Trotskyism and Labour

[Devrim]

Split from: http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=70273


Originally posted by Led Zeppelin
Devrim don't be stupid, Trotskyists (real Trotskyists anyway) do not believe Labour is in any way socialist.
What are they then, completely capitalist? Is that why most Trotskyists still call for workers to vote for them?
Devrim [/b][/quote]
Most Trotskyists don't call for that. I'm not sure where you get your information from; but it's not from reality.[/b][/quote]

I don't think that it is me who has no connection to reality. I presume that you do know that until relatively recently the organisation that you link to not only advocated a vote for Labour, but was actually inside the Labour Party.

I lived in the UK over twenty years ago, so I am a little out of touch with the current positions of its Trotskyists. However, I will make you a bet; For every UK Trotskyist organisation you can find that doesn't call for a Labour vote, I am certain I can find two that do.

Devrim

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Yeah because even after the CWI decided the parties they had entered, like Labour, were now capitalist, people like Ted Grant argued otherwise and they split over the matter.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 28, 2007 02:57 pm
Yeah because even after the CWI decided the parties they had entered, like Labour, were now capitalist, people like Ted Grant argued otherwise and they split over the matter.
Just out of interest when exactly did they decide that the Labour Party was capitalist, and what caused them to?

Devrim

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 28, 2007 02:57 pm
Yeah because even after the CWI decided the parties they had entered, like Labour, were now capitalist, people like Ted Grant argued otherwise and they split over the matter.
Yeah and the IMT is now tiny compared to the CWI in the UK, which proves my point that the majority of Trotskyists (or even self-proclaimed Trotskyists like the SWP) do not call on people to vote for labor.

The SWP and CWI, to whom the majority of Trotskyists belong to, don't call for that, so devrim is wrong.

[black magick hustla]

I don't think Grant ever argued labour was "socialist". He just thought that Labour Party was trusted by many workers and because of that, communists should infiltrate it.

I am not sure if that is what he really said though.

[Andy Bowden]

Led Zep is right, most Trotskyists now do not call for a vote for Labour.

The only ones that do, at least I can think of, are the IMT and the AWL. And even the AWL only calls for a vote for the LP where there are no socialist candidates standing. So really the only hardcore Labour loyalists on the Trotskyist left are the IMT.

The SWP/CWI have many more members (probably on their own) than the AWL or IMT.

[A.J.]

trotskyites support pro-imperialist social democratic parties because it's in their material interests.

In the case of the imperialist British labour party, trotskyites only stopped supporting it when it ceased to be social democratic and become openly bourgeois under tony blair and sibsequently went of to form their own alternative social-democratic groups.

[A.J.]

The SWP/CWI have many more members (probably on their own) than the AWL or IMT.


has anyone ever heard of these sects outwith a few universities in imperialist britain.


It would be funny if it wasn't so sad.

[Led Zeppelin]

Hey Tankie, go away, no one cares about your nostalgic bullshit spouting.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by Andy [email protected] 28, 2007 03:17 pm
Led Zep is right, most Trotskyists now do not call for a vote for Labour.

The only ones that do, at least I can think of, are the IMT and the AWL. And even the AWL only calls for a vote for the LP where there are no socialist candidates standing. So really the only hardcore Labour loyalists on the Trotskyist left are the IMT.

The SWP/CWI have many more members (probably on their own) than the AWL or IMT.
Leftist Parties of the World lists 25 UK Trotskyist parties:
http://www.broadleft.org/gb.htm
I would suspect that the majority of them are in the Labour Party, and would be certain that the majority advocate a Labour vote.

The fact that the two largest have recently stopped advocating a Labour vote doesn't prove the point that 'Trotskyists don't call for a Labour vote'.

On the point of the SWP, I am curious as to there stance in the vast majority of constituencies, where there wasn't a Respect candidate. Did they advocate abstensionism?

Devrim

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 04:28 pm
trotskyites support pro-imperialist social democratic parties because it's in their material interests.

In the case of the imperialist British labour party, trotskyites only stopped supporting it when it ceased to be social democratic and become openly bourgeois under tony blair and sibsequently went of to form their own alternative social-democratic groups.
No, Trotskyists didn't "support pro-imperialist social democratic parties because it's in their material interests", if they did, surely they would have said that. Or you believe in some kind of insane conspiracy theory about Trotskyists.

It's just that the labour party gave voting rights to the unions, and the unions used to be powerful. So, why not work inside a party where the organized working class has at least some sway?

[catch]

Originally posted by Led Zeppelin+August 28, 2007 03:09 pm--> (Led Zeppelin @ August 28, 2007 03:09 pm)
Compañ[email protected] 28, 2007 02:57 pm
Yeah because even after the CWI decided the parties they had entered, like Labour, were now capitalist, people like Ted Grant argued otherwise and they split over the matter.
Yeah and the IMT is now tiny compared to the CWI in the UK, which proves my point that the majority of Trotskyists (or even self-proclaimed Trotskyists like the SWP) do not call on people to vote for labor.

The SWP and CWI, to whom the majority of Trotskyists belong to, don't call for that, so devrim is wrong. [/b]
The SWP definitely did in 1997. I'm 100% certain I can find a more recent example - probably "vote Labour (or anyone) against the BNP" around 2000-2002. This only changed when they formed RESPECT, if at all. Like Devrim says I wonder what their position was in wards where they had no-one standing, but the BNP did.

Also the Alliance for Workers Liberty still do, and are "active within the Labour Party" which suggests they're still members as well.

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 03:40 pm
The fact that the two largest have recently stopped advocating a Labour vote doesn't prove the point that 'Trotskyists don't call for a Labour vote'.
It does prove the point that the vast majority of Trotskyists don't, which you claimed.

Just admit you were wrong.

And catch, devrim said that the majority of Trotskyists today call on people to vote for Labour, not 4 years ago, not 10 years ago, not 20 years ago, he said today.

So he was wrong.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by Led [email protected] 28, 2007 04:20 pm
Just admit you were wrong.

And catch, devrim said that the majority of Trotskyists today call on people to vote for Labour, not 4 years ago, not 10 years ago, not 20 years ago, he said today.


I will admit that I am wrong if it is shown when we have established the facts.

First, however, I would like to know what the positions of the SWP, and CWI are in places, of which there were many in the last UK election, where there were no 'left' candidates standing?

Devrim

[Tower of Bebel]

The fact that the two largest have recently stopped advocating a Labour vote doesn't prove the point that 'Trotskyists don't call for a Labour vote'.

Neither does the fact that only the two largest have recently stopped advocating a labour vote prove the point that Trotskysist do call for a Labout vote.

Labour is a neoliberal party, and if a trotskyist party calls for a Labout vote they're incredibly wrong.

[Andy Bowden]

has anyone ever heard of these sects outwith a few universities in imperialist britain.

Ironically the CWIs largest section is in fact in Nigeria, not the UK or any other European country. Likewise the IMTs largest section is probably in Pakistan. Whats worth criticism, or debate, is how both these organisations still draw their leadership from the UK under these circumstances. :huh:

As for Trots supporting Labour, many Stalinists did (and still do) support the Labour Party, most notably the official CP - Communists urge vote for Labour, but no vote for war cabinet leaders (http://www.communist-party.org.uk/index.php?file=newsTemplate&story=59).

The reason those on the Trotskyist and Stalinist left backed the Labour Party has fuck all to do with conspiracy nonsense, backing imperialism etc - but cos the Labour Party at that time was a broad workers party, with some freedom of democratic organisation, as well as having genuine working class militants within it (Left Wing Communism in Great Britain). (http://www.marx2mao.com/Lenin/LWC20.html#c9)

[Devrim]

An answer to this question anyone?


First, however, I would like to know what the positions of the SWP, and CWI are in places, of which there were many in the last UK election, where there were no 'left' candidates standing?

Devrim

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 04:37 pm
An answer to this question anyone?


First, however, I would like to know what the positions of the SWP, and CWI are in places, of which there were many in the last UK election, where there were no 'left' candidates standing?

Devrim
Both the SWP and SP (CWI) ran their own candidates, they didn't support Labor in the last elections.

As far as I know there were no places where they didn't run their own candidates.

Even if there was though, it doesn't prove your point at all, because they'd be a small minority of them and they'd be doing it out of necessity (having no candidates of their own in that specific region).

So you're still wrong either way.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by Led Zeppelin+August 28, 2007 04:41 pm--> (Led Zeppelin @ August 28, 2007 04:41 pm)
Originally posted by devrimankara+August 28, 2007 04:37 pm--> (devrimankara @ August 28, 2007 04:37 pm) An answer to this question anyone?


First, however, I would like to know what the positions of the SWP, and CWI are in places, of which there were many in the last UK election, where there were no 'left' candidates standing?

Devrim [/b]
Both the SWP and SP (CWI) ran their own candidates, they didn't support Labor in the last elections.

As far as I know there were no places where they didn't run their own candidates.

[/b]

[email protected]
In the 2005 general election Respect ran candidates in 26 constituencies

I think there were more than than a few constituencies where the SWP didn't run candidates. In fact the vast majority.


