Thoughts on "The Socialist Alternative"

[R_P_A_S]

I was wondering what you guys thought of this organization.

The Socialist Alternative (http://www.socialistalternative.org/about/)

thank you

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Some good ideas; some strange ones [take over the top 500 but leave the rest? :huh: ].

Hey, I disagree with some of what they stand for but I'm willing to support them above anything we've got right now.

[which doctor]

A bunch of dumb libs.

Certainly not communists or even socialists.

[Bilan]

The Sydney (Australia, in general) branch needs a slap.
Wankers.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 09:13 pm
I was wondering what you guys thought of this organization.

The Socialist Alternative (http://www.socialistalternative.org/about/)

thank you
RPAS, ignore what the anarchists say. They wont be happy unless you say your going to create some utopia :lol:

They seem good. And they offer a clear transitional program of what should happen to lay the basis of socialism.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

They are CWI too :D

[R_P_A_S]

well i dunno. they sounds interesting. Its always good to get others thoughts. specially if they have personal experiences with them.

[which doctor]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 02:19 am
They seem good. And they offer a clear transitional program of what should happen to lay the basis of socialism.
The problem lies in the fact that they don't even advocate socialism, despite their rhetoric. Instead, they advocate public ownership of only the top 500 businesses. What about the rest? I assume those go on to be run by the capitalists. Are you telling me this is socialism? The SA's plan for a new society is really a capitalist one. Surplus value will continue to be extsracted from workers, and a divide of the bourgeoisie and the proletariat will still exist.

Contrary to what bcs says, they don't even have a plan to transition to communism, or I just can't find it, in fact, less than 1% of their web pages even mention the word "communism." They also appear to upport the AFL-CIO, and I don't have to tell you what's wrong with that.

A bunch of social-dem college students if you ask me.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Originally posted by FoB+August 25, 2007 03:16 pm--> (FoB @ August 25, 2007 03:16 pm)
[email protected] 25, 2007 02:19 am
They seem good. And they offer a clear transitional program of what should happen to lay the basis of socialism.
The problem lies in the fact that they don't even advocate socialism, despite their rhetoric. Instead, they advocate public ownership of only the top 500 businesses. What about the rest? I assume those go on to be run by the capitalists. Are you telling me this is socialism? The SA's plan for a new society is really a capitalist one. Surplus value will continue to be extsracted from workers, and a divide of the bourgeoisie and the proletariat will still exist.

Contrary to what bcs says, they don't even have a plan to transition to communism, or I just can't find it, in fact, less than 1% of their web pages even mention the word "communism." They also appear to upport the AFL-CIO, and I don't have to tell you what's wrong with that.

A bunch of social-dem college students if you ask me. [/b]
Sorry, but what are you talking about?

You know you cannot create socialism in one country.

Transitional program is what Trotskyists argue should be part of the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Namely that workers control the largest and most important sectors in the economy. Power, banking, food production etc.

The 500 top companies would be run directly and democratically by the workers. This is meant not as a complete way of doing things, but as part of a war on the class domination by the capitalists.

It's just a step towards a workers state and socialism. Where you dont know how society will be run and what it will look like.

[Lamanov]

Yeah, why "the top 500"? That's odd.

Surely, you must have a wider choice? Where do you live?

[Schrödinger's Cat]

There needs to be a transitional period, or else you either threaten to starve the evolving nation of wealth entirely or the workers are forced to rely on centralized figures and not themselves -- and we all know how that turned out for the USSR, China, and North Korea.

I think it's time to stop the bickering between the fractions of the Left and just accept the reality that the workers and people will decide what's best. We can continue to promote our individual ideas, but we'll get nowhere trying to shout down anyone on the Left [or middle] we disagree with when theirs is still a better alternative to what exists.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Originally posted by DJ-[email protected] 26, 2007 05:43 pm
Yeah, why "the top 500"? That's odd.

Surely, you must have a wider choice? Where do you live?
I don't know why the Top 500, i think it might be just be a number to give an impression of the scale of immediate public ownership.

Top 500 companies for the USA (http://www.usatoday.com/money/companies/2004-03-22-fortune-500-list_x.htm)

I don't live in the USA, but have a look through that list and see how extensive it is.

Also you need to remember, that part of the transitional program is to stop being imperialist. Meaning lots of changes in how these companies operate in relation to oppressed nations.

