements.

He's got a point.

:cool:

[Pete]

"THAT is the biggest problem of today's communist movement. Most communist parties in western countries are sectarian, especially if they are dedicating themself to a certain branch of communism like Trotzyism, Maoism, Stalinism, etc. "

~Off topic~ Thank you Malte you just cleared up my question on 'what is marxism'.

What Redstar is saying makes sense, although many of the leftist parties don't even do this. They end their 'marxist' approach at their name. The NDP aren't looking for a Revolution, and I consider them quite moderate. The CPC and the CPC (ML) are basically the same thing, as the CPC constitution says they are dedicated to the principles of Marxist-Leninist.

Thank you Kamo for the post. Quite informative for me.

[Aleksander Nordby]

It is better to have one communist party with Marxism-leninsme and not so many other bad communim

[Kez]

What i meant was the sect policy of the grops such as SWP, CPB, Socialist Alliance et al, who have no connections with the labour movement and have no chance of succeeeding in progressing movement. All they accomplish is to split the left. They are the cancer of the left.

The group(s) should be within the labour movement (eg labour party, Trade Unions, Womens rights) and work within these movements, as advised by Trotsky.

To prove the impotence of sects we can go back to the ILP in the 30's where while affiliated with the Labour party had 100,000 members all (all socialist/communist) once they left the Labour Movment and became independent, they lost ALL the members and the comrades who left became dissolusionedd with the whole idea of a change in the social structure and of revolutionary change. this is what can happen in a sect, and we must put an end to it. Thankfully the SWP only has 900 members, but so many students are swept by the passion of the party. (please note the SWP website does not have a shred of a page deedicated to theoretical work).

[Edelweiss]

The group(s) should be within the labour movement (eg labour party, Trade Unions, Womens rights) and work within these movements, as advised by Trotsky.


Funny, that you are mentioning Trotzky, cause from what I experienced Trotkyist parties are especially good in sectarism. Just look at the SWP (or "Linksruck" as their German section is callled), and their leader cult (was it Tony Cliff?), or how Trotzyist parties are constantly splitting themself, and even splitt-offs are splitting again...

[redstar2000]

Historically, Malte is quite right; it would take pages to list all the various Trotskyist splinter groups since 1930 or thereabouts.

Nor do I see any point in working within the British Labour Party--if that's what Trotsky advised. First of all, the BLP now is hardly what it was 60 years ago...it is now a capitalist party, pure and simple!

Secondly, at some point we must learn the futility of trying to "use" the capitalist electoral system as a "means" of "struggle." That is like trying to raise your rent money in a casino...except that in a casino, you sometimes win. No genuine socialist/communist party is ever going to win a majority in a capitalist election...it will simply not be permitted.

Working within existing trade unions is very complicated and often very frustrating work...but it is one of the crucial things that communists must do to succeed. But, if I were to just take a wild stab, my bet would be on the future of communism in new unions that organize workers that the old unions have ignored. I know that is an enormously daunting challenge...but if it worked as a strategy, the "payoff" would be like a casino jackpot. A large and growing sector of the working class imbued with communist ideas would radically change the "balance of power" and possibly even "tip the balance" our way.

Something to think about, anyway.

:cool:

[Kez]

by the time you make a new party and new traded unions, you could have already switched the leadership of the old ones.

We cant make new structures, we must get into the "labour" movement, and purge it of the right wing such as Blair et al. Once the working class comes to join the labour party, then boom, revolution. We dont intend to win fuckin elections, just gain more members who become socialists.

Splitting is not ALWAYS a bad thing, and if you read the history of british trotskyism, you will notice it wasnt the trots who split, but rather the opportunists.

[redstar2000]

Ah, TK, you've fallen into that old Leninist trap...that all it takes is revolutionary leadership and the rest is all "smooth sailing."

No. A union with communist "leadership" will be better than a union without communist leadership...no argument there. But go back to what I actually said: "...a large and growing sector of the working class imbued with communist ideas..."

If the working class votes for us in the same way that they vote for capitalist politicians, little has been really achieved. In the USSR, China, etc., communists "won" all the "elections"...and it turned out not to mean squat.

The working class must grasp the necessity of communism; in the absence of that, communist "leadership" is little more than a blip on the radar screen of capitalism...an inconvenience to be temporarily endured until "normal" conditions of exploitation can be restored.

To tell people that the way you get communism is to "vote" for it (in a union election or in a regular capitalist election) is not only useless, it's misleading and just plain wrong. That's not how it happens...ever.

And who says "we can't make new structures"? Actually, the young American Communist Party did have a degree of success in organizing new unions in the late 1920s and early 1930s...and precisely in the sectors of the working class that the old craft unions of that era completely ignored.

Forgive me if my estimate (guess) is wrong...but to "purge" Tony Blair from the BLP would probably mean purging 75% of the membership as well...hardly realistic.

Re: splitting--come now, TK, without knowing any details whatsoever, I'll bet those "opportunists" that you speak of actually consider themselves to be the "real Trotskyists" and consider the group(s) that you support to be "opportunists". And I'll also bet that someone outside the Trotskyist spectrum would have great difficulty in telling one from another.

:cool:

[bolshevik1917]

You are wrong about Blair, he has around 10% backing and falling. The rest of your post I will comment on later but not now, im going to the pub its Friday :biggrin:

[Kez]

Great Post RS (this is what Che-Lives should be about)
if you give me 1 day to reply with details and shit i would love to continue this debate

[CruelVerdad]

I totally agree. Sects only are looking for individual purposes, not iguality.

[redstar2000]

B1917, I'm willing to yield to your estimate of Blair's support in the British Labor Party (10%)...if you can explain to me how it is that Blair is still Prime Minister. Obviously, you are far better informed than I am on the details of British politics...but I would think that if Blair had really lost the confidence of 90% of the Labour Party, he would be removed...like Margaret Thatcher was removed by the Conservatives.

:cool:

[Kez]

RedStar, i take it from ur post ur not from UK? (no sarcasm)
But the Blairites are trying to change the labour party democracy to make it more of a top-down approach, so its more difficult to remove the head from the bottom, so it would not be surprising if a large figure (im not sur about 90%) were against him atm

[Valkyrie]

Yeah, that is exactly what I would think would happen if the Communist or Socialist Parties got a foot in the door on the Legislative process by being voted in.. They would, number one, have opposition from the other parties, and number two, eventually coud be voted out after the maximum 4-8 year term, and then a complete turn-over of policies.. That whole political structure would really need to go or they would just become one more party on the political cycle getting churned through the political system.. This is where I believe, they have lost they're radicalness, but deciding to go the electoral route..

[Apprentice of Marx]

One of swedens communist parties KPML&reg; (or in english The Communist party The Marxist Leninists (The revolutionaries)) Has both ML Communist and some Stalinists to!

But what i want to ask is what about Syndicalism could they support a communist revolution?

[redstar2000]

I don't think syndicalists would find much to their liking in any revolution "led" by Leninists/Stalinists.

Genuine syndicalists, after all, want a real working-class democracy. Leninist-Stalinists want a regime run exclusively by them.

That's a big difference.

:cool:

[Kez]

In anycase,
the point of the thread was to show how we should stay away from sects, and rather build a revolutionary tendency within the labour movement, and building layers of cadres in the workers movement, not to "recruit" the odd commie from here and there

Comrade Kamo

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Maybe we are all a little too critzising, the thing that made us oppose captalisme is also seperating us.

We must accept, we will never think all the same, because everyone is unique, so we must unite to fight strongly on the cases in wich we believe in.

[Kez]

so what do people think?
do we build our own "revolutionary parties" or work within the labour movement?

[Valkyrie]

work with the common-ground of the labor movement. That's where the people are.

[Cassius Clay]

Taveeshkamo I'm going to disagree with you.

In the early 80's the 'radical' left part of the Labour movement here in Britain tried to 'take over' the Labour party. It failed, although I suppose you could argue that if things had been done differently it could of succedded. But even if it did and then for argument's sake say that Labour still won the election would things be that different?