Led Zeppelin
Even if there was though, it doesn't prove your point at all, because they'd be a small minority of them and they'd be doing it out of necessity (having no candidates of their own in that specific region).

No if they called for a vote for them, it doesn't matter what their excuse was.

So what was the position of the SWP, and the CWI in the vast majority of constituences where they didn't have a candidate?

Devrim

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 05:01 pm
So what was the position of the SWP, and the CWI in the vast majority of constituences where they didn't have a candidate?

Devrim
They didn't run any candidates there...like any other party does.

So I'm guessing their position was, nothing, because, uh, they didn't exist there.

:wacko:

[Devrim]

Originally posted by Led Zeppelin+August 28, 2007 05:04 pm--> (Led Zeppelin @ August 28, 2007 05:04 pm)
[email protected] 28, 2007 05:01 pm
So what was the position of the SWP, and the CWI in the vast majority of constituences where they didn't have a candidate?

Devrim
They didn't run any candidates there...like any other party does.

So I'm guessing their position was, nothing, because, uh, they didn't exist there.

:wacko: [/b]
Did they call for abstentionism, a vote for other parties, or a vote for Labour?

Devrim

[YKTMX]

I think deep "entryism" and the tacit support for social democratic parties is something of a cold war relic. It is hardly reasonable to argue for a vote for "reformist" parties that are no longer reformist, and instead, in many cases, consist of the most disciplined followers of Neo-liberalism. The "organic link" to the working class, especially in Britain, between the organised working class and "their party" has been completely undermined by anti-democratic "reforms" to the party structure. The voice of the class is these parties has been reduced to a whimper. The fact that even "loyal" Trade Union leaders complain is significant.

The SWP doesn't call for a vote for any Labour candidate, though I suspect, in practice, the position is similar to that of the AWL - although for different reasons. That is, I think socialist should always back working class, anti-war Labour MP's like McDonnell, Jeremy Corbyn etc. against Tories and/or Blairite clones.

However, while the AWL (a strange, pro-imperialist cult along Schachtmanite lines) no doubt harbors ambitions of "reclaiming" the party (to what exactly) and the Tankies indulge in their never ending nostalgia, most people on the far left realise the neccessity for something different altogether. Although what exactly this alternative would look like is no doubt a source of controversy.

[bezdomni]

Originally posted by Led [email protected] 28, 2007 03:37 pm
Hey Tankie, go away, no one cares about your nostalgic bullshit spouting.
What's so nostalgic about this comrade criticizing the CWI?

The only person fulfilling a political tendency's "stereotype" here is you; the ultra-dogmatic trotskyite.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by Led [email protected] 28, 2007 05:04 pm
So I'm guessing their position was, nothing, because, uh, they didn't exist there.


Do you think that the SWP only has members in 26 of the UK constituencies?
Devrim

[Tower of Bebel]

Originally posted by devrimankara+August 28, 2007 07:08 pm--> (devrimankara @ August 28, 2007 07:08 pm)
Originally posted by Led [email protected] 28, 2007 05:04 pm

[email protected] 28, 2007 05:01 pm
So what was the position of the SWP, and the CWI in the vast majority of constituences where they didn't have a candidate?

Devrim
They didn't run any candidates there...like any other party does.

So I'm guessing their position was, nothing, because, uh, they didn't exist there.

:wacko:
Did they call for abstentionism, a vote for other parties, or a vote for Labour?

Devrim [/b]
They should have called for none of them.

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by SovietPants+August 28, 2007 05:08 pm--> (SovietPants @ August 28, 2007 05:08 pm)
Led [email protected] 28, 2007 03:37 pm
Hey Tankie, go away, no one cares about your nostalgic bullshit spouting.
What's so nostalgic about this comrade criticizing the CWI?

The only person fulfilling a political tendency's "stereotype" here is you; the ultra-dogmatic trotskyite. [/b]
Nope, it's you sticking up for your tankie buddy, defending a troll in effect.

So you're taking up the role of the tankie Mod very well.

The post of your tankie buddy didn't contain any criticism, it only contained a bullshit statement which was quickly disproven by Andy Bowden, but which did not require any disproving, since it was so ridiculous in the first place.

The fact that you defend such trolling as legitimate criticism merely proves how you put the politics of a member above their activity on the forum. So if a member is a tankie, he's a "good comrade" to you, no matter what bullshit he posts.

It's sad but hey, whatever makes ya happy.

Devrim, there is no reason to believe they called on people to vote for labor in the places they had no candidates, if you believe they did, prove it, if not, admit you were wrong and just speculating.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by Led [email protected] 28, 2007 05:13 pm
Devrim, there is no reason to believe they called on people to vote for labor in the places they had no candidates, if you believe they did, prove it, if not, admit you were wrong and just speculating.
Yes, I am just speculating. I looked (briefly) on their website, and failed to find anything.
However, as this was clearly their position in the past, I think it is up to you to prove that they have changed it, not me to prove that they haven't.

If you can prove (a relevant link will suffice) that both the CWI, and the SWP advocated not voting for Labour in places where they weren't standing their own candidates, I will happily admit to being wrong. You point as yet remains to be proven.

Devrim

[Led Zeppelin]

Well YKTMX is a member of SWP in the UK, so he can say what their position was, as for me, I have spoken with UK comrades, and they said they didn't support it.

Given the fact that the position of the CWI is to setup a new workers party to the left of Labor, it would be stupid and against their own line to call for people to vote Labor in places where they have no candidates of their own. So no, it's not up to me to prove they didn't call for that, it's up to you, because it's against the SP's current policy to vote for Labor.

[YKTMX]

Everyone on the left in Britain, barring the Anarchists, were calling, and quite correctly, for a vote for Labour in the 70's and 80's. Of course, merely "voting Labour" would not have been good enough had their not been the mass movements and class struggle at the forefront.


Is anyone saying, seriously, that we should NOT have called for a vote for Labour in the harsh light of Thatcherism?

And I'm not a member of the SWP, Zep.

[Led Zeppelin]

Oh ok, well do you know if they were calling for people to vote for Labor in the last elections in places where they had no candidates of their own?

[bezdomni]

Originally posted by Led Zeppelin+August 28, 2007 05:13 pm--> (Led Zeppelin @ August 28, 2007 05:13 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 05:08 pm

Led [email protected] 28, 2007 03:37 pm
Hey Tankie, go away, no one cares about your nostalgic bullshit spouting.
What's so nostalgic about this comrade criticizing the CWI?

The only person fulfilling a political tendency's "stereotype" here is you; the ultra-dogmatic trotskyite.
Nope, it's you sticking up for your tankie buddy, defending a troll in effect.

So you're taking up the role of the tankie Mod very well.

The post of your tankie buddy didn't contain any criticism, it only contained a bullshit statement which was quickly disproven by Andy Bowden, but which did not require any disproving, since it was so ridiculous in the first place.

The fact that you defend such trolling as legitimate criticism merely proves how you put the politics of a member above their activity on the forum. So if a member is a tankie, he's a "good comrade" to you, no matter what bullshit he posts.

It's sad but hey, whatever makes ya happy.

Devrim, there is no reason to believe they called on people to vote for labor in the places they had no candidates, if you believe they did, prove it, if not, admit you were wrong and just speculating. [/b]
um...he explained the material basis for trotskyist (and pseudo-trotskyist) tendencies. He was perhaps far too simplistic, but I don't think what he said was far from the truth nor do I think it was a completely worthless comment. However, you make constant sectarian and trollish posts in which you denounce someone who disagrees with you politically with nothing more than name-calling and misrepresenting their line.

Seriously - your arrogant "tankie" tendencies haven't changed at all since you have slipped into this new CWI ideology. It is just that instead of ruthlessly defending Stalin you now ruthlessly defend Trotsky.

Instead of shouting "trotskyite" at a person when they disagree with you, you shout "tankie" instead.

Anyway - voting for labour, entering their ranks or supporting them in any is gross economism and cannot possibly create socialism. In fact, doing so ends up re-enforcing capitalist imperialism and effectively harming the communist movement as a whole.

[gilhyle]

I think a key moment in the breakdown of British left support for a Labour vote was the 2001 stand of the Socialist Alliance (since collapsed, I believe), then there was 'Respect (Heavan help us !)
http://www.socialistalliance.org/
Incredible as it might seem, I would still call for a vote for Labour in the absence of a candidate of struggle, rather than vote for an SWP candidate (or any simlar left sect candidate) who did not represent rank and file activism in the particular region.

[YKTMX]

Originally posted by Led [email protected] 28, 2007 05:30 pm
Oh ok, well do you know if they were calling for people to vote for Labor in the last elections in places where they had no candidates of their own?
Of course not.

We wanted Blair to get hammered. :)

[Devrim]

Originally posted by YKTMX+August 28, 2007 05:52 pm--> (YKTMX @ August 28, 2007 05:52 pm)
Originally posted by Led Zeppelin+August 28, 2007 05:30 pm--> (Led Zeppelin @ August 28, 2007 05:30 pm) Oh ok, well do you know if they were calling for people to vote for Labor in the last elections in places where they had no candidates of their own? [/b]
Of course not.