[Tower of Bebel]

It's the transitional program. Every CWI section talks about their transitional program. The maximum of course is socialism.

In Belgium the CWI publishes that the people need to control the most important industries and companies by nationalisation. These are phone companies, water supliers, electric companies, power plants and etc. People in general will say: "okay, that's good, and many of them were national companies before" (at least in Belgium) "It sounds realistic.". Then it's our jobs to tell them that we need to go further in order to consolidate these gains for the working class.

The problem is: there is a major gap between minimum demands (better payment, better health care) and the maximum demand (socialism).

BTW, the CWI section in Australia is the socialist party, not the SA.

[guerilla E]

wrong socialist alternative, no ties with the australian group ey?

[Led Zeppelin]

No the Australian is another organization, they are not linked.

Anyway, I had the chance to meet some comrades from SA during the CWI summer school in Belgium. They are great comrades and do some great work inside the IWW, the anti-war movement, and any other progressive movement that springs up in times of social upheaval. So they are certainly not sectarian.

The nationalization of the 500 top companies is part of the transitional program, it's no surprise that some people in this thread haven't heard of that before, but to sum it up it means that we're making demands that appeal to the working-class and are at the same time unacceptable to the ruling class, so it raises class-consciousness while at the same time keeping open the option to increase the demands later on, after all, it is merely a transitional program. This tactic has worked successfully in several nations, and it is logical to keep pursuing it. If you tell any worker about it, they are more than likely to support it.

The only criticism I have of the organization is their lack of activity on the internet, strangely enough. They seem to be very active "on the street" as they say, but they have a hard time replying to emails and picking up the phone.... so they should definitely work on that, and I have suggesting to them to do so.

[Bilan]

R P A S, ignore what this twat has to say.
Unless you agree with them (Sectarian Trotters) on everything they say, you are reactionary and must want a utopia.

:D


They seem good. And they offer a clear transitional program of what should happen to lay the basis of socialism.

Yeah, right. :wacko:

[Led Zeppelin]

Instead of insulting why don't you offer some arguments to counter my arguments? Or is that too hard because it would come in the way of your sectarian behavior?

I've known anarchists, and I've know sectarian anarchists, the latter are trash, the former are to be respected.

Judging from your post you belong in the latter category.

[Bilan]

Originally posted by Led [email protected] 05, 2007 09:12 pm
Instead of insulting why don't you offer some arguments to counter my arguments? Or is that too hard because it would come in the way of your sectarian behavior?

I've known anarchists, and I've know sectarian anarchists, the latter are trash, the former are to be respected.

Judging from your post you belong in the latter category.
My post was merely retaliation to the post I replied too, which I found to be overly sectarian and a pointless attack.

Really, I'm not sectarian, I don't particularly care what flavor anti-capitalist revolutionary you are so long as you're not an asshole. Cuz if you are, expect it back :)

[Led Zeppelin]

Was the post you replied to mine? Because if so, please point out where I was sectarian in that post, the post in which I didn't mention any other political group or organization.

[Bilan]

Originally posted by Led [email protected] 08, 2007 04:34 pm
Was the post you replied to mine? Because if so, please point out where I was sectarian in that post, the post in which I didn't mention any other political group or organization.
It was a response to Bloody Capitalist Sham, not you. Sorry about the confusion.

[BOZG]

Contrary to what bcs says, they don't even have a plan to transition to communism, or I just can't find it, in fact, less than 1% of their web pages even mention the word "communism." They also appear to upport the AFL-CIO, and I don't have to tell you what's wrong with that.

The word communism in many countries is directly related to Stalinism and as a result, using that word amongst workers with a very low level of consciousness, especially in the US would only have negative results. Honestly, are you worried about the content of the ideas or about being name purist? There's plenty of people on this board who fit into the latter.

They don't support the AFL-CIO. They recognise the fact that most unionised workers are members of the AFL-CIO and continue to look towards the AFL-CIO. That is reality. If you want to go play with "independent" unions, have fun but the working class isn't looking towards these unions just yet.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

The word communism in many countries is directly related to Stalinism and as a result, using that word amongst workers with a very low level of consciousness, especially in the US would only have negative results.

Or you could make educating folks on the reality of communism a part of your political work.. unless you think the workers are too dumb to understand it.


Honestly, are you worried about the content of the ideas or about being name purist? There's plenty of people on this board who fit into the latter.