Certainly there would be no fire-fighters dispute, and I doubt Tony Benn or 'Militant' would of supported U$ Imperialism but I still think Britian would remain a Capitalist society, true maybe a 'nicer' or 'reformed' Capitalism such as that of Sweden but never the less a Capitalist society.

You have only to look at the KPRF in Russia, or France where Jospin the PM used to be a radical from the 60's. What the working classes and their allies need is yes a mass party but one dedicated to revolution and socialism, 'no compromise' so to speak.

[Kez]

i think you got it wrong cass.
The point of the great militant movement was not to win an election in a liberal bourgeois democracy, but rather to create a MASS REVOLUTIONARY PARTY. once it was such a party it cud have fucked parliament off for all they cared. The fact was that we were that fuckin close to having a mass revolutionary party and turning britain into a socialist country, as LENIN AND TROTSKY maintained should happen. I believe the problem was a) not having got rid of the bastard right B) not having more socialist trade unions
and these are the lessons for this time round.

Comrade Kamo

[Cassius Clay]

A fair enough point.

So correct me If I'm wrong but what your saying is that you need to create a party which can work within the system to creat a mass-revolutionary party which can then confront capital on a equal footing (as oppossed to the 'sects' that we have now). Fair enough, I believe Marx in his later days spoke along a similar line (although don't ask for a source on that) and I think that is what some parties in the U$A are doing right now particularly the CPUSA.

I would be very tempted to call that revisionism but if it works it works. What I would be most concerned about is 'The right' which you have correctly pointed out tend to ruin everything. If such a party were to come about I'm sure alot of people would join for a host of various reasons which have nothing to do with socialism but rather being misguided. I say this because such a party would have to gain a certain 'legitimaticy' in the eyes of the media and public, presumably by giving up some of the more 'radical' souncing phrases. As such you get the wrong sought of people joining.

Anyway hope to here from you soon.

[Kez]

theres not a fuckin inch of revisionism in the Socialist Appeal, we like Lenin in the RSDP are working to make it a workers party, and were getting closer to this now since the militant split by the taafite fucks in the early 90's.

Now, we argue our ideas in the party, in the traded unnions, in the unversities, we dont make it "softer" because we use the parliamentary system, this is not our way like it was for the mensheviks or the stalinists, but rather we use it to make the labour party a mass revolutionary party for the workers.

[Kilian]

www.istendency.org
What is it that is so bad in us

(Edited by Kilian at 10:20 pm on Mar. 31, 2003)

[the pen]

comrades
living in ireland i cannot comment divitinavely on english politics but the way i see the millie split is

militant was a fighting left faction within labour. it had a layer of support and backing. however a number of things happened to force milllie to leave.
1. the labor party had got rid of the democratic structres which had existed and acted as a means to change the lp. therefore the call to "take back" the party was fruitless.
2. labour had lost a lot of its trade union backing and was becoming more middle class.
3. there was a vote should the millies stay in labor. its result was 92% to leave 8% to stay. the sa ppl did not follow the will of the majority of the party and split.

as i see it now
1. labour is a complety middle class party. it is seen as such by all concious workers. the trade union give labor money and labor cuts there wages. this is not a party that politically concious layers of workers will join. therefore the policy of entreyism cannot be applied.

2. the sa faction has not grown within labor and now has to the best of my knowledge about 300 members.

3. i do not know the sp of england, scotland and wales (ex millies) i might be speaking from ignorance here but from what i see it is far more radical a force than the labor faction. it is true the sp has lost members but the last decade has seen a huge setback in conciousness due to the fall of the su and other factors.

i do not claim that sp in its current state is a revolutionary force. rather i believe it is one in a embronic form and will form a part of a future workers party.

[bolshevik1917]

The SP say Labour is a bourgeoise party and cannot change, but why did they invite George Galloway to speak at their national conference? He's in the LP and he's not even a revolutionary, but a petty left reformist.

What the SP claim is that the working class can change society, but they cant pick up a peice of paper and change the Labour party!

Socialist Appeal believes that the Labour Party and the trade unions will play a huge role in the transformation to socialism and Britain. I think we should look at the role of the Labour Party dialectically. That is, to see things not only as they are, but as they were and as they will be, and not to see things just as they appear but how they are under the surface and with all the contradictions they contain (for contradiction is the source of all movement).

The Labour Party can be, and has been described in many different ways. Lenin once talked of a bourgeois-workers party (that is a contradictory definition, but one which reflects the contory nature of this party. It basically means that it has a bourgeois leadership and a mass working class base or following.

I think that since Lenin's times the LP has changed a lot. Over the years it has moved to the right and it has moved to the left, it has been full of workers, and then emptied out again (and full of middle class careerists). What has happened over the last few years with the advent of New Labour is nothing new (although it must be said that this time the shift to the right in the leadership has gone further probably than at any time in the past).

Why is this? If we look at the history of the LP we can see that it is generally the case that in periods of lull in the class struggle the party tends to shift to the right, since there is no active participation of workers in its ranks. Periods of heightened class struggle tend to get reflected also inside the LP (with more or less delay) in a radicalisation, which eventually reaches the tops as well and produces a general movement to the left in the party. For instance during the late 70s and early 80s there was a shift to the left in the party as a result of big clashes and battles of the labour movement. It was at that time that the left (a reformist left, but left nevertheless) nearly won the general secretary election (was it in 1981?), and that a revolutionary Marxist tendency (Militant) won massive influence in the party (including 3 MPs, the Liverpool City Council, and majorities in many local parties and wards).

In the mid-80s, after the defeat of the miners' strike a general mood of disillusionment and despair set in in the labour movement, there was a lowering down of active political participation of workers in their organisations (Labour and trade union) and this set the ground for the rise of the Blairite right within the party in the 1990s.

Now, for the last say two or three years, or maybe a little bit more, we have seen the beginning of a recovery in the class struggle and a general move to the left in society. Inevitably this was bound to create conflicts within the party, precisely because of its contradictory nature. High points of this can be seen in the battle over Ken Livingstone mayoral candidacy, the resolutions passed at last year's party conference against PFI and the narrowly defeated one against the war, etc.

In fact the situation has changed a lot within the party. If you went to a party meeting say 5 years ago, everyone, more or less, would support Tony Blair. Today you will be hard pushed to find a single member who openly declares to be a Blairite, and you will be able to pass any number of resolutions you want calling for the nationalisation of the railways, support for the firefighters strike, opposition to the war, etc. However the point is that there has not been YET an influx of new people into the party, so this (though it might be necessary to do) will have little effect. But these changes can also be seen at other leves, for instance in the fact that 122 Labour MPs rebelled against the war (this would have been unthinkable just 2 years ago), and now maybe up to 200 could vote against the war this week. Some have even demanded a special recall party conference and the resignation of Tony Blair.

Now, we do know that most of these left Labour MPs are reformists (some of them even left reformists) and not genuine revolutionary socialists. The point however is to see in what direction is the process going (to the left) and what does it reflect (a movement further to the left amongst the ranks and in public opinion which is pressuring them).

There are other symptoms. For instance there was an attempt to force the de-selection of Oona King, LP MP for Bethnal Green in East London because she supported the war. The move had the support of 5 of the 10 local wards and was only defeated at the last minute due to a bureaucratic manouvre. Though the move was defeated is nevertheless significant since Bethnal Green was always a solidly right wing LP. Also a majority of the local councilors has come out against the war and they even spoke at an anti-war rally on Saturday.

In the unions the same process has gone further (it is usually the case that the process of political radicalisation of the workers starts in the unions and is then transferred onto the LP). There have been in the last two years elections in many unions in which left wing general secretaries have been elected (some of them even calling themselves socialists): RMT, ASLEF, NUJ, AEEU-AMICUS, NATFHE, CWU, FBU, PCS. And in other unions left wing candidates are likely to win this year (GMB and TGWU). It was actually union delegations which moved the resolutions against privatisation and the war at the LP conference last year (remember the unions have 50% of the votes at LP conference).