We wanted Blair to get hammered. :)

[/b]
The way you use 'we' makes it unsurprising that people assume that you are in the SWP.


Originally posted by YKTMX
Is anyone saying, seriously, that we should NOT have called for a vote for Labour in the harsh light of Thatcherism?

Can we leave the analysis until we have established the facts, please.


[email protected]
If you can prove (a relevant link will suffice) that both the CWI, and the SWP advocated not voting for Labour in places where they weren't standing their own candidates, I will happily admit to being wrong. You point as yet remains to be proven.

We have still to see proof of this.


Led Zeppelin
Given the fact that the position of the CWI is to setup a new workers party to the left of Labor, it would be stupid and against their own line to call for people to vote Labor in places where they have no candidates of their own. So no, it's not up to me to prove they didn't call for that, it's up to you, because it's against the SP's current policy to vote for Labor.

I would say that Trotskyism's historical position in the UK has been to back Labour. At certain times they have put forward their own candidates, and then returned to backing Labour. I would say the onus is on you to prove that this policy has changed. Plus, it should be easier for you as you (I think) are a supporter of one of these organisations, and would know where to find the relevant texts.

Devrim

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 05:43 pm
um...he explained the material basis for trotskyist (and pseudo-trotskyist) tendencies. He was perhaps far too simplistic, but I don't think what he said was far from the truth nor do I think it was a completely worthless comment.
Of course you don't, because you agree with it. I replied in kind in a manner you disagree with it, so you consider mine to be "arrogant, sectarian, trollish" etc.

This just merely proves your sectarian nature, and it also proves that you're dogmatic, something which you ironically accused me of.


However, you make constant sectarian and trollish posts in which you denounce someone who disagrees with you politically with nothing more than name-calling and misrepresenting their line.

Yes, it was me who made the first post in this thread denouncing Stalinism...oh wait, no it wasn't.

I think you just proved my point pretty well there; you only care if the comments are against your own principles, if they are in line with yours, they are perhaps "far too simplistic" but still valid, right?

Get over yourself, you're not fooling anyone. His statement was pure trolling, there's no question about it, and it caused this thread to be derailed, and you continued it by defending it. Nice job there Mod.


Seriously - your arrogant "tankie" tendencies haven't changed at all since you have slipped into this new CWI ideology. It is just that instead of ruthlessly defending Stalin you now ruthlessly defend Trotsky.

Instead of shouting "trotskyite" at a person when they disagree with you, you shout "tankie" instead.

You would be hard-pressed to find me discussing the issue of Trotskyism at all, especially in such a manner as I dismiss Stalinism today. The difference is of course that I have experience Stalinism in theory and practice so I know what it is about; hence I can dismiss it without regard.

If you don't like it, hey, guess what, I don't care.

If you want to talk about trolling and derailing of threads go whine to your "comrade with the valid point" AJ, who started this bullshit, and do some "self-criticism" as well for continuing it.

I don't care that you've degenerated into a Tankie, just don't pretend to be neutral when you're obviously being biased.


Anyway - voting for labour, entering their ranks or supporting them in any is gross economism and cannot possibly create socialism. In fact, doing so ends up re-enforcing capitalist imperialism and effectively harming the communist movement as a whole.

No shit.

Though, if entering the ranks or supporting a social-democratic movement is "gross economism" I guess the Bolsheviks were guilty of that crime themselves for quite a long time, weren't they?


I would say the onus is on you to prove that this policy has changed. Plus, it should be easier for you as you (I think) are a supporter of one of these organisations, and would know where to find the relevant texts.


Go read their site to see that their policy has changed, or hell, just wikipedia the Socialist Party.

They are building a new workers party, and their programme is based on that, of course their policy has changed, they even split over it when they made the change in policy!

[Andy Bowden]

I dunno about the CWI, but in some cases today RESPECT has given some support to those on the Labour Left - Corbyn, McDonnell et al - by not standing against them. RESPECT carried a few articles about McDonnells leadership bid as well.

So in that respect you could say Trotskyists call for a vote for Labour - but even then it is now particular Left Labour candidates; it is no longer a vote for a party seen as the political expression of the British Trade Union movement, it is no longer recognised as such by most Trotskyists.

The AWL line is a bit more complex than retaking the Labour Party - for example they back Socialist candidates in elections against Labour - its that they believe a prolonged struggle in the LP will produce a backlash and a split, from which to build a new Socialist party.

It has led them down some crazy lines though, like calling for a vote for Oona King over Galloway, which is mental whatever you think of him :wacko:

[Devrim]

Originally posted by Led Zeppelin+August 28, 2007 08:09 pm--> (Led Zeppelin @ August 28, 2007 08:09 pm) Go read their site to see that their policy has changed, or hell, just wikipedia the Socialist Party.

They are building a new workers party, and their programme is based on that, of course their policy has changed, they even split over it when they made the change in policy!

[/b]
I just Wikied it. There's no mention of what they did where they didn't stand. After all the only thing you need to do to prove it is to provide a link to them advocating abstensionism where they didn't stand candidates, i.e. all but fifteen constituencies in England, and Wales.

Although these comments could make it irrelevant anyway:


Andy Bowden
I dunno about the CWI, but in some cases today RESPECT has given some support to those on the Labour Left - Corbyn, McDonnell et al - by not standing against them. RESPECT carried a few articles about McDonnells leadership bid as well.

So in that respect you could say Trotskyists call for a vote for Labour - but even then it is now particular Left Labour candidates; it is no longer a vote for a party seen as the political expression of the British Trade Union movement, it is no longer recognised as such by most Trotskyists.

So Andy, did they call for a Labour vote in certain areas, or not?

If they did Led Zeppelin, you claim that the majority of Trotskyists don't advocate a Labour vote falls as surely with the SWP it counts for more than half the Trotskyists.

Devrim

[Led Zeppelin]

Jesus christ are you being dense on purpose? The CWI started the campaign for a new workers party in 2005, they are promoting that nationally, they do not call for people to vote for Labor, they call for people to vote for the new workers party.

The SWP has setup RESPECT, which participated in the elections, they called on people to vote for it as an alternative to Labor, they did not call on people to vote for Labor nationally.

Now if in the last elections some branches of the SWP called for people to vote for some left-wing Labor candidates, that does not prove that the SWP line is not anti-Labor and for a new workers party, what the hell??

Both the organizations want an alternative to Labor, both parties are working to build one, your claim was false, just admit it and get it over with!

[Aurora]

Originally posted by Devrim+--> (Devrim)I would say that Trotskyism's historical position in the UK has been to back Labour.[/b]
Bold added.That is not the way it is today.

At certain times they have put forward their own candidates, and then returned to backing Labour.
They put forward there own candidates while in the labour party.

I would say the onus is on you to prove that this policy has changed.
Well it has,the CWI no longer support any labour candidates because the labour party is now a party of imperialism and neo-liberalism.i dont have any links to back this up but im sure you could find something if you are really interested.

SovietPants why would you defend a crap post like AJ's?Everything in it is wrong.

Originally posted by [email protected]
trotskyites support pro-imperialist social democratic parties because it's in their material interests.No,actualy the vast majority of trotskyists dont support that.But the tiny amount of stalinites do.btw ite refers to that tendency being small something which you obviously dont understand :rolleyes:

In the case of the imperialist British labour party, trotskyites only stopped supporting it when it ceased to be social democratic and become openly bourgeois under tony blair
Under Tony Blair? wrong the CWI stopped supporting long before that,im not sure about the IST but i imagine they stopped supporting new labour long before Tony.

and sibsequently went of to form their own alternative social-democratic groups.
We didnt,the SWP formed there own social-democratic group.

Marmot
I don't think Grant ever argued labour was "socialist". He just thought that Labour Party was trusted by many workers and because of that, communists should infiltrate it.
Ya i think that is the case,but it seems to have gone very wrong for the IMT.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by Led [email protected] 28, 2007 08:34 pm
Jesus christ are you being dense on purpose?


No, I would just like to see some evidence that you have so far failed to provide.


The CWI started the campaign for a new workers party in 2005, they are promoting that nationally, they do not call for people to vote for Labor, they call for people to vote for the new workers party.

And again I ask what did they advocate workers do in the majority of the country where they didn't stand.


The SWP has setup RESPECT, which participated in the elections, they called on people to vote for it as an alternative to Labor, they did not call on people to vote for Labor nationally.

And again I ask what did they advocate workers do in the majority of the country where they didn't stand.


Now if in the last elections some branches of the SWP called for people to vote for some left-wing Labor candidates, that does not prove that the SWP line is not anti-Labor and for a new workers party, what the hell??

If some branches of the SWP called for a vote for 'some left-wing Labor candidates', it means the SWP advocated a vote for Labour. It may be under certain circumstances, but it is still advocating a Labour vote.


your claim was false, just admit it and get it over with!

As I said previously, I will be quite happy to admit that I am wrong when, or if you provide the evidence to prove it.