The fact is, the bourgeoisie is going to label any such group that gains any size and influence as a communist threat that wishes to create an evil communist country ala the USSR in the US.

What is the SA going to do then? Explain that they're 'socialists' not 'communists' or tell people why they concealed their real political nature (sorry, you were too uneducated to understand..)?

No, as the Manifesto states, "The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims." The BPP was one of the most successful organizations ever in the U.S., and they never hid the fact that they were communists.

[More Fire for the People]

:rolleyes: Trotskyists… all they ever talk about is reform and they always justify it with some nonsense about a ‘transitional program’. Trotskyists act like reform is somehow an objective movement of history towards the realization of communism. Uhh, hell no. Their ‘reform’ measures such as public ownership of the top five hundred companies doesn’t magically bring about socialism: it does re-allocate private capital to government institutions which are a part of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. The value of ‘reform’ measures is their subjective side: they train the working class in leadership, courage, etc. It sharpens the minds and weapons of working individuals.

[R_P_A_S]

all you guys fucking suck. I'm gonna have a super kick ass communist block party and none of ya biiiitches gonna be invited! :P

[bezdomni]

Originally posted by Hopscotch [email protected] 08, 2007 06:54 pm
:rolleyes: Trotskyists… all they ever talk about is reform and they always justify it with some nonsense about a ‘transitional program’. Trotskyists act like reform is somehow an objective movement of history towards the realization of communism. Uhh, hell no. Their ‘reform’ measures such as public ownership of the top five hundred companies doesn’t magically bring about socialism: it does re-allocate private capital to government institutions which are a part of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. The value of ‘reform’ measures is their subjective side: they train the working class in leadership, courage, etc. It sharpens the minds and weapons of working individuals.
Exactly. "Transitional demands" are things that have no place in revolutionary communism. The workers have been engaged in the economic struggle for a long time and have made plenty of gains without communists holding their hands through it all. The task of communists is not to join the unions and fight for reforms for the workers - they can do that perfectly well on their own.

This doesn't mean that strikes and demands from unions shouldn't be supported...but this is not going to be the main force of political revolution.

The task of communists is to bring about revolutionary class consciousness and organize the masses against the bourgeoisie...not water down Marxism with some bourgeois "transitional demands" that in no way can actually bring about socialism.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

seem very liberal too me. Personally I don't trust Parties and Organizations which are too afraid to advocate the full way, of revolution, socialism, and communism and settle for just reforms

[Aurora]

Wow so many people here are full of shit.

RRAS if you want to know a bit about the Socialist Alternative have a look at their website and Here (http://www.marxist.net/) this will give you an idea of what we are about.But of course the best thing you can do is go along to a branch meeting and get talking to people at it.(assuming there is one in your area of course) Also have a look at some books by Trotsky and you'll find fairly early on that the CWI are for real.

Of course this thread seems full of the fuckwits who dont understand transitional demands and think that they are 'reformist' or 'liberal' :rolleyes:

[R_P_A_S]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 04:31 pm
seem very liberal too me. Personally I don't trust Parties and Organizations which are too afraid to advocate the full way, of revolution, socialism, and communism and settle for just reforms
oh you mean they aren't dogmatics like "maoist and leninist" :rolleyes:
I'm not defending them or anything but listen to yourselves. give me a break.
how far in life do you get or make any progress by dogging others efforts?
just because they aren't down with your"isms" 100%?

and an other thing. "communism and revolution" to the average worker does not sound appealing. because they don't really know shit about it. and what they do know is bad things. so why not "SPEAK-A-ENGLISH" to them, not because they are retarded and we so much more smarter. BUT because there are better ways to undo the years of slander and bastardization of communism by the bourgeoisie media and education system.

why dont some of you go to the street corner and start handing out communist manifestos like its a damn bible. <_<

this are new times, there for new approaches are needed. keep changing things and strategies. yet the objective remains the same.

[Tower of Bebel]

Originally posted by Hopscotch [email protected] 08, 2007 08:54 pm
:rolleyes: Trotskyists… all they ever talk about is reform and they always justify it with some nonsense about a ‘transitional program’.
The program is a tactic to reach the masses. Not a short therm goal, nor a long therm goal. If the masses radicalize, then the transitonal program will be done away with.


seem very liberal too me. Personally I don&#39;t trust Parties and Organizations which are too afraid to advocate the full way, of revolution, socialism, and communism and settle for just reforms

Normally they should advocate socialism.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

This doesn&#39;t mean that strikes and demands from unions shouldn&#39;t be supported...but this is not going to be the main force of political revolution.