Again what this reflects is a process of a shift to the left in the working class which has pushed a number of trade union leaders to the left, and those who have not moved in that direction have been replaced. Many of them are not revolutionary Marxists, but it is nevertheless VERY significant.

All these left trade union leaders (I think with only one exception) have called for trade unionists to reclaim the LP and to fight against Tony Blair and his domination of the party (including some who are not particularly left like Edmonds of the GMB).

These are all little symptoms but they all point in the same direction and they confirm historical experience.

[redstar2000]

B1917, there's absolutely no question that bourgeois parties shift "leftwards" or "rightwards" depending on objective conditions, especially the amount of heat in the class struggle and the always pressing demands of imperialism itself (the fall in the rate of profit must be postponed another decade.).

The unanswered question is: are communists needed to assist/retard that process?

I don't think that's the case; I think the process would take place even if communists didn't exist.

It seems to me that communists have two distinct roles to play. (1) where possible, to directly participate in the class struggle with the goal of radicalizing the rank-and-file as much as possible (not just winning "leadership" positions in the unions); (2) to spread communist ideas as widely as possible in the working class and among potential allies of the working class.

Neither of those roles really has much of anything to do with bourgeois electoral politics...which is, after all is said and done, a distraction from what is real.

The alternative strategy, "taking over the Labor Party" (or any bourgeois party), leads to a dead end. Even if you do it and even if you "win" a majority in parliament, you have no clear mandate to introduce communism and the capitalists will "go on strike" against you--call it "the general lock-out"--until they bring you down. Or, they'll buy a couple of generals and stage a military coup.

On the other hand, a communist uprising--with strikes, occupations, massive demonstrations, etc.--is a mandate for communism. You have the "authority" to simply ignore the old state apparatus...even large portions of the military establishment simply abandon the sinking ship (especially the younger officers and enlisted men...who also move leftwards).

Seems like a no-brainer to me. :cheesy:

:cool:

[bolshevik1917]

Its not the fact that 'just because LP will swing to the left lets be there'

History has shown us that the working class has ALWAYS turned to this party (when it is left) in its times of struggle. But the left reformist party leaders have ALWAYS sold them out.

The same happened in Germany before Hitler came to power. The workers turned to the SDF leaders, the workers couldnt only take power THEY HAD POWER, but the SDF leadership tried to hand it back to the bourgeoise (who were crushed)...the rest as they say is history.

[redstar2000]

"History has shown us that the working class has ALWAYS turned to [the Labor Party] (when it is left) in its times of struggle."

Gee, that's not very bright of them, is it?

Regardless, why should we communists tail after what is clearly a bad move?

Why shouldn't we simply tell the working class, over and over and over again if necessary, that the Labor Party is a capitalist party and will never put power in the hands of the working class?

That may be an "unpopular" message for a long time...so be it. Our role is not to be "popular"; our role is to tell the truth to our class.

:cool:

[bolshevik1917]

Redstar, it is clear you know nothing or very little about the situation in Britain.

Many 'communists' and 'socialists' do tell workers not to have anything to do with the LP

a few of them being the SWP, SSP, SP, CPGB, CPS, CPML, WRP, SPGB and the SLP

Socialist Appeal explains the role of the LP, when we entered it in the 70s as Militant we were making massive gains. Unfortunatley many careerists had other ideas, and set up a campaign fighting to leave the LP and 'come on leaps and bounds'

after loosing thousands of members though they certainly did not

What about the situation we will have in Southampton in May? the fascist BNP will be represented in the election, he is up against a socialist appeal comrade in the Labour Party - but the socialist party has also chosen to stand a candidate, thus weakening left opposition and benefiting no one but the fascists!

It is okay Redstar to say something, but doing it is another. Before trying to change things you must understand them, that is why in Britain, the workers will take power through the Labour Party, not some little phantom army of oppurtunists.

[redstar2000]

"...in Britain, the workers will take power through the Labour Party..."

and pigs will fly!

:cool:

[bolshevik1917]

Okay, fine, your right Redstar....every worker in the UK will flock to the SPGB (fraction 2) when they enter a crisis...its only natural after all.

No wonder our movement goes so slow when people are so blind

[redstar2000]

Why "blind", b1917? I don't contest your knowledge of the details of British politics.

I'm talking about a basic and fundamental understanding of the capitalist system and how it works.

You are arguing that you can take a capitalist political party and "use" it as a vehicle to attain state power for the working class.

That makes no fucking sense!

As to all the odd grouplets in Britain that might agree with me about this point, I'm hardly responsible for whatever else they might think. People can have a correct view of one thing and still go nutball on some other thing...or a lot of other things.

But on this question, if they are right, then they are right!

:cool:

[bolshevik1917]

The Labour Party is not a capitalist party, it is a trade union built reformist party with a very right wing leadership

read this http://www.marxist.com/History/how_LP_was_formed.html

[redstar2000]

B1917, that's an interesting link for the History forum...but has no relevance to this discussion.

You could, with equal relevance, discuss the links between Marx and Engels and the German Social-Democracy of 1880...that would say nothing of interest regarding the German Social Democratic Party of 2003.

There was a time, no doubt, when "labour" was an accurate description of that group. No doubt some historian is hard at work even as we speak tracing the events that made that term irrelevant.

But it is irrelevant and will stay that way. I know of no case in recorded history where a bourgeois political party was "captured" by the working class. Without being dogmatic about it, I don't think it can ever happen.

It seems to me that your attachment to this perspective comes more from historical associations than from a realistic analysis of the Labour Party now. Perhaps Trotsky's analysis was valid in 1930 or 1940...it's totally irrelevant now.

Sometimes, we simply have to "give up" political nostalgia.

:cool:

[bolshevik1917]

So the trade unions are one by one replacing the old right wing leaders with new left (reformist but left) leaders, who all express their desire to change the Labour Party and return it to working class policies - which will in turn fill the party up with class conscious workers open to new revolutionary ideas

and you think we should leave and stand on the sidelines?

As ive said before, its frustrating when people say the working class can change society but they cant change a small thing like the LP

The same people who are talking the way you are now Redstar, were the ones who said the AEU was so far right the workers should leave. But the workers stayed and fought, and now its a very left wing union. Socialist Appeal were the only tendency who had a 'stay and fight' policy

[redstar2000]

B1917, in the case of a trade union that actually engages in class struggle, your perspective of "stay and fight" may or may not make sense...it would depend on the details.

That has nothing to do with a capitalist political party.

And your comparison between taking over an entire society and taking over the "Labour" Party is clearly not valid. Taking over an entire society is called revolution and does not require any conformity to the legal norms of capitalist society.

Taking over a capitalist political party requires a legal procedure that will always, in fact, be rigged against you.

It is, in fact, a "small" version of trying to achieve communism by "winning" a bourgeois election. That is not permitted by the capitalist class. You will never be permitted to "take over" the "Labour" Party for the same reason. Whatever legal measures that need to be taken to stop you will be taken. And they will work...they always do.

:cool:

[bolshevik1917]

So how can you explain the emergance of new lefts in the unions in the bourgeoise had the power to prevent it?

It seems you are underestimating the working class whilst showing too much respect for the ruling class and their limited powers.

And as ive said, Labour is not 'a capitalist party' it is a mass reformist trade union party, which due to a number of factors has suffered the biggest move to the right in its history.

[redstar2000]

"So how can you explain the emergence of new lefts in the unions [if?] the bourgeoisie had the power to prevent it [them?]?"

Because unions are not parties.

Unions are on the "front lines" of class struggle and naturally respond to changes in the "balance of power" with more or less rapidity. A union leadership that fails to engage in vigorous struggle for its members will create its own opposition both within and outside the union. When this opposition becomes significant, the dinosaurs bestir themselves into action...or at least the appearance of action.