Devrim

[Guest1]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 04:43 pm
Ya i think that is the case,but it seems to have gone very wrong for the IMT.
How?

The real question isn't about "calling for a vote". Marxists aren't concerned with electoral campaigns as such.

The question is, where do we do our work? Do we patiently work where organized labour is (and still has power, even if the union bureaucrats are reluctant to use it), or do we go off into the wilderness in the hopes that people follow us?

Our ideas need the biggest exposure possible, and the debate and struggle over those ideas needs to happen at trade union congresses and yes, even at the Labour party congresses.

Splitting the Labour party is justified, when you actually have the weight to split it, and take most of the workers with you. In otherwords, at a time where you are better known, better organized, better respected and on the road to a complete crisis in the country.

Splitting with four cats and a dog is sectarianism. It just means the majority of workers are going to remain in Labour, with no opposition to New Labour's apparatchiks.

Tony Blair made life difficult for Militant, but Militant had more full-timers than Labour and was an organized faction! Being in opposition within the Labour party is a part of the struggle for leadership of ideas, we can't get scared of the fight and drop out.

If we hadn't dropped out then, Blairism would have had a much harder time, and only now has the opportunity come up to undo the harm that Militant did by leaving the workers to the wolves and selfishly storming out.

If you can't defeat the bureaucrats, you can't defeat the bourgeoisie.

[Tower of Bebel]

Originally posted by Anarion+August 28, 2007 10:43 pm--> (Anarion @ August 28, 2007 10:43 pm)
Marmot
I don't think Grant ever argued labour was "socialist". He just thought that Labour Party was trusted by many workers and because of that, communists should infiltrate it.
Ya i think that is the case,but it seems to have gone very wrong for the IMT. [/b]
It's all about the more conscious workers really.


The question is, where do we do our work? Do we patiently work where organized labour is (and still has power, even if the union bureaucrats are reluctant to use it), or do we go off into the wilderness in the hopes that people follow us?

Our ideas need the biggest exposure possible, and the debate and struggle over those ideas needs to happen at trade union congresses and yes, even at the Labour party congresses.

Splitting the Labour party is justified, when you actually have the weight to split it, and take most of the workers with you. In otherwords, at a time where you are better known, better organized, better respected and on the road to a complete crisis in the country.

This calls for the debate whether the more conscious workers can still be found near the old labour parties. In order to grow as a revolutionary faction within the old worker's party one must have contacts with the more conscious workers, who are open to the ideas of real socialism. In my opinion you cannot find them that easily within the old socialist parties. It is these workers who know they will be betrayed if they rally under the flag of "social neoliberalism".

[gilhyle]

Devrim
It seems to me you are putting the contrast too starkly. You keep asking what SWP/CWI call for in those constitutencies where they did not stand. But you also refer to the historical Trotskyist position, But surely the issue is that they did stand. In the historical past, the predecessors of the CWI did not stand and the SWP did so only rarely. Now they are trying to build alternative left parties. That is the very real change (not a real change for the better in my opinion, just another adaptation to the latest wind of change). Even if they still call for a vote for Labour where they dont stand, there has still ben a radical change in the electoral tactics of these parties, namely the scale of their independent electoral interventions

Furthermore, given that you admit you havent lived in the UK in 20 maybe the obligation is as much on you as on your opponents in this discussion to come up with the evidence as to what happened in those constituencies where they did not stand. Indeed, it is more on you, since you draw attention to those constitutencies as politically significant while your opponennts in this discussion - if I understand them - emphasise the fact of how many constituencies where they did stand - to which as I said before I add the temporary phenomenon of the SOcialist Alliance.

Things have changed since you lived in the UK.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 11:35 pm
Things have changed since you lived in the UK.
Yes, I lived there a long time ago. Of course some things have.


those constitutencies as politically significant while your opponennts in this discussion - if I understand them - emphasise the fact of how many constituencies where they did stand

Let's just remember that these are the vast majority of constituencies.

Respect stood in 0.04% of constituencies.

The SP /CWI) stood in 0.02% of constituencies.

Clearly the places where they didn't stand are significant, and actually do show what British Trotskyism stands for.

I personally find it quite difficult to believe, though as I said before I am quite willing to be proved wrong, that the SWP and the CWI advocated abstensionism to the vast majority of workers. I suspect that it isn't true, and that is why the evidence hasn't been forthcoming.


You keep asking what SWP/CWI call for in those constituencies where they did not stand. But you also refer to the historical Trotskyist position, But surely the issue is that they did stand. In the historical past, the predecessors of the CWI did not stand and the SWP did so only rarely. Now they are trying to build alternative left parties. That is the very real change (not a real change for the better in my opinion, just another adaptation to the latest wind of change).

I think it is agreed that the 'historical position of Trotskyism' is support for Labour. While I envsage the CWI as having a little more staying power on their new course I imagine that the SWP will eventually return to the historical position.


Even if they still call for a vote for Labour where they dont stand, there has still ben a radical change in the electoral tactics of these parties, namely the scale of their independent electoral interventions

Again the figures above show that the scale is tiny, for the SWP not so different from its previous interventions.


maybe the obligation is as much on you as on your opponents in this discussion to come up with the evidence

I would say that despite any obligations the fact that they are members or supporters of these parties, and it is much easier for them to find the information should make it a matter of common courtesy.

Devrim

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by Led [email protected] 28, 2007 03:37 pm
Hey Tankie, go away, no one cares about your nostalgic bullshit spouting.
I think A.J.'s opinion is very interesting so chill out. Why don't you instead counter his claims if you dismiss them as nonesense.

Here in the US, there are a bunch of trotskyist groups which do run candidates or support various parties becaus it is a tool for revolution. My view is that telling people to vote is not revolutionary and that people should be organized to revolution not into a voting trap.

[gilhyle]

Ok, I dislike this stand-off, its pointless.

Well there are 646 constituencies in the UK.

I quote the following from the Socialist Alliance website:

In 2001 the SA adopted a new programme and constitution and now involved all the main tendencies and groupings on the left, including the AWL, CPGB, International Socialist Group, Revolutionary Democratic Group, Socialist Party, SWP and Workers Power. The SA stood 98 candidates in the 2001 general election, making the biggest left challenge to the Labour Party for 50 years.After the Bush-Blair war in Iraq, the SWP majority abandoned the SA for Respect and closed the SA down.

The following website:

http://www.psr.keele.ac.uk/area/uk/ge05/candidates.htm

Lists numbers of left wing candidates by party as follows:

Communist Party of Britain: 6
Democratic Socialist Alliance - People Before Profit: 2
Socialist Alternative Party : 17
Socialist Environmental Alliance : 1
Socialist Labour Party: 49
Socialist Unity Network: 2
Socialist : 1
Scottish Socialist Party: 56
Workers Revolutionar Party: 10
Workers Party (N.I.): 6
Respect: 26


There is a more detailed list here:
http://www.socialistunitynetwork.co.uk/ele...ves/lefties.htm (http://www.socialistunitynetwork.co.uk/electiion2005/alternatives/lefties.htm)

There is nothing I can see in the Respect Manifesto, which is here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs...k_manifesto.pdf (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/RESPECT_uk_manifesto.pdf)

calling for votes for Labour

There was no call to vote Labour here:

http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=6429

An SWP candidate who ran under another party name, Eamonn McCann also did not mention votes for Labour, here:

http://socialistenvironmentalalliance.org/...sterleaflet.pdf (http://socialistenvironmentalalliance.org/pdfs/westminsterleaflet.pdf)


I see no call for a vote for Labour in this CWI article from 5th April 2005 that can be found here:
http://www.socialistworld.net/

and which describes it as a no choice election.

There is an analysis here
http://www.bolshevik.org/1917/no28/no28RespectArticle.html

as follows:


Respect & the British Left

Most of the British left has raised criticisms of one sort or another of the Respect gambit. Peter Taaffe’s Socialist Party (leading section of the Committee for a Workers’ International) refused to join Respect, choosing instead to run its own candidates. And yet the Socialist Party leaders have no principled differences with the SWP’s class-collaborationist project and were clearly impressed by Galloway’s electoral victory:

"The Socialist Party welcomes this victory and called for a vote for Respect—a party that stands to the left of the big three—and that demands bringing the privatised utilities back into public ownership, an £8 an hour minimum wage, and the ending of occupation of Iraq.

"However, we would have preferred Respect to have been launched as a more inclusive and democratic party that aimed to build a base amongst all sections of the working class."
—The Socialist, 6-11 May 2005
In other words, they are not currently inclined to participate actively in an electoral vehicle controlled by a larger rival, but if Respect becomes popular enough they will swallow their pride and try to find a seat on the bandwagon.

The Communist Party of Great Britain’s (CPGB) position on Respect has undergone a limited evolution. Initially pledging that "the CPGB will work to ensure the biggest possible vote for Respect" (Weekly Worker [WW] No. 521, 25 March 2004), a year later, with the election campaign underway, this was changed to a call for votes to "working class anti-war candidates" (WW No. 569, 24 March 2005)—by which they meant SWP members or other leftists running on the Respect ticket.