And pretty much no one has ever said they would be.. Have you read what Lenin and the early Third International had to say on work in the unions? I can link you to some things if you want. Communists enter unions (where masses of organized workers already are) and strikes (where the workers have already come into open conflict with the bosses) to push them forward, to point out the traitorous ways of the leaders and to utilize them as the &#39;big schools&#39; they are. These are (or should be) core aspects of our approach.

I&#39;ve seen you repeatedly write off work around organized workers as &#39;economism&#39; (and you&#39;re certainly not alone there), but it seems you don&#39;t really understand the communist approach.

We don&#39;t just "support" strikes or expect them to overthrow capitalism. That would be a sort of economism.

[BOZG]

Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 08, 2007 06:37 pm
Or you could make educating folks on the reality of communism a part of your political work.. unless you think the workers are too dumb to understand it.


We do but it&#39;s often hard to do that when people are automatically scared away from you by the time you actually get to discuss with them. The reality is that socialism is merely the lowest form of communism, it&#39;s hardly as if it is something entirely different. Even if you look at people who come onto this board, who agree generally with our ideas but initially attack communism because of the historical role of Stalinism. They are a layer of people who are already semi-politicised and they have misgivings about communism, it&#39;s even harder when you have to deal with people who aren&#39;t politicised.



The fact is, the bourgeoisie is going to label any such group that gains any size and influence as a communist threat that wishes to create an evil communist country ala the USSR in the US.

What is the SA going to do then? Explain that they&#39;re &#39;socialists&#39; not &#39;communists&#39; or tell people why they concealed their real political nature (sorry, you were too uneducated to understand..)?

No, as the Manifesto states, "The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims." The BPP was one of the most successful organizations ever in the U.S., and they never hid the fact that they were communists.

I agree that they will. But is it more important to open up discussions with people and explain to them the differences between our politics and Stalinism by using the word socialism or is it more important to have a nice, pure name. Only the "prolier than thou" sects and individuals who never have and never will have to deal with a mass base of working class people can afford revolutionary purity.

It&#39;s not a case of concealing your political nature, it&#39;s a case of being able to approach people without them already having strong misconcieved attitudes.

Where are they concealing their views? Socialism is a stage of communism. As I said, it&#39;s hardly if they are two counterposed views.

[bezdomni]

And pretty much no one has ever said they would be..

That is generally the Trotskyist position. If it isn&#39;t in theory, it definitely is in practice.


Communists enter unions (where masses of organized workers already are) and strikes (where the workers have already come into open conflict with the bosses) to push them forward, to point out the traitorous ways of the leaders and to utilize them as the &#39;big schools&#39; they are.
Yeah. Definitely..but a lot of workers aren&#39;t in unions (undocumented workers, for example) and they are usually the most exploited and oppressed workers.

Also, it isn&#39;t only the proletariat that is oppressed by capitalism, but other non-union strata of society that need to be united with under the leadership of the proletariat.


I&#39;ve seen you repeatedly write off work around organized workers as &#39;economism&#39; (and you&#39;re certainly not alone there), but it seems you don&#39;t really understand the communist approach.

A lot of work that is organized around workers by so-called communists is economism.

[Louis Pio]

The task of communists is to bring about revolutionary class consciousness and organize the masses against the bourgeoisie...

Thats all honky dory and all but also extremely vague, vague to the point of having no meaning whatsoever.
I&#39;ve realised your new buzzword is economism, which is a trap many groups can fall into, reducing things to merely "bread and butter issues". However I still fail to see how that means one should not work in unions at all, actually the only logical reason for this I can find is that the work is seen as too hard.
Of course the level of people in unions varies from country to country, some countries having most of the workforce unionised and others the opposite. Mostly the non-unionised sectors are the most opressed, but since unionwork are "economism" I take it this fight don&#39;t hold much interest in your oppinion?
The capitalists employers in these sectors are perfectly well aware that unionising goes against their interests and their right to run production and put wages as they like, so obviously they go against such attempts fullforce. Which shows that they are prefectly well aware of the nature of this fight, while you on the other hand seems to dismiss it.
Marx pointed out that we have no interests beside that of the proletariat, quite ABC still it seems to be forgotten by people such as yourselve, probably cause you equate the interests of the proletariat with RCP.