The influence of the capitalist class within a union is usually indirect and ideological--though one can never rule out the bribe or even the legal prohibition of radical leadership.

In the United States, for example, a union that democratically elected a member of the Communist Party to its leadership would lose its collective bargaining rights under the National Labor Relations Act.

That law has not been tested in many decades and it's hard to say what a court would decide now...not to mention the existence of communists who think the old CP is a toothless and senile lion.

It's an entirely different situation with a major capitalist party. The bourgeoisie run it more or less directly and openly.

To paraphrase Ralph Nader, the only difference between George W. Bush and Tony Blair "is the speed with which their knees hit the floor when a corporate CEO enters the room." No significant political figure in your country or mine has any doubt as to who is master...and they have no problem with that.

You may as well attempt to remove a chunk of meat from the jaws of a hungry tiger as try to take a political party away from the bourgeoisie. It won't happen.

And why should it? What would be the point in we communists dressing ourselves in the tattered rags of bourgeois "legitimacy"? As I said in an earlier post, we are never going to create socialism by majority vote in the House of Commons or the U.S. House of Representatives. Even if you could "recapture" the Labour Party, what would you have but a discredited and corrupt machine that can't do what you want it to do anyway?

Well, you'd have a job. Somehow, I think you want a little more than that. At least I hope so!

:cool:

[bolshevik1917]

What is your explination for us being 'allowed' to have Marxist MP's who ran whole cities (Liverpool) in the 70s?

Why were they 'allowed' to be elected when it was common knowledge that they were revolutionaries?

[redstar2000]

I wasn't there, of course, but two reasons immediately suggest themselves.

The first is that they weren't actually as "revolutionary" as their words might have led folks to believe. I think if there had actually been a "Liverpool Commune", I would have heard something about it. It used to be the case that "communists" were often allowed to "run" municipal governments in the advanced capitalist world because cities have no effective power to actually do anything of substance regarding the class structure of capitalist society.

But I said "used to be". You're talking about something that happened in England two or three decades ago. I do not think it would be permitted to happen now. "Red Ken" (mayor of London) is really, I think you would agree, an extremely pale shade of pink.

Only the most domesticated of social democrats are allowed to be elected now...politicians who can be counted on to "know their place"...and ours.

I'm surprised that you, as a Trotskyist, would argue the contrary position at such length. You have to be aware of the conclusions drawn by Marx and Engels after the Paris Commune...the working class cannot take over the old bourgeois state machinery but must smash it and set up a new "state" apparatus completely dominated by the working class.

The "dictatorship of the proletariat", remember?

:cool:

[the pen]

comrades
a militant town council was elected in liverpool which lauched a campagin against cutbacks and poverty its success's include

6,300 families rehoused from tenements, flats and maisonettes
2, 873 tenement flats demolished
1,315 walk-up flats demolished
2,086 flats/maisonettes demolished
4,800 houses and bungalows built
7,400 houses and flats improved
600 houses/bungalows created by ‘top-downing’ 1,315 walk-up flats
25 new Housing Action Areas being developed
6 new nursery classes built and open
17 Community Comprehensive Schools established following a massive re-organisation
£10million spent on school improvements
Five new sports centres, one with a leisure pool attached, built and open
Two thousand additional jobs provided for in Liverpool City Council Budget
Ten thousand people per year employed on Council’s Capital Programme
Three new parks built
Rents frozen for five years

however labour today is a different party. it is now without a doubt a petit bourgeiose party. its working class membership is falling as is its trade union support.
the mythical and wildly hyped "shift to the left" failed to materialise over the war in iraq despite the fact that the majority of the british public opposed the war.
even if the parties base shifted towards the left the undemocratic measure brought in durin the last decade prevents any change from below.
i fully understand that traditionally labour has the party of the working class and some comrades have difficulty accepting the change. labour today is a radically different animal from the one of the post ww2 era.

yours comraderly
the pen

[Kez]

it doesnt matter tho, the masses are STILL in the Labour party however pissed off they are with the leadership, and will also be so unless there is a viable alternative, and theSocialist Party IS NOT a viable alternative. the SP was so successful it managed to loose 3000 members in 10 years, pretty impressive, or do we in fact vote for the SWP who have 900 members and has the biggest member turnover of all the sects.

What as marxists we should do is to uise the structure existing in the labour party and turn it back to the workers party is was built, maintain, and stood for in elections.

Wherever the masses are, we should be, and the masses are firmly in the labour party. the unnions arent calling for a new party, the unions are calling to reclaim the party, and that is what we should do and stop being so arrogant as to think we are above the workers and should provide for them. WE ARE THE WORKERS.

We should all enter the LP and win over the constituencies we are in, and stop pissing about talking shit, time for real action now!

[redstar2000]

It is a sad fact of life that when people are determined to follow a foolish plan, there doesn't seem to be any possible form of rational argument that makes any difference.

If bolshevik1917 and TavareeshKamo want to dick around in the Labour Party, I can't stop them.

But that doesn't mean I have to join them...and I flatly refuse to do so. It is no part of communist obligation to imitate the mistakes or follies of other communists out of misplaced "solidarity", much less mindless Leninist discipline.

So, guys, you have in my opinion a really dumb idea...but go ahead if that's what you want. But no one who has read and understood the discussion in this thread will follow you.

Nor should they!

:cool:

[Kez]

good for you, you cant carry on the argument, so you resort to insults

well done.

You know who did split from the Labour Party? The other half of militant, the Socialist Party

lets see how successful theyve been:

They lost 3000 members in 10 years

They lost the marxist MP's

The huge centre in Hepscott Road has had to be sold off as a result of a financial crisis.

They are now living off the proceeds, but this money will not last forever

In the meantime, they have lost the whole of the Scottish organisation

And their attempt at splitting the Scottish Labour Party has meant Tommy Sheridan split away on a nationalist binge fusing with the Cliff group on the way.

Most of the former leaders of the majority faction have dropped out in demoralisation

The entire leadership of the Liverpool region was booted out.Taaffe has thus succeeded in destroying the Liverpool organisation that he was in charge of for so many years, and which used to be regarded as the jewel in the crown of Militant.

Even the name of Militant - which was well known in Britain and internationally - has been unceremoniously ditched and replaced with a name that nobody has ever heard of. In short, they have succeeded in destroying all that was built up through decades of work.

On the international front, they have lost entire sections and experienced a series of splits - which still continue.

In their continuing search for a magic formula, they set up an umbrella grouping called the Socialist Alliance. When this was recently taken over by the Cliff group, the Taaffites walked out in a huff. In short, they have shown that they are only good at destroying what others have built. Ten year later, it is all quite clear. It was not the Labour Party, but the Taaffites who have "withered on the vine."

Comrade Kamo

[redstar2000]

Kamo, why do you bring this petty sectarian squabbling into a theoretical discussion?

I thought what bolshevik1917 and I were arguing was the class nature of the Labour Party and whether communists should have anything to do with it.

Apparently, your "point" is that one group of Trotskyists "agreed with me" and went on to run their outfit into the ground. Kamo, Trotskyists have been running their groups into the ground before I was born. A split in a Trotskyist group with or without a series of practical blunders (usually with) is as inevitable as the "money shot" in a porn film. (The problem with a Leninist Party is that it's almost impossible for it to correct the blunders of its leadership.)

To repeat what I said earlier, I am not responsible for the nutball views or actions that a group might have/take besides the one issue on which we agree. Whatever "stupid" things this other group you're talking about may have done, the one stupid thing they did not do was dick around with the bourgeois Labour Party.

And if you think I'm being "insulting", stay out of the Opposing Ideologies forum...the pro-capitalists will eat you for breakfast.

:cool:

[Kez]

We were discussing sects and you were commenting on how we should break out of the LP (which it seems you know nothing about) and start our own movement or party. I gave you and showed you how this is not possible, and only by working with an entrist agenda into the LP where the masses are located can we achieve anything.