The International Bolshevik Tendency took a very different approach, arguing that revolutionaries can only give electoral support to workers’ candidates who run independently of all sections of the capitalist class—not in alliance with its more "progressive" elements. A prerequisite for Marxists when considering critical support to any self-proclaimed socialist candidates would be that they break decisively from Respect’s class collaborationism.

The CPGB debated this issue with us in their paper. In the course of the debate, the CPGB took its position to its logical conclusion by asserting that voting for openly bourgeois parties, such as the Liberal Democrats, could sometimes be a valid "tactic" for Marxists. (See our pamphlet "Marxism vs. Popular Frontism: Why not voting Liberal Democrat is a principle not a tactic," which reprints the relevant documents from both sides.)

Workers Power (leading section of the League for the Fifth International) joined us in opposing votes to Respect on the basis of its cross-class character:

"The problem with Respect is its class character. It is not a working class party, despite the fact that George Galloway was a long-time Labour MP and the organizational core of Respect is the membership of Socialist Workers Party. Its whole political programme and campaign was trimmed to win cross-class support, particularly to build a coalition of working class and petit-bourgeois people primarily within the Muslim community mobilized by the more socially radical mosques and the Muslim Association of Britain (MAB)."
—Workers Power statement 10 May 2005
At bottom, however, Workers Power’s position is, like the CPGB’s, not based on Leninist principle, but opportunist tactical calculations. Workers Power has long taken the position that they will vote for class-collaborationist formations that are sufficiently popular. This was spelled out in a 1987 letter to us:

"Both Trotsky and Lenin made clear that the sole purpose of revolutionaries calling for a vote for reformists was that if they have the support of the masses then they have to be put to the test of office. This tactic can be applied whether or not the reformist party is in an open (popular front) or concealed (social democratic government) bloc with the bourgeoisie. The decisive criteria is that party’s relationship to the masses."
We replied:

"If the reformists break with the popular front, and thereby destroy it as a ‘joint party,’ then, and only then, can revolutionists consider a tactic of critical support. This is the whole significance of Lenin’s insistence that the Mensheviks and SRs break with the capitalist ministers in Kerensky’s Provisional Government in 1917 as a precondition for any critical support from the Bolsheviks."
—reprinted in Trotskyist Bulletin No. 3, "In Defense of the Trotskyist Program"
While tut-tutting about the SWP’s role in setting out to build Respect as a cross-class political bloc, Workers Power eagerly participated in the SWP’s "Stop the War Coalition," (StWC) which was organized on the same basis—i.e., as a popular-frontist formation with a program limited to bourgeois pacifism that offered its partners an implicit guarantee that no advocates of class-war politics would be permitted on the platform at StWC events. Workers Power was allowed a seat on the StWC steering committee where it provided a left cover for the SWP’s class-collaborationist anti-war project (see "Fifth Wheel Internationalists," 1917 No. 26). Respect is, in essence, an attempt by the SWP to turn the StWC into an electoral combination.

For revisionists like the CPGB and Workers Power, class collaborationism is not a question of quality (i.e., principle) but of quantity (i.e., how popular a given "popular front" actually is). While quite prepared to lecture on the evils of cross-class formations in the abstract, they treat the question of the political independence of the working class as a tactical matter. If enough people are voting for a multi-class bloc, then they will too (while making a few face-saving criticisms).

For Bolsheviks the popular front poses an issue that is fundamental to Marxism—the necessity for working people to organize themselves independently of the bosses. Those leftists who support Respect, however "critically," endorse the principle of cross-class political formations. The task of revolutionaries is to seek to split such lash-ups into their fundamental (i.e., class) components, not to provide a left cover for a policy of subordinating the interests of the exploited to those of their exploiters.

{The authors of this analysis oppsed a vote for Labour, here:

http://www.bolshevik.org/mb/1labour.htm}

This analysis (referred to in the above article) adds little:

http://www.workerspower.com/index.php?id=145,1280,0,0,1,0

[Led Zeppelin]

Thanks for that gilhyle, I admit I was too lazy myself to look for that information on the internet, but you proved the point.

Now hopefully devrim will admit he was wrong and not make such snappy comments again without knowing the situation objectively.

[bolshevik butcher]

I don't think that any trotskyist group has ever suggested that the Labour Party in any way is a socialist party, as has been suggested earlier in the threat. I know that my own group, often branded Labour fetishists has certianly never regarded the Labour Party as a socialist organisation. However, that does not mean that we do not work within it or just write it off as a ruling class party.

My position on this is the same as CYM's. Our work within the Labour Party is an attempt to win over the most advanced layers of workers to a socailist program and we view the traditional mass party and the trade union links that come with this as a platform in which to do this. We can argue whether this is a viable tactic or not, but the debate is certianly not that Labour is a socialist party.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by dev
However, I will make you a bet; For every UK Trotskyist organisation you can find that doesn't call for a Labour vote, I am certain I can find two that do.

Don't forget about the ones that are about to split into two separate factions because they can't decide which way to go!

[Tower of Bebel]

Here in the US, there are a bunch of trotskyist groups which do run candidates or support various parties becaus it is a tool for revolution. My view is that telling people to vote is not revolutionary and that people should be organized to revolution not into a voting trap.

It's not like trots only call for a vote on leftists parties. Normally trots should try to unite the workers in a workers party as a tool for class struggle, not just call for a vote.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by Led [email protected] 29, 2007 07:55 pm
Now hopefully devrim will admit he was wrong and not make such snappy comments again without knowing the situation objectively.
My informant, who I believe is a member of the CWI in Ireland writes:


The Socialist Party (the successor organisation to Militant) called for a vote for socialist or working class community candidates. Where there was no such candidate it didn't call for a vote for any party.

The SWP called for a vote for Respect candidates, then other left wing candidates and then, where there was no such candidate a vote for New Labour.

Unless you can contradict this I think my point is proven.

Devrim

[Tower of Bebel]

When?

[Devrim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 08:46 pm
When?
I presume the last election:
http://libcom.org/forums/history/trots-lab...ection-28082007 (http://libcom.org/forums/history/trots-labour-2005-election-28082007)

Devrim

[gilhyle]

Devrim

Thats fine, but I dont care which side is right about what the SWP did. I just couldnt find it. Not saying its not there somewhere. But not only is it not prominent in their own literature, its not in the contemporary third party reporting, as I quoted, from people who opposed a vote for Labour and would have been happy to criticise the SWP for that (which is why I quoted at such length).

So if it is there, it was little more than a technicality and not a major tactical focus.

that said, I think your prognosis that many of these parties will go back to calling for a Labour Vote might well be correct, once they have the 'new workers party' slogan out of their system (since it patently wont work).

Anyone who has read Trotsky's 'Crisis in the French Section' knows how this kind of politics pans out.

[Guest1]

No one wishes to address my post or Bolshevik butcher's?

[RNK]

I will.

I see electoral politicing as a complete waste of time. It has been a waste of time for decades, and will continue to be a waste of time until some drastic change is forced upon the current system of things. As it stands, elections in the West amounts, mainly, to high-profile exposure, as several have pointed out. Unfortunately, by their very nature, left-wing parties and organizations simply do not have the logistic, monetary or manpower resources that the right-wing does. The right can ensure that they are seen by every man, woman and child, on the sides of every bus, in every commercial break, in every news report and on every front page of every major newspaper in every country. Simply put, politicing is not enough; it's a lesson that has been taught for years, which has been failing since long before most of us were born. And I quite honestly do not understand this irreverence a lot of us have for it.

In short, electoral politicing on the part of the Left does nothing to challenge the social and economic power of the ruling class. It does not question the foundations of bourgeois democracy; infact, by the very act of it, it strengthens and justifies those foundations. We don't live in Russia of the 1910s. We live in a time where the bourgeois has complete rule over all media.

[Leo]

No one wishes to address my post or Bolshevik butcher's?

I will answer your post.


The question is, where do we do our work?

Yes, that is the question. Do communists do their work within bourgeois parties or within the working class. Do communist work for the interests of the bourgeois leaders of various political parties or for the interests of the workers in the factories.


Our ideas need the biggest exposure possible, and the debate and struggle over those ideas needs to happen at trade union congresses and yes, even at the Labour party congresses.

And while you're at it, try to make your ideas echo in the Conservative Party congress as well, because you know there are conservative workers also. And why not the British National Party congress?

In every bourgeois political party, there are workers who believe in the ideals of the party. Which bourgeois political faction the workers are forced to support is not what communists take into consideration when they are talking to them. Communists call for the unification of all workers and they call for this where it would makes sense to unite for a worker: in the factories, not in a bourgeois party.


Tony Blair made life difficult for Militant, but Militant had more full-timers than Labour and was an organized faction! Being in opposition within the Labour party is a part of the struggle for leadership of ideas, we can't get scared of the fight and drop out.

If we hadn't dropped out then, Blairism would have had a much harder time, and only now has the opportunity come up to undo the harm that Militant did by leaving the workers to the wolves and selfishly storming out.