[bezdomni]

You&#39;re distorting my line (which is also Lenin&#39;s line).

I don&#39;t consider work in unions to be economism. Union work is union work. There is a lot of potential in the unions and it is important to tap into that potential. I do not deny this.

However, considering the main task of a revolutionary party to be doing union work and giving the economic struggle a political characteristic is economism. Making "transitional demands" into socialism is reformism.

Economism is a "buzzword" for me because it is a trap that a lot of communist groups fall into (especially Trotskyite groups). Also, it is a tendency that I broke with when I broke with the IMT.

What is to be Done is a very important work that is so overlooked and misunderstood by comrades. Economism is very serious and is something that needs to be criticized when it is brought up. If I displayed an economist tendency, I&#39;d hope that someone would criticize me for it.

[which doctor]

Originally posted by Rakunin+September 09, 2007 04:21 pm--> (Rakunin @ September 09, 2007 04:21 pm)
Hopscotch [email protected] 08, 2007 08:54 pm
:rolleyes: Trotskyists… all they ever talk about is reform and they always justify it with some nonsense about a ‘transitional program’.
The program is a tactic to reach the masses. Not a short therm goal, nor a long therm goal. If the masses radicalize, then the transitonal program will be done away with. [/b]
So basically an advertising gimmick?

[Louis Pio]

Of course I disagree that transitional demands are refomist, and I have yet to see any explanation why. Even Lenin used what can be described as transitional demands.

On union work, of course this can lead to economism and in the end reformism if you don&#39;t have any clear perspective, mostly it happens when people accept positions without standing on a clear revolutionary programme. This happened with the Social Democrats, Communists (moscowparties) and so on.

However you "bend the stick" so much that you end in the total opposite camp, which is that of left-secterianism since you from what I can gather from your post don&#39;t feel communists should be involved in the unionstruggle. And if your not involved then how the hell will you "tap into it"? Btw left-secterianism is just as harmfull as economism, if not even more. The failed german revolution clearly shows this.

[Vargha Poralli]

I find it really funny RCP supporters criticising the Transitional Demans as "Economist" and "Reformist" while they have called openly to vote for the Democrats in the elections.

[bezdomni]

Of course I disagree that transitional demands are refomist, and I have yet to see any explanation why. Even Lenin used what can be described as transitional demands.


So trying to reform the system in order to "create conditions" for socialist revolution isn&#39;t reformism?

What is reformism then? Just because it&#39;s disguised in pretty leftist rhetoric doesn&#39;t make it any less reformist.

What "transitional demands" did Lenin make? Also...in what ways are the United States or United Kingdom today similar to Russia in 1917?


However you "bend the stick" so much that you end in the total opposite camp, which is that of left-secterianism since you from what I can gather from your post don&#39;t feel communists should be involved in the unionstruggle.

Communists should support the unions and organize in the unions...but the union struggle is precisely that - a union struggle. It isn&#39;t a class struggle and it isn&#39;t a revolutionary struggle. It plays a substantial role in creating a revolutionary struggle...but parties that are always talking about their union work are economist because all they practically do is champion the unions.


And if your not involved then how the hell will you "tap into it"?

Send organizers to union meeting to distribute pamphlets or sell newspapers. Agitate on a picket line. Have party members or supporters that are in unions....

A union isn&#39;t a communist party and shouldn&#39;t be treated as such.


I find it really funny RCP supporters criticising the Transitional Demans as "Economist" and "Reformist" while they have called openly to vote for the Democrats in the elections.

That&#39;s bullshit. I challenge you to find ONE DOCUMENT PUT OUT BY THE RCP that calls for voting for democrats.

[BOZG]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 06:33 pm
What "transitional demands" did Lenin make? Also...in what ways are the United States or United Kingdom today similar to Russia in 1917?
Peace, Land and Bread.

[BOZG]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 03:29 pm
Of course I disagree that transitional demands are refomist, and I have yet to see any explanation why. Even Lenin used what can be described as transitional demands.
Many transitional demands, in non-revolutionary periods, are generally reformist on a superficial level. Many of them call for theoretically possible reforms, that can be given under capitalism, but the reality is that capitalism will never concede them. Nonetheless, they are important demands that can play a role in radicalising working class people by showing that capitalism is not willing and not able to provide a decent standard of living and that socialism is a necessity.