On top of that, we go back to history, the Independant Labour Party split from the LP in the 30's, 8000 communists were lost from the cause. this time 3000
the ILP has gone, its dead, and soon the Socialist Party (whos agenda of open party work you supporting) will also wither away

[the pen]

kamo lets confine our secterian slagging to our conversations on msn. sa members in greenhouses shouldnt throw stones.

[bolshevik1917]

redstar, you really have no fundamental idea of how society and the working class operates. Granted, we would all love to have THE revolutionary party of the workers, but the masses ALWAYS move through the unions and the Labour Party!

According to you that is 'stupid' of the masses, fair enough, thats your opinion. When you fill a sink with water and pull the plug out the water drains down the plug hole - stupid isnt it, but what can you do.

The Militant marxist MP's were not reformists like Ken Livingstone, they were revolutionaries. And do you think that if 8000 marxists had stayed in the party Tony Blair and his gang would have came to power? cos I dont.

[redstar2000]

"...the masses ALWAYS move through the unions and the Labour Party..." -- bolshevik1917

Gee, what did the masses do before those formations existed? Or do you suggest that Marx was wrong and only in the recent past have the masses moved onto the stage of history?

In other words, b1917, your approach to matters is a-historical. Essentially, you are saying that since the Labour Party was at one time in the past a party of the working class, it is now and will always remain so. Whatever you call that kind of analysis, it's not Marxism.

If you want to pin the responsibility for the rise of Tony Blair on a rival trotskyist group...that's up to you. Personally, I think the capitalist class might have had a little more effect on the outcome, myself. Just a wee bit. :cheesy:

The forms of class struggle have changed a lot over the past couple of centuries. Here is some more "heresy" for you to be outraged about: they may change even more. :o

:cool:

[Kez]

RedStar, you seem to be someone who joined some party got pissed with it, and decided to be a whinging sod who cannot go forward in a positive manner

"Gee, what did the masses do before those formations existed?"
-they got into tiny little groups of luddites and chartists rioted got arrested, yey that was good...

the labour party is where the working masses ARE. the workers are in the unions and the unions are STILL in the LP. the working class votes STILL vote labour 1/3 vote conservative, and only a tiny fraction vote LD. So the majority still vote LP.

the LP is the biggest tool to get to the masses and radicalise them.

I am also pissed off that you seem to know much about the British Labour party when you dont even live in britain, and have proved you dont read any materials on the British LP.

http://www.marxist.com/History/how_LP_was_formed.html read this and contineu the next couple of chapters

[redstar2000]

"Redstar, you seem to be someone who joined some party, got pissed with it, and decided to be a whinging sod who cannot go forward in a positive manner." -- TK (emphasis added)

I'm reasonably certain that's an insult, TK...but I'll let it pass.

What's interesting is that whenever one finds oneself criticizing some Leninist nonsense, one of the stock responses is that "you have a bad attitude."

Funny, all my bosses felt the same way. :cheesy:

Next thing you know, I'll be informed in lofty tones that "I fail to grasp the dialectic." :confused:

Bollocks! (Did I spell that one right, TK?)

As I recall, Marx had a rather high opinion of the Chartists and some of them were later involved in the First International. But what did he know? ;)

I notice that both of you guys find it difficult to separate the unions from the Labour Party in your own minds. Why is that? We're not arguing about whether or not communists should be in the unions...why do you keep bringing that up?

The fact that a majority of working class people vote for the Labour Party has nothing to do with the class nature of that party. To suggest it does is moronic.

Who really runs the damn thing? Who makes the decisions? Who determines its real polices?

It ain't the workers and it ain't even the union leaders, TK, and you know it...or ought to.

And what is this crap about how I don't live in England and therefore should shut up about something I don't know about? What the hell kind of weird definition of proletarian internationalism is that?

If you look at the posts I've made in this thread, you will see that I clearly refrained from commenting on the details of British politics...it would be out of place for me to do so.

But Tony Blair is a "world figure" and the thrust of "Labour" Party policies is reported regularly and with increasing approval in the pages of The Economist. One would have to lack all fluency in the English language not to be aware of what Blair's "Labour" Party really is: a capitalist party.

If I were to apply your absurd logic to American politics, I'd have to conclude that "communists should work inside the Democratic Party because that's where the workers are...we know that because that's who they vote for." :cheesy:

Nonsense, like Marxism, is international.

:cool:

[bolshevik1917]

Its not that you dont live in the UK (not England, I dont live in England) its that you know nothing about the party, its history or its structure.

Before arguing a case on something, it is wise to at least have some knowledge on the topic. You are arguing, not with some, but with none!

You have made a few blunders on this thread, including underestimating the working class, overestimating the ruling class and calling the Labour Party a 'capitalist party'.

You have still declined to comment on how Militant Labour were 'allowed' to have openly revolutionary MP's, you simply assumed that they must have been glorified reformists.

You COULD save Kamo and I alot of time if you simply looked into the history of our movement http://www.marxist.com/hbt/

But as you probibly wont we'll just have to keep pointing things out to you. Of course there is none so blind as those who will not see, as the old saying goes, but hey we've nothing better to do.

What about Pakistan, im assuming you know there are 5 or 6 Marxist MP's in the bourgoise parliament with you being an internationalist and all that.

http://www.marxist.com/Asia/pakistan_marxi...mp_elected.html (http://www.marxist.com/Asia/pakistan_marxist_mp_elected.html)

Perhaps you could explain to us how comrade Manzoor, a Marxist trade unionist, was 'allowed' to be elected to parliament under the slogan "Irreconcilable Struggle Until Socialist Revolution" ??

Marx himself said in 1878 that "If in England or in the United States the working class wins the majority in Parliament or Congress, it could then use legal means to abolish the laws and institutions obstructing it's development"

But as you say, what did he know

With regards to your comments on the party and the unions, the unions formed the party as a reformist party to defend themselves in parliament. The unions still have a 50% vote in the Labour party, they could take it over in a second.

I would also find it interesting, maybe even amusing if you would offer us your pearls of wisdom on the Brittish situation. If you lived in the UK what would you do? what advice would you offer to workers, what organisations would you work in?

[redstar2000]

A rather scatter-shot and incoherent post, b1917, not up to your usual standards.

Probably because you've run out of substantive arguments...and can only reply with baseless assertions and appeals to scripture (that link on the history of British Trotskyism is something that I would only read if you were pointing a gun at my head!).

In what fashion or manner have I "underestimated" the working class or "overestimated" the ruling class?

And the British Labour Party is obviously a capitalist party. Why do you deny the obvious?

B1917, the presence of a few "openly revolutionary MPs" (if that's what they really were) prior to the Thatcher era is hardly relevant now.

And even if it were, so what? Were you really suggesting that some off-hand remark by Marx towards the end of his life (he was in pretty bad shape, you know), as a justification for the "parliamentary path to socialism"?

How about the totality of the man's work?

And then you offer that handful of "Marxists" in the Pakistani Parliament...break out the champagne! Er, except for the fact that the Pakistani Parliament can't take a shit without getting permission from the U.S.-supported military dictator there (sorry, I've forgotten his name; quislings come and go so quickly these days).

Having read a little bit about Pakistani politics, I suspect that those guys were elected with the support of their extended families and clans...that remains a very important part of politics in that part of the world; it's pre-capitalist in many important respects.

"The unions could take over the Labour Party in a second." But they won't. Not because of some rival Trotskyist group. And certainly not because of me. :biggrin:

They won't do it because they can't...whatever shreds of formal power they might retain in the Labour Party is meaningless compared to real (capitalist) power.

B1917, don't you even glimpse the fact that political power in a capitalist society is not a matter of votes? The whole point of bourgeois democracy is to give the appearance of popular sovereignity while keeping real power in the hands of the ruling class.

What would I do if I lived in the UK or what should communists do in the UK after they once and for all quit dicking around with parliamentary cretinism?