Yeah, militant was a perfect example of how groups who end up entering bourgeois parties are completely bourgeois as well:

“The labour movement should be mobilised to force a general election to open the way for the return of a Labour government to implement socialist policies at home and abroad. Victory of a socialist government in Britain would immediately transform the situation in relation to the Falklands. The junta would no longer be able to claim to be fighting British imperialism ... A Labour government could not just abandon the Falklanders and let Galtieri get on with it. But it would continue the war on socialist lines” (Militant International Review No22, June 1982).

For the interests of British imperialism but under the name of "socialism"! I don't think further comments are necessary.

[Wanted Man]

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 30, 2007 07:54 pm
Yeah, militant was a perfect example of how groups who end up entering bourgeois parties are completely bourgeois as well:

“The labour movement should be mobilised to force a general election to open the way for the return of a Labour government to implement socialist policies at home and abroad. Victory of a socialist government in Britain would immediately transform the situation in relation to the Falklands. The junta would no longer be able to claim to be fighting British imperialism ... A Labour government could not just abandon the Falklanders and let Galtieri get on with it. But it would continue the war on socialist lines” (Militant International Review No22, June 1982).

For the interests of British imperialism but under the name of "socialism"! I don't think further comments are necessary.
Holy fuck! That opens up some interesting possibilities. Perhaps they can now say: "Vote Labour to implement socialist policies, so that we can continue the war in Afghanistan and Iraq on socialist lines!"

[gilhyle]

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 30, 2007 06:54 pm
Yeah, militant was a perfect example of how groups who end up entering bourgeois parties are completely bourgeois as well:


Hmmm, now lets see on this logic if we can find a party or group that opposed voting labour and supported some imperialist venture or supported Stalinism, that would have happened why .....cos they opposed voting labour ?

Leo you know well many groups have called for votes for Labour without supporting imperialist wars.

It really sounds like an argument for protecting moral purity at all costs. Come up with something better.

[Leo]

Hmmm, now lets see on this logic if we can find a party or group that opposed voting labour and supported some imperialist venture or supported Stalinism, that would have happened why .....cos they opposed voting labour ?

Leo you know well many groups have called for votes for Labour without supporting imperialist wars.

It really sounds like an argument for protecting moral purity at all costs. Come up with something better.

It has got nothing to do with moral purity. Nor do I declare that you have to vote Labour to support imperialism. This specific quote is called an example, of a group within a bourgeois organization being bourgeois itself.

On another point however, I don't think there has been an imperialist war which the Trotskyists have not supported. You name the war, I'll say which side they took.

This doesn't mean that they can't ever say that they oppose a specific war - it's not like it's not in their dictionary. The Militant Tendency, for example could have opposed the war within the Labour Party, it didn't happen but it could have happened. It wouldn't be, however, anything serious. Imagine old Ted Grant, for example, speaking with the leaders of the Labour Party, trying to convince them that they shouldn't support the war. What would he say? War is a bad and immoral thing, peace is good etc. Leaders of the Labour Party would have had a good laugh and be done with it. Ted Grant couldn't have said "war is against your class interests" to the leaders of the Labour Party because war was not against the class interests of them, heck, war was not against the class interests of the Militant Tendency.

[gilhyle]

I don't think there has been an imperialist war which the Trotskyists have not supported. You name the war, I'll say which side they took.

Who the hell are THE trotskyists ? There are so many trotskyists groups, I would be surprised if you couldnt find an anti-Right to Choose Trotskyist group....you're making it kinda easy for yourself.

[Leo]

Who the hell are THE trotskyists ? There are so many trotskyists groups, I would be surprised if you couldnt find an anti-Right to Choose Trotskyist group....you're making it kinda easy for yourself.

No, I am actually very confident on this. I say that all self-proclaimed Trotskyist for all wars, starting from the second imperialist war. (Of course Ex-Trotskyist groups like Fermento Obrero Revolucionario, Marx-Lenin-Luxemburg Front, Revolutionären Kommunisten Deutschlands and such obviously does not count).

[Tower of Bebel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2007 07:21 pm

I don't think there has been an imperialist war which the Trotskyists have not supported. You name the war, I'll say which side they took.

Who the hell are THE trotskyists ? There are so many trotskyists groups, I would be surprised if you couldnt find an anti-Right to Choose Trotskyist group....you're making it kinda easy for yourself.
I question this myself everytime I read articles from the ICC.

[gilhyle]

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 31, 2007 06:34 pm
No, I am actually very confident on this. I say that all self-proclaimed Trotskyist for all wars, starting from the second imperialist war.
I just want to get this right - your claim is that no group in any of the Trotskyist traditions has ever opposed imperialist aggression, not in Algeria, not in Cyprus, not in Indonesia, not in Yemen, not in Northern Ireland, not in the Suez crisis, not the six day war, not in Korea, not in Vietnam, not Grenada, not in the Falklands, not in Kosovo, not in Cambodia, not in Afghanistan, not in Iraq......Leo I just have to be misunderstanding you, so just put me out of my misery, explain what you mean cos what you appear to mean is patently false.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by gilhyle+August 31, 2007 11:52 pm--> (gilhyle @ August 31, 2007 11:52 pm)
Leo [email protected] 31, 2007 06:34 pm
No, I am actually very confident on this. I say that all self-proclaimed Trotskyist for all wars, starting from the second imperialist war.
I just want to get this right - your claim is that no group in any of the Trotskyist traditions has ever opposed imperialist aggression, not in Algeria, not in Cyprus, not in Indonesia, not in Yemen, not in Northern Ireland, not in the Suez crisis, not the six day war, not in Korea, not in Vietnam, not Grenada, not in the Falklands, not in Kosovo, not in Cambodia, not in Afghanistan, not in Iraq......Leo I just have to be misunderstanding you, so just put me out of my misery, explain what you mean cos what you appear to mean is patently false. [/b]
I think what he means is that Trotskyists have supported one side, or the other in every imperialist conflict, whether it be a defence of 'socialist Korea', or supprt of Albanian nationalists in Kosovo. Actually, you can generally find them on both sides (take the AWL on Kosovo for example).

His point is that the Trotskyist tradition has abandoned internationalism, and 'revolutionary defeatism'.

Every Trotskyist organisation for every war sounds a bit ambitious to me. It may be true though.

Devrim

[Devrim]

So on the main point of this thread that the majority of British Trotskyists supported Labour it turns out that I am actually right.

I won't bother waiting for the apology 'Led Zeppelin'.

Devrim

[chebol]

Any marxist, communist or socialist who doesn't call for a vote for Labour (after anything to their left first) over the Right is an idiot. Pure and simple.

This is not to say that elections *solve* anything. Nor that the "Labour" party is going to actually chaeive anything of much value. On the contrary, it is precisely by getting them into power that you can expose them for the tools of Capital that they invariably are (to one or another extent).

And anyone who wants to spit on elections - go back and read Marx and Lenin, and have a serious think about what the fuck you are trying to acheive. The vast majority of people think elections either are a real way of changing things, or (like here in Oz) it's illegal. In some countries people fight and die even for the right to elections. Instead of passing pseudo-religious self-righteous statement sfrom on high, have a small think about how many millions of people you can talk to if you have people at every polling booth, talking to people at one of the few times when they bother to take politics seriously.

If, however, any party or group, Trotskyist or otherwise, really thinks the labour parties (of whatever flavour) are REALLY a valuable way forward, I'm yet to be convinced.

And as for the fucking stupidity (offense DEFINATELY meant) of claiming that the US-Vietnam, US/UN-Korea, or even for that sake NATO-Kosovo is inter-imperalist; or that taking sides is counter-revolutionary.....

Grow a fucking brain. Support Imperialism much do we? Oh no, of course, we *true communists* are too pure to stoop to the level of actually caring about the passage of such an uncomfortable thing as reality. It fits not with our schema. [dripping sarcasm]

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 09:38 am
So on the main point of this thread that the majority of British Trotskyists supported Labour it turns out that I am actually right.

I won't bother waiting for the apology 'Led Zeppelin'.

Devrim
You weren't right, you said you had a "source" who told you all that bullshit and then claimed to be right, as if that "source" of yours is God itself right?

Hey, guess what, I also have a source in the UK, and he told me otherwise, both about the SWP and Militant.

Oh, wow, I guess now I'm magically right, without providing any sources at all. :o

[Devrim]

Originally posted by Led Zeppelin+September 01, 2007 07:21 pm--> (Led Zeppelin @ September 01, 2007 07:21 pm)
[email protected] 01, 2007 09:38 am
So on the main point of this thread that the majority of British Trotskyists supported Labour it turns out that I am actually right.

I won't bother waiting for the apology 'Led Zeppelin'.

Devrim
You weren't right, you said you had a "source" who told you all that bullshit and then claimed to be right, as if that "source" of yours is God itself right?

Hey, guess what, I also have a source in the UK, and he told me otherwise, both about the SWP and Militant.

Oh, wow, I guess now I'm magically right, without providing any sources at all. :o [/b]
No, but as yourself as a member of one of the organisations concerned was unable to back up you point with any evidence whatsoever, I will just take it that there is none.