It&#39;s interesting to hear the "prolier than thou" revolutionaries on these forums talk about the transitional programme without grasping it in the slightest. I&#39;d love to know how many workers they&#39;ve managed to win over by shouting "revolution, revolution, revolution".

[bezdomni]

Originally posted by BOZG+September 11, 2007 07:28 pm--> (BOZG @ September 11, 2007 07:28 pm)
[email protected] 11, 2007 06:33 pm
What "transitional demands" did Lenin make? Also...in what ways are the United States or United Kingdom today similar to Russia in 1917?
Peace, Land and Bread. [/b]
That is fundamentally different than Trotskyites in the U.S. who call for "nationalize the top 100 industries" or other reformist crap.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by BOZG+September 11, 2007 07:28 pm--> (BOZG @ September 11, 2007 07:28 pm)
[email protected] 11, 2007 06:33 pm
What "transitional demands" did Lenin make? Also...in what ways are the United States or United Kingdom today similar to Russia in 1917?
Peace, Land and Bread. [/b]
that&#39;s socialist


I find it really funny RCP supporters criticising the Transitional Demans as "Economist" and "Reformist" while they have called openly to vote for the Democrats in the elections.

if you can prove this, I will stop any association with the party that I have. Unfortunately you can&#39;t because its bullshit


The capitalists employers in these sectors are perfectly well aware that unionising goes against their interests and their right to run production and put wages as they like, so obviously they go against such attempts fullforce. Which shows that they are prefectly well aware of the nature of this fight, while you on the other hand seems to dismiss it.
Marx pointed out that we have no interests beside that of the proletariat, quite ABC still it seems to be forgotten by people such as yourselve, probably cause you equate the interests of the proletariat with RCP.

traditionally yeah, unfortunately here in the US, less than 15% of the working class is unionized. Unions here have been taken over by the bourgeoisie. That&#39;s why the working class has largely rejected them.

[redarmyfaction38]

Originally posted by LeftyHenryML+September 11, 2007 10:48 pm--> (LeftyHenryML @ September 11, 2007 10:48 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 07:28 pm

[email protected] 11, 2007 06:33 pm
What "transitional demands" did Lenin make? Also...in what ways are the United States or United Kingdom today similar to Russia in 1917?
Peace, Land and Bread.
that&#39;s socialist


I find it really funny RCP supporters criticising the Transitional Demans as "Economist" and "Reformist" while they have called openly to vote for the Democrats in the elections.

if you can prove this, I will stop any association with the party that I have. Unfortunately you can&#39;t because its bullshit


The capitalists employers in these sectors are perfectly well aware that unionising goes against their interests and their right to run production and put wages as they like, so obviously they go against such attempts fullforce. Which shows that they are prefectly well aware of the nature of this fight, while you on the other hand seems to dismiss it.
Marx pointed out that we have no interests beside that of the proletariat, quite ABC still it seems to be forgotten by people such as yourselve, probably cause you equate the interests of the proletariat with RCP.

traditionally yeah, unfortunately here in the US, less than 15% of the working class is unionized. Unions here have been taken over by the bourgeoisie. That&#39;s why the working class has largely rejected them. [/b]
honestly, having read the posts on these boards, do you think the situation in britain, vis a vis, the "bourgeoiusifacation of trade unions" and the "new labour party" is any different?
i would venture, that the destruction of any kind of "labour" orientation in the british trade unions and "labour party" was modelled on the degeneration of U.S. trade ubnions and the "democratic party".
this demonstrates the collusion and mutual interests of the capitalist parties and the capitalists that own them worldwide.
unfortunately for you, the rcp, has been found wanting, rather than promote the interests of workers generally, it promotes a single interpretation of "marxist" ideology, it is inextricably linked with "maoism" and the degeneration of the chinese revolution, it&#39;s a bit like "stalinism" in europe, nobody believes it was "socialism" or "communism" anymore.
as for the cwi, it has demonstrated, time and time again, it is willing to debate, to form allegiances, to promote the interests of the working class globally without sinking into sectarianism, it has consistently put the interests of the working class to the fore, it has allied itself, despite revolutionary reservations with supposedly forward thinking reformists.
as for the "transitional programme ", this has all ways been intended as a bridge between "reformism", which the majority of workers look to and a revolutionary programme, when the majority of workers realise, their meagre demands can never be met under capitalism.