I know you intend that as a "trick question" in the hopes that I will make a real "blunder" and say something so ignorant that everyone on the board who is British will have a big laugh at my expense. :cheesy:

So I will cleverly evade your trap by saying this: wherever real struggle is taking place against the ruling class, that is where communists are needed. Look for those who are alienated, pissed off, royally fucked over...and who are struggling to fight back.
Deepen their hatred for the prevailing social order and teach them something of the tools of Marxism...give them the gift of revolutionary hope.

Quit looking for followers (much less voters); start looking for potential revolutionaries.

They're out there. Trust me on that.

:cool:

[bolshevik1917]

"wherever real struggle is taking place against the ruling class, that is where communists are needed"

I could not agree more!

And that is why Socialist Appeal will not try to build a phantom "communist party" but continue to fight in the mass organisations!

From our tenth anniversary statement http://www.marxist.com/Europe/socialist_ap...nniversary.html (http://www.marxist.com/Europe/socialist_appeal_10th_anniversary.html)

"A revolutionary tendency must have a perspective, but also a strategy for growth. In building the Marxist movement, there are no shortcuts or panaceas. The small ultra-left sects on the fringes of the Labour movement, who spend all their time building phantom "revolutionary parties" of half a dozen people, do not even understand the nature of the problem of party-building. They do not understand that it is not sufficient to proclaim the superiority of Marxism. It is necessary to educate the cadres not only with theory, but through patient work in the mass organisations of the working class.

We have a dual task: a theoretical task, of patiently explaining our ideas, raising the level of the advanced guard; and building the Marxist tendency. We must not succumb to the pressures of the existing situation, but understand the perspectives and the processes at work under the surface.

For the past twenty years, the workers' organisations have lived through a period of defeats and setbacks. Looking back, many activists see nothing but defeats. Not having the advantage of a Marxist perspective, they do not understand how the class moves and have therefore drawn the most pessimistic conclusions. However, this psychology - which they mistakenly regard as "realism" - reflects this past, not the present or the future.

The class struggle will continue, no matter what the Labour and trade union leaders say or do. Of course, the union apparatus if powerful and can hold back the movement for a time. But this will only give it an even more explosive character when it finally bursts through. If the unions act as an obstacle, there will be a wave of unofficial strikes, which will later end in official action. The main thing is to see that an explosive mood is building up under the surface of apparent calm.

In the next period the crisis of capitalism will find its expression in crises within the mass organisations of the working class. The hold of the right wing leadership will be broken. The unions and parties will be shaken from top to bottom, preparing the way for the formation of mass left reformist and centrist tendencies. The Marxists must be capable of winning over the leftward-moving workers and youth. This means that we must maintain our unswerving orientation to the mass organisations of the class."

You see, in the UK and all around the world we are moving into a slump as you will know. Workers rights and conditions will be attacked more and more. More cutbacks, more 'reforms', more sell offs, and more job losses are inevitable.

Where will the struggling worker turn? He or she will naturally turn to the union. Of course workers wont just say 'bugger this i'll join the Labour party' but as the unions fill up with new left thinking people, who will elect new left thinking leaders it will reflet in the party at a stage.

This will eventually see the end of Blairism, the Labour party will return to left reformism, and as the statement says, socialists and leftists will join.

As we are inside the party we have access to these people at branch meetings, conferences etc. We chat to them, sell them a paper. Patiently explain the need for socialism.

We win some over, they win more over, more youth and leftists join the party as we intervine.

Now whether at this point, the party has the ability to carry through anything drastic in parliament, whether it has the power to set us on the way to revolution - we will never know. Revolution is not an organised predictable thing.

But as far as reaching the masses goes, we will reach them 1000 times quicked in the Labour party than in any of the 40-odd 'workers parties' in Britain.

So yes, wherever real struggle is taking place against the ruling class, that is where communists are needed - and that is why working in the Labour party is the correct strategy for Marxists.

[redstar2000]

Good premise, bad conclusion.

Yes, class struggle continues. Yes, periods of defeat and even despair are followed by fresh rebellion. Yes, trade union leadership that tries to control or even stop workers from fighting back simply guarantee an ultimately more explosive outbreak of class rebellion.

Dubious: replacing existing union leadership with "leftists". It seems to me that we have more to gain from "unofficial" strikes, slow-downs, and even occupations...that such tentative steps "outside" the formal rituals of "labor-management relations" are more likely to lead to the radicalization of the working class than trying to substitute ourselves for the existing bureaucracy.

See, b1917, what we want (or should want) is for the class to act directly in its own interests. This doesn't happen by "picking the right leaders"...it happens only when the class itself perceives the need for direct action and takes it!

The rest of the document is simply fortune-telling; and I can do that too. For example, even if there is a "flood" of leftists into the "Labour" Party, the Blair-types will simply bring in a "flood" of their class supporters...middle class types who see that the Conservatives are dinosaurs and that the Liberals will never win a parliamentary majority again; people whose own class interests include a career in or strategic connections with a Blair-type regime.

Both views are speculative; but I don't see why my speculation is any less valid on its face.

Waffling: "Now whether at this point the [Labour] party has the ability to carry through anything drastic in parliament, whether it has the power to set us on the way to revolution - we will never know."

Yes, they do know...if they've read Marx or even just Lenin and Trotsky. They know that bourgeois parliaments have never set anyone "on the way to revolution." And never will!

So what's the point of their strategy, even were it to succeed? A higher caliber of rhetoric in the House of Commons? Making May Day a national holiday? What would a "left" version of the "Labour" Party actually do that hasn't already been done by German and French social democrats? The answer is: not a damn thing!

I had no idea there were as many as 40 vanguard-wannabes in the UK...I'm pretty sure that exceeds the number in the US by a wide margin. But you'd think by this time that some more intelligent people there would be ready for a fresh approach.

Not yet, I guess, but hopefully soon.

:cool:

[Kez]

what do you mean by un-official strikes? you want to break the workers up into unoffcial and official? And yes, your really ognna have occupations now....

How does the class perceive it should take action? does it suddenly realise? without leadership this cannot be acheived

Red Star, your ideas dont even have conclusions, you dont have anything constructive to say, you put forward no alternative other than "the movement without leaders should start revolution with no agenda but it will know anyway somehow...."

comrade kamo

[redstar2000]

Kamo, are you deliberately pretending to mis-understand what I'm saying?

"If the unions act as an obstacle, there will be a wave of unofficial strikes..." -- thus speaks the document that b1917 posted. What I am suggesting is that we support and encourage the "unofficial" and let the "official" take care of itself. What we want is for the class to move outside of the realm of capitalist legality...in a small way at first, in bigger ways later.

"How does the class perceive [that] it should take action?" How do you perceive when action is necessary? Are you of the opinion that any worker of normal intelligence cannot see things as clearly as yourself?

Consciousness arises from class realities, does it not? If Marxism suddenly disappeared from human memory, how long would it take to be completely re-invented? I think a couple of decades would do it, if not less.

I know, you think if you or some other trustworthy vanguardist is not present, giving orders, the working class will just fuck off, or briefly rebel and then submit, blah, blah, blah. You have the standard bourgeois-idealist conception of history that permeates Leninism...the "right" people have to be in the "right" positions of authority, or nothing "good" can happen at all.

One might call it the "Burke's Peerage" theory of "revolutionary" politics.

:cool:

[Kez]

no im not, im trying to understand the wave of opportunnism your riding.

Who is going to start these "unofficial strikes" it wont happen if we have right-wing union leaders, we need marxist leaders, who build through the structure and make it rank-and-file a marxist union, like the students union in spain is becoming with the marxist students leading it.

"Consciousness arises from class realities, does it not? If Marxism suddenly disappeared from human memory, how long would it take to be completely re-invented? I think a couple of decades would do it, if not less. "
- whats your point, i agree totally, and this proves the mensheviks wrong as in that there will never be class collabaration, but confrontation, as lenin said, and corrected Kautsky on many a time.