As I said before, all you have to do is produce some links.

Devrim

[Led Zeppelin]

gilhyle produced a shitload of links, first of all, and secondly YKTMX already said he was not an SWP member and thirdly he said he found it hard to believe that they called on a vote for Labor, actually, he clearly said they didn't.

You lose.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by Led [email protected] 01, 2007 07:30 pm
gilhyle produced a shitload of links, first of all, and secondly YKTMX already said he was not an SWP member and thirdly he said he found it hard to believe that they called on a vote for Labor, actually, he clearly said they didn't.

You lose.
Again nobody has produced a link addressing what they argued for in the vast majority of English continuances. That is all it needs, just one link from each of the SWP, and the CWI stating that they argued for absetensionism in places where they (or other left groups) weren't running candidates.

I would suggest the reason they have yet to appear is that they don't exist. Personally, I find it more likely that the CWI did do this than the SWP, but even if you produce one link, you still need the other to have a clear majority.

Devrim

[Tower of Bebel]

Why calling for a vote on labour when they're working on a new mass worker's party?

[Leo]

As a marginal party participating in bourgeois elections, their strength is limited.

This means that they will want to concentrate their work on locations where they can get more votes. If they don't do this and try to "win" the elections, they will be further marginalized in places where they can actually get higher votes because if they run everywhere, assuming of course that they materially can run everywhere, what they want to do will seem unrealistic.

As a party participating in bourgeois political elections, their understanding of being political will be voting in the elections, they won't be able to bring themselves to tell their supporters to abstain, thus they will either not say anything and let their supporters decide who to vote for (which will for most cases be the Labour Party) or they will tell their supporters to vote for the most left wing party, which in most cases will be the Labour Party.

[Edgar]

The British chapter of the Socialist Equality Party (SEP) has always been completely opposed to voting Labour. Unfortunately, they don't have nearly the amount of members or support as the SWP.

[A.J.]

“The labour movement should be mobilised to force a general election to open the way for the return of a Labour government to implement socialist policies at home and abroad. Victory of a socialist government in Britain would immediately transform the situation in relation to the Falklands. The junta would no longer be able to claim to be fighting British imperialism ... A Labour government could not just abandon the Falklanders and let Galtieri get on with it. But it would continue the war on socialist lines” (Militant International Review No22, June 1982).

I think this openly exposes trotskyires as opportunist pro-imperialist social-democratic slimeballs.


My earlier post in this thread had been fully vindicated.


'nuff said. :cool:

[Guest1]

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 30, 2007 02:54 pm
Yes, that is the question. Do communists do their work within bourgeois parties or within the working class. Do communist work for the interests of the bourgeois leaders of various political parties or for the interests of the workers in the factories.
The Trade Union Congress remains a stronghold of the working class organizations. The party dictatorship is now losing its grip, and has opted to shut that congress down. This will not happen unless the unions vote for it at this coming congress, which means there's a showdown coming. A showdown between Blairism and Labour in the british party of the working class in which the unions hold half the votes, and a third for leadership elections.

Rejecting work in the Labour party can only be justified by rejecting trade unions in general, as it is the ultimate expression of the unions in Britain. As an expression of the union organizations, it has reflected their bureaucratized, right wing leadership, for a long time. The contradictions are building however, as the working class is going on the offensive and Brown is more and more painting himself clearly as a non-Labour hijacker. He will be putsched, it's just a matter of time.

It's our place to build and lead the coming rank-and-file rebellion, and retake the labour party.


And while you're at it, try to make your ideas echo in the Conservative Party congress as well, because you know there are conservative workers also. And why not the British National Party congress?
It's a question of which party is effectively controlled by which class. No matter the Blairite takeover, the fundamentals remain the same, the Labour party is controlled by the unions. Without their support, New Labour would have never lasted this long.

The union bureaucrats are will lose ground to more radical policies and leadership within the unions, the Labour party bureaucrats will soon follow. The rebellion has begun, and we need to be where the rebellion is.


In every bourgeois political party, there are workers who believe in the ideals of the party. Which bourgeois political faction the workers are forced to support is not what communists take into consideration when they are talking to them. Communists call for the unification of all workers and they call for this where it would makes sense to unite for a worker: in the factories, not in a bourgeois party.
Actually, Marx made clear that Communists do not separate themselves from the working class parties, in the Communist Manifesto. Marx believed in working side by side by workers, and pointing the way forward, not splitting off like sectarians.


Yeah, militant was a perfect example of how groups who end up entering bourgeois parties are completely bourgeois as well:

“The labour movement should be mobilised to force a general election to open the way for the return of a Labour government to implement socialist policies at home and abroad. Victory of a socialist government in Britain would immediately transform the situation in relation to the Falklands. The junta would no longer be able to claim to be fighting British imperialism ... A Labour government could not just abandon the Falklanders and let Galtieri get on with it. But it would continue the war on socialist lines” (Militant International Review No22, June 1982).

For the interests of British imperialism but under the name of "socialism"! I don't think further comments are necessary.
Well, I don't know much about the Falklands, but it is acceptable for a socialist state to go to war in certain cases.

Anyways, Militant had degenerated and the majority faction did fuck up. This is what the split was about, and why a part of it left the Labour party, and the IMT stayed.

Brown's winter of discontent only proves the necessity to work in Labour, there will be hell to pay at the TUC.

[Magic Snowman]

On another point however, I don't think there has been an imperialist war which the Trotskyists have not supported. You name the war, I'll say which side they took.

This doesn't mean that they can't ever say that they oppose a specific war - it's not like it's not in their dictionary. The Militant Tendency, for example could have opposed the war within the Labour Party, it didn't happen but it could have happened. It wouldn't be, however, anything serious. Imagine old Ted Grant, for example, speaking with the leaders of the Labour Party, trying to convince them that they shouldn't support the war. What would he say? War is a bad and immoral thing, peace is good etc. Leaders of the Labour Party would have had a good laugh and be done with it. Ted Grant couldn't have said "war is against your class interests" to the leaders of the Labour Party because war was not against the class interests of them, heck, war was not against the class interests of the Militant Tendency.

Trotskyist look at war from a class perspective. Look at World War II. This was the archetype of imperialist wars on all sides and it was actively opposed by THE Trotskyist group at the time, THE FOURTH INTERNATIONAL, led by Trotsky himself at the beginning of the War. The “Grant group” was a small faction with the British section at the time.

Regardless what some faction within a certain group may have said about a perticular war, the class anaylsis of war in general remains the same.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by Magic [email protected] 07, 2007 01:21 am
Trotskyist look at war from a class perspective. Look at World War II. This was the archetype of imperialist wars on all sides and it was actively opposed by THE Trotskyist group at the time, THE FOURTH INTERNATIONAL, led by Trotsky himself at the beginning of the War. The “Grant group” was a small faction with the British section at the time.

Regardless what some faction within a certain group may have said about a perticular war, the class anaylsis of war in general remains the same.
Actually, I think the Fourth International line on World War II, at least after the Germany invasion , was one of unconditional defence of the USSR i.e. taking a side in 'the archetype of imperialist wars'. In addition to this they backed the western allies as they were on the same side as the USSR.

There is Trotskyisms 'class analysis of war in general', lying in the dustbin alongside its internationalism.

Devrim

[Magic Snowman]

You're right actually, I guess I need to learn by history better here. The rifts between the tendencies within what is called "Trotskyism" were already developing even as the old man was still walking the streets of Mexico City. Actually, after further research, it looks like the war was in fact the cause of the first in a long history of splits within Trotskyism. The Haston- Grant group in Britain and the Shachtman tendency in the US, for all their differences, both recognized the imperial nature of Stalinism, while the other leaders of the international supported it as a workers’ state.

However despite actually picking a horrible example, my point still stands. The differences brought about by the war were not a disagreement in the class analysis of war as a concept, but rather on the class nature of the Soviet Union (which may explain why Trotskyist sects always seem to make a big deal about their position on that issue). All this to say that genuine socialism is internationalist in its outlook, and to only reason for an internationalist to support a war is if he believes (however wrongly) that one side will ferment an International revolution of the working class.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by Che y Marijuana+September 07, 2007 01:06 am--> (Che y Marijuana @ September 07, 2007 01:06 am)
Yeah, militant was a perfect example of how groups who end up entering bourgeois parties are completely bourgeois as well:

“The labour movement should be mobilised to force a general election to open the way for the return of a Labour government to implement socialist policies at home and abroad. Victory of a socialist government in Britain would immediately transform the situation in relation to the Falklands. The junta would no longer be able to claim to be fighting British imperialism ... A Labour government could not just abandon the Falklanders and let Galtieri get on with it. But it would continue the war on socialist lines” (Militant International Review No22, June 1982).

For the interests of British imperialism but under the name of "socialism"! I don't think further comments are necessary.
Well, I don't know much about the Falklands, but it is acceptable for a socialist state to go to war in certain cases.
[/b]
The UK under a Labour government would have still been a capitalist state. The idea of a
Militant defending Britain's imperialist wars continuing on 'socialist lines' is absurd as it is repugnant.