Your talking shite in your last paragraph, if we have a unnion, with no left wing leadership, how is this union gona have the unooficial strikes we are after?

[bolshevik1917]

That is a very very ultra-leftist view you have there Redstar.

Perhaps you should pop down to your local factory and try to advocate unofficial action.

Its all very well to say that unofficial strikes are great when you are standing on the sidelines, but they are not so rosy when they happen and you are one of the workers involved.

The fact is, unofficial strikes have lead to demoralisation of workers, many of which have been taken to court.

Also, in Spain we had a leading position in the anti-war campaign amongst the youth, our comrades thought that a general strike against the war was an important step. They had two options - call for unofficial action, or propagandise their call, go directly to the workers, and do it in such a way that they put pressure on the official organisations to do something. And finally they played an important role in forcing the TU leaders to call for a 2 hour general strike on April 10. Much more effective isnt it?

This anarchistic 'no leadership' thing is also very ropey. The failed world revolution of the beggining of last century was due to a leadership crisis. Just take a look at my favorite example, Germany.

Leon Trotsky said in the opening sentince of the transitional programme "the world political situation as a whole is chiefly charectarised by a historical crisis of the leadership of the proliteriat"

And he is correct, because in times of struggle the masses turn to their familiar and traditional reformist organisations for answers.

That is why we must have people their to provide the answers. Most workers arent ready made Marxists, they must be reached, and the sects cannot do that because they have nothing to offer.

[redstar2000]

I sure hope someone is reading this thread besides just us three...because I'm pretty sure that I'm not going to convince you two, and I'm certain that you're not going to convince me...at least not with the kinds of tired arguments that you're making now.

Kamo thinks that "only marxist leaders" can start unofficial strikes...which is simply ludicrous. There's probably been tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of unofficial strikes with nary a "marxist leader" in sight.

B1917 doesn't even "like" unofficial strikes...he thinks they lead to demoralization and even court appearances (horrors!).

What a pair!

Kamo thinks that "without left-wing leaders", a union can't have an unofficial strike. Gee, maybe they'd have to do it without the leader's permission. Ohmygod, that's positively anarchistic! Quick, somebody call the cops!!!

B1917, on the other hand, "likes" ritual. A two-hour "general strike against the war" is, in his view, a great victory for the international working class.

I think it's a joke, myself. (Ultra-leftist bastard.)

What you "vanguardists" apparently find it impossible to grasp is the strategy of the capitalist class. They know (better than you!) that class struggle is omnipresent...and they seek to contain it within legal and ritualistic channels.

And you guys want to help them do exactly that!

Trotsky's remarks about a "crisis of leadership" constitute an amusing footnote; he meant people liked Stalin more than him...and Roosevelt more than both of them put together.

His thesis that people "turn to their traditional reformist organizations" in periods of crisis is actually a plain-spoken repudiation of even the "possibility" of proletarian revolution.

What he's really saying is that the working class is "naturally reformist", perhaps even incurably so, and thus must be "tricked" into revolution by having Trotskyists in leading positions in the reformist groups.

This is such a gross travesty of "Marxism" that I'm surprised you even bother to (mis)use the name. What place in your scenario for Marx's conception of a class-conscious proletariat acting in its own class interests to overthrow class society for once and for all?

I'm beginning to think that what you guys really want are jobs...either in a union bureaucracy or maybe in the "Labour" party itself.

I hope you get them; you'll drop all your "revolutionary" verbosity and stop confusing people.

And, most important of all (to you!): you'll feel right at home.

:cool:

[andresG]

"Kamo thinks that "only marxist leaders" can start unofficial strikes...which is simply ludicrous. There's probably been tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of unofficial strikes with nary a "marxist leader" in sight."
-redstar2000

I completely agree. Just take a look at Argentina. There are no Marxists around telling the workers what to do, yet they have managed occupy factories and even run them on their own, without any bosses (Capitalist or Marxist)!

The last thing workers need is a new set of bosses or army generals, barking orders at them. What they need is to be able to run things on their own!

[bolshevik1917]

From the way you talk Redstar, I am assuming you are neither in a trade union, or have ever participated in a strike (official or unofficial)

My views on unofficial strikes was not simply that I 'dont like them' that is a basterdisation of my argument.

A factory close to my town was once shut down by unofficial action, the leaders (not Marxists) were hounded and sacked, many workers suffered, and mass demoralisation spread amongst workers and locals.

I think the main reasons for this were the fact that a Marxist perspective was missing, there was no real vision or united ideas. It was a simple 'win or bust' strike, and they lost.

If unofficial action is to be taken it must be done in mass (and I mean MASS) otherwise other situations like this will arise everywhere. That is why Marxism is needed in the unions, to offer the organised worker a genuine revolutionary solution.

Strikes do not need Marxist ideas to start up, but they need Marxist ideas if they want solutions.

The working class is neither naturally revolutionary or naturally reformist. Over the last century however it has operated in a certain way that we have analysed, which has allowed us to develop what we consider to be the best intervention tactics. Namely the building of a Marxist tendency within mass workers organisations.

You have as much hope of 'convincing' us Redstar, as we do you. I seriously wish you good luck on the sidelines of the workers movement, we on the other hand will continue to work with the tactics that we see fit.

My advice to you is (a) to read Trotskys 'tansitional programme' and digest it, and (B) to be more constructivley critical of 'rival' ideas, because you do not offer solutions in your argument.

I am almost tempted to think that you are not 'hidding' your ideas - you simply have none. You seem to say alot when you are actually saying very little.

And Andres, Argentina has around 30 'workers parties', the unions will be full of Marxists, but maybe alot of small 'm' marxists.

Completely agree with your last sentance though.

[Kez]

I think Bolsh covered the idea that we must MAINTAIN the strikes, and put them through clear strategies, ie to unite the strikers to overthrow the workers against the beurgrois.
What happened in Paris in 68? with a shitty stalinist party there was no leadership, it was a joke, and the bourgoies soon got their dirty finger back in

[Cassius Clay]

Damn Redstar not only have you managed to get into the Maoist bad book with those nice people at the MIM but now you've pissed of the International Trotskyite movment as well. LOL.

God that was a poor contribution, still a interesting thread.

[redstar2000]

It's a funny thing, Cassius, but the Maoists in their way are far more consistent than the Trotskyists...at least judging by the samples on this board.

The Maoists are in the peasant revolution end of things and pretty much say so; they have no perspective for advanced capitalist countries and think that proletarian revolution is something that will happen in the very distant future here (if ever?).

B1917 and Kamo believe, really believe, that the "Labour" Party under Trotskyist leadership will win a majority in the House of Commons and then...well, it gets kind of hazy after that. :cheesy:

Do you think they might have their eyes on one of those plush seats in the House of Lords? :cheesy: :cheesy: :cheesy:

Or to paraphrase an earlier contribution to this thread: scratch a Trotskyist, find a social democrat???

B1917's remarks suggest that he thinks it is better to submit (that is, "fight" through the official channels that guarantee defeat) than it is to really fight and maybe lose.

Guess what? The oppressed nearly always lose. That's why we call them the oppressed.

Shall we then give up? Or confine ourselves to pro forma efforts to alleviate suffering through ritual engagements with the capitalist class?

Gee, fellows, I thought we were supposed to be revolutionaries. You guys sound more like insurance salesmen.

Note that Kamo, in particular, dismisses the May 1968 uprising of the French working class as a "joke."

The closest thing we've seen to real proletarian revolution in an advanced capitalist country since...hell, since the Paris Commune is a "joke." :o

But a few Trotskyists in Pakistan's supine parliament...that's "real progress" on the "road to revolution".

The remarks about me "standing on the sidelines" are really not worth responding to except insofar as they are a kind of "ideological blackmail" that they both probably use all too often. In other words, if you don't follow our line, then you will be "irrelevant" to the "revolution".

Here's my response: I would rather be irrelevant than do harm to the revolution by knowingly telling lies to my class about the "usefulness" of bourgeois political parties and bourgeois parliaments.

"First, do no harm" is not just good advice for doctors...real revolutionaries should consider it as well.

:cool:

(Edited by redstar2000 at 12:20 pm on April 30, 2003)

[Cassius Clay]

Excellent post Redstar, I agree with that 100%. The thing is alot of the 'Radical left' tried to do what Kamo and bolshevik1917 are suggesting now back in the early 80's. The LP's 1983 manifesto is known as 'The Longest suicide note in history', is this partly because generally everybody was confused as to what the LP actually was and whose interests it represented? It was under the Labour Party that 'The Winter of Discontent' happened, and the party was full of 'Militant' types who a few years later would fight the 'Capitalist' part of the party and end up loosing. The question must be asked why would it be any different this time in circumstances which favor the 'Capitalist' part of the LP far more?

[Kez]

Hrmm, an opportunist and a Stalinist in coalition, what a surprise!!!

Cass, for your information the phrase ur quoting for the longest suicide note was a quote from the right wing bastards, who fail to take into consideration the war with the argies in the falklands war that the British State won right before the election. 35% voted for this rather leftwing (be it reformist) manifesto, in my opinion had it not been for the war, there would have been a labour victory.

"B1917 and Kamo believe, really believe, that the "Labour" Party under Trotskyist leadership will win a majority in the House of Commons and then...well, it gets kind of hazy after that"
RedStar, its been a week since we started this debate, and u still dont knowthe agenda of our strategy. We do not take the menshevik route of Democratic socialism as the Stalinists and Mensheviks do. What would happen would be (as the Bolsheviks did) in that to gain the most active and most consious layer of the group, then create a revolutionary grouping from this, bypassing the shit the Sects must do, so that within a few years we have achevied what the sects would in 20 years, in fact, i ask you, how many members do the SWP have? the answer is 900, and HOW long have they been around?
We can look at all the sects and see how poor their numbers are.

You seem to think that we want to fight to the legal limits, and here yet again you are wrong, we merely use the structure built already to gain access to the workers, we dont abide by the rules, in fact in the unions case we get rid of the rulemakers and make our own fuckin rules up, revolutionary ones!

The OUTCOME of the Paris uprising was a joke, and down to poor leadership, not the members who partook in it.
http://www.marxist.com/1968/may68.html, coincidentally 35 years ago tommorow

Looking forward to your next post
Comrade Kamo

[redstar2000]

Well, Kamo, perhaps there are some real differences between you and bolshevik1917 that were not clear to me from your earlier posts. You, I take it, do not believe in a Trotskyist-led "Labour" Party majority in the House of Commons leading to "socialism".

Good.

If I understand your perspective correctly, your strategy is to "attempt" a left "takeover" of the "Labour" Party knowing in advance that it will fail...but then leading whatever lefties you have recruited for this effort out of the "Labour" Party and into your own "party" or perhaps a somewhat larger grouping...thus achieving a degree of growth in a relatively short period of time that the other Trotskyist groups can only envy.

Correct me if I'm mistaken, Kamo, but I believe that's known in Trotskyist circles as a "deep entry" strategy and was first implemented by the American Trotskyist James P. Cannon in the late 1930s.

It did "work" for them and it might "work" for you. What's wrong with it is that it's a strategy for party-building. Success is measured in numbers of recruits.

You're still thinking inside the Leninist "box"...that the road to revolution "requires" a tightly-organized elite, in the absence of which the revolution is doomed.

History should have taught you by now that the working classes in the advanced capitalist countries will not accept a Leninist-party dictatorship. Whether you have 900 members or 900,000 members makes no real difference.

To May of 1968, yes, the "Communist" Party of France utterly betrayed the French working class...on a scale perhaps even worse than the French Socialists in 1914. It wasn't the first betrayal, by far, but it was certainly the most contemptable.

And where is the CPF today?

I note that your attitude regarding trade union work appears to differ dramatically from bolshevik1917's. You seem to have a better understanding of the need to break through the carefully-constructed barriers to real class struggle that the ruling class has spent so much effort to construct. I can only repeat what I said earlier: you don't have to be "an official leader" to do that...and it is probably better if you're not.

"an opportunist and a Stalinist" -- I'm still waiting for some documentation on my alledged "opportunism". Beyond that, you must have gathered by now, Kamo, that I am not "intimidated" by the juvenile name-calling that passes for political analysis in the old Leninist left.

I do not really care if you call me a "menshevik", a "stalinist", a "maoist", a this or a that.

I just care about getting it right.

:cool:

[Kez]

fucks sake,

its so frutstrating repeating yourself over and over again.
Neither myself nor Bolsh are for a menshevik route in turning the labour party into a trots one and winning elections, no, thats not possible.

Yes, this is what is called a deep entry method, although we call it entryism, im pretty sure they would be same thing

"It did "work" for them and it might "work" for you. What's wrong with it is that it's a strategy for party-building. Success is measured in numbers of recruits."
Militant had 8000 members in a few years, now with a more rightwing leadership there will have to be a massive swing which is where we come in

your issue of vanguardism we must deal with seperately in order to sort it out properly

"And where is the CPF today? " - i dont understand what your point is, at least you agree with me in that the result of the paris uprising was a shambles to what it could and should have been

NO, myself and Bolsh have the same views concerning working with unions, in that the right wing leadership which is a barrier to progression in the movement must be removed, we both agree with this.

And if you really cared about getting it right youd be less of a pissed off mardy arsehole and read whats going on around you, and stop calling anything you dont like, leninist as though its a dirty word, id be most proud to be called a leninist, but im not that yet, i must read more to be so

comrade kamo

[redstar2000]

"pissed off mardy arsehole"? "mardy"?

You're going to have to start supplying footnotes with your insults, Kamo. :cheesy:

Leninism is not a word I use for anything I don't like; it has a specific political meaning and I use the word in its proper meaning at all times.

It specifically means that the working class can only attain and exercise state power through the agency of a "vanguard party" organized according to the principles of democratic centralism.

In practice, of course, it is quasi-military in its internal atmosphere with obedience to authority its primary characteristic...thus making any theoretical clarity or strategic competence a matter of sheer chance.

The Leninist conception of proletarian revolution most closely resembles a well-organized blitzkrieg planned by the German General Staff...in theory. In practice, it's more like "The Three Stooges Organize Insurrection." :cheesy:

And in the west, it must be added, the Leninist practice has been almost uniformly reformist. There may be some exceptions to that rule, but if you actually look at the Stalinist/Trotskyist/Maoist parties, once they recruit a few hundred members, the first thing they want to do is run for office in a bourgeois election. If that's not reformism, then the word has no meaning.

By all means start a thread on Leninism; you will find yourself in the unhappy situation of that legendary one-legged man in an arse-kicking contest. :cheesy:

:cool:

(Edited by redstar2000 at 10:11 pm on May 2, 2003)

[Kez]

mardy = whingin arsehole,

oncee this deebate is over we can start one on leninism.

Now, im waiting for your reply concerning my post on sects

[redstar2000]

From what I can see, Kamo, I have replied to all the substantive points made by you and bolshevik1917 in this thread...but if there's something I overlooked, please remind me and I will attend to it promptly.

:cool:

[Kez]

you havent produced an alternative to deep entrism into the labour party.

Please could you answer me the following:
Which party has most working class member make up?
Which party gains most working class votes?
Which party is the only one to have ties with the unions?
Which of the sects in Britain is successful?

thanking you

[Sandanista]

Well to refute your point comrade, the Scottish Socialist Party has united 95% of the left in Scotland, this includes the Socialist Workers Party.

[Kez]

so what?
they are nationalist, i wouldnt go so far as to say they are national socialist, but for me socialism is only possible thru internationalism.
And you really shouldnt be proud to have united with the SWP, no doubt theyll try to split u apart like they are with the SAlliance