Originally posted by Che y [email protected]
The Trade Union Congress remains a stronghold of the working class organizations. The party dictatorship is now losing its grip, and has opted to shut that congress down. This will not happen unless the unions vote for it at this coming congress, which means there's a showdown coming. A showdown between Blairism and Labour in the british party of the working class in which the unions hold half the votes, and a third for leadership elections.

I am not sure if I understand what you are saying here (mostly because what you seem to be saying seems too ridiculous to be true). Are you really suggesting that the Labour Party is trying to close down the TUC?


Che y Marijuana

Rejecting work in the Labour party can only be justified by rejecting trade unions in general, as it is the ultimate expression of the unions in Britain. As an expression of the union organizations, it has reflected their bureaucratized, right wing leadership, for a long time. The contradictions are building however, as the working class is going on the offensive and Brown is more and more painting himself clearly as a non-Labour hijacker. He will be putsched, it's just a matter of time.

It's our place to build and lead the coming rank-and-file rebellion, and retake the labour party.

What was it old Hegel forgot to add about the umpteenth time as complete absurdity*.

Devrim

*The arguments of Lenin in the CI being the tragedy.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by Magic [email protected] 07, 2007 06:35 am
However despite actually picking a horrible example, my point still stands. The differences brought about by the war were not a disagreement in the class analysis of war as a concept, but rather on the class nature of the Soviet Union (which may explain why Trotskyist sects always seem to make a big deal about their position on that issue). All this to say that genuine socialism is internationalist in its outlook, and to only reason for an internationalist to support a war is if he believes (however wrongly) that one side will ferment an International revolution of the working class.
So how come Trotskyism has supported every war since the start of operation Barbarossa*? Did they see them all as 'ferment[ing] an International revolution of the working class'?

The point you make about the subjectivity of Trotskyist positions is also important:


only reason for an internationalist to support a war is if he believes (however wrongly) that one side will ferment an International revolution of the working class.

There is something completely wrong with this 'Marxism of crystal ball starers'. It makes guesses about what will be best for the working class, and then gives its support to whichever bourgeois faction it guesses will be 'better' for the working class in the long run. It abandons all principle, and urges the working class to line up behind the bourgeoisie.

The idea of revolutionary defeatism is destroyed.

The communist left, on the other hand, stood by its principles, and rejected support for all bourgeois factions.

Devrim

*I am not saying every Trotskyist faction here (Leo is), but I am saying that every war has been supported by some Trotskyist faction, or other.

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 09:16 am
*I am not saying every Trotskyist faction here (Leo is), but I am saying that every war has been supported by some Trotskyist faction, or other.
Hey, I'm a left-communist, and I support the Iraq war.

I guess that means that left-communism* supports the Iraq war.

*I am not saying every left-communist faction here, but I am saying that the Iraq war has been supported by some left-communist faction, or other.

:rolleyes:

The moral of the story; if someone claims to be something it doesn't necessarily make it so.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by Led Zeppelin+September 07, 2007 09:22 am--> (Led Zeppelin @ September 07, 2007 09:22 am)
[email protected] 07, 2007 09:16 am
*I am not saying every Trotskyist faction here (Leo is), but I am saying that every war has been supported by some Trotskyist faction, or other.
Hey, I'm a left-communist, and I support the Iraq war.

I guess that means that left-communism* supports the Iraq war.

*I am not saying every left-communist faction here, but I am saying that the Iraq war has been supported by some left-communist faction, or other.

:rolleyes:

The moral of the story; if someone claims to be something it doesn't necessarily make it so. [/b]
I don't think one person makes an organisation, which is implied in the word faction.

Anyway, Leo is saying that all factions of Trotskyism supported every war. It should be something easy to disprove if it is false. Just find one war that one Trotskyist faction didn't support either side on.

Devrim

[Devrim]

Again, I think we should keep this thread to the facts.
If you want to discuss this, very important issue, start a new thread.

Devrim

[Leo]

Yes, I've split this thread. Please let's discuss about Trotskyism and Labour here and WW2 in the new thread in the History Forum.

Link: http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=70640

[catch]

Originally posted by Che y Marijuana+September 07, 2007 01:06 am--> (Che y Marijuana @ September 07, 2007 01:06 am)
Leo [email protected] 30, 2007 02:54 pm
Yes, that is the question. Do communists do their work within bourgeois parties or within the working class. Do communist work for the interests of the bourgeois leaders of various political parties or for the interests of the workers in the factories.
The Trade Union Congress remains a stronghold of the working class organizations. The party dictatorship is now losing its grip, and has opted to shut that congress down. This will not happen unless the unions vote for it at this coming congress, which means there's a showdown coming. A showdown between Blairism and Labour in the british party of the working class in which the unions hold half the votes, and a third for leadership elections.
[/b]
I'd say the most likely outcome of a 'winter of discontent' (which may yet be averted by strikes being called off at the slightest whiff of concessions - see Royal Mail this past four weeks) is that there's a bit of a rank and file movement towards disaffilialition from Labour. Say that's successful and RMT/CWU/Unite all stopped funding Labour, I imagine you'd still be here telling everyone they need to work within the Labour Party... New Labour does quite well ignoring votes at conference, I really don't see where you're going with this.

The closeness of UNISON, the CWU and others to Labour, the fact most of the top-level officials are personal friends of people in the cabinet, stuff like that, is just one example of the bankruptcy of the kind of mindless trade unionism you're promoting here.



Rejecting work in the Labour party can only be justified by rejecting trade unions in general, as it is the ultimate expression of the unions in Britain.
The ultimate expression of the unions in Britain:
cutting pensions
enforcing wage cuts
fighting two wars
presiding over the building of what will likely be massive slumlord areas within ten years (cheap, nasty housing in flood plains with no amenities or transport links)
etc. etc.



As an expression of the union organizations, it has reflected their bureaucratized, right wing leadership, for a long time. The contradictions are building however, as the working class is going on the offensive and Brown is more and more painting himself clearly as a non-Labour hijacker. He will be putsched, it's just a matter of time.
No, there's no contradiction. The Labour Party has nothing to do with the working class, apart from it's role in attacking it on both immediate material and broader political grounds. Blair was in office almost as long as Thatcher, you seem to have no conception of the processes at work whatsoever.



The union bureaucrats are will lose ground to more radical policies and leadership within the unions, the Labour party bureaucrats will soon follow. The rebellion has begun, and we need to be where the rebellion is.
Any loss of control from union bureaucrats (no sign so far, Royal Mail wildcats firmly under control so far and nothing much springing up elsewhere) will be an expression of working class self-activity within the workplace. It might get partially (or wholly) diverted into rank and filism, leadership contests etc., but "where the rebellion is" will be the strikes, work to rules, discussions, at the point of re-production of capital, not in the unions or the labour party.



Actually, Marx made clear that Communists do not separate themselves from the working class parties, in the Communist Manifesto. Marx believed in working side by side by workers, and pointing the way forward, not splitting off like sectarians.
Yes, and he was wrong on that, and admitted it himself after the Paris Commune.




Well, I don't know much about the Falklands, but it is acceptable for a socialist state to go to war in certain cases.
Maybe you should find out, and try to explain why a Labour Party government in the '80s would have been a 'socialist state'.

[redarmyfaction38]

forgive me, i didn't read all of the posts properly, i just gathered the general trend of argument.
i'm a self avowed "trotskyist", however, i don't think he was the f ing messiah, he made mistakes, just ask the "anarchists". :D
what we're talking about here is "entryism", back in the 60s, 70s, and 80s, this was a sound tactic for those, like miltant, that believed a "mass workers party" could be built within a "social democratic" party like "the labour party", all the prerequisites were there, trade union finance and control, a parliamentary party supposedly controlled by national congress etc.
at one point, the militant actually looked capable of leading that transformation to a "mass workers party". its policies, put into practice in liverpool brought support, not just from the traditional working class but from small businesses, homeowners and aspirational "middle classes".
unfortunately, the likes of kinnock saw this a threat to "parliamentary politics", his "leadership" of the labour party and "parliamentary democracy". and colluded with thatcher and the "loads of money" trade union leadership to undermine and bring down the liverpool "resistance".
a bit like the role of the "communist party" during the spanish civil war.

today, given the total annialation of any kind of democracy within the labour party, groups like the cwi are quite rightly campaigning for a new party of the working class and for working class organisations like trade unions to disaffiliate from new labour.
unfortunately, amongst us workers, that is a humendous leap of consciousness, it is a denial of our history, the role of the labour party in wales and scotland where it was much closer to its working clas roots.
i think i've lost the thread of what i was talkinbg about now!
basically, the politicians talk shit, the trotskyists and anarchists are quiterightly trying to seperate the working class from the labour party and fat cat trade union leaders who see their only role as negotiating "concessions" from the ruling clas rather than leaDING THE FIGHT TO OVERTHROW THE CAPITALISTS AND THEIR SERVILE SUPPORTERS"! whoops! HIT CAP LOCK :wub: