New Labour - change in party base?

[BobKKKindle$]

CWU conference debates political relationship with Labour by Yuri Prasad

The Communication Workers Union (CWU) conference was set to discuss its political fund as Socialist Worker went to press.

Debate about the relationship between the union and the Labour Party has raged since last year’s national post strike.

Many activists are so enraged by the way the government backed Royal Mail against the union that they want to reconsider funding the party. Some argue to end affiliation to Labour altogether.

Paul Tucker is the political officer of the Romford Amal branch in Essex. He explained to Socialist Worker how in his branch – which has around 2,000 members – more than 200 people decided to stop paying into the political fund in the wake of the national strike because they wanted to stop money going to Labour.

“I can identify the precise moment when many people made that decision – it was after Gordon Brown had appeared at prime minister’s question time and told us to ‘go back to work’.

“During the course of the strike our branch wrote to every local Labour MP and councillor asking them to support us. We didn’t even get one reply.
“Since then the anger with Labour has grown.

“Our branch supports holding a national ballot on whether we fund Labour at the next election if the government does not back off from privatisation of Royal Mail, and does not force the company to honour its commitments to our pensions.”

Gareth Eales is the deputy branch secretary of the Northampton branch. He told Socialist Worker, “There has been a sea change in attitudes towards Labour in the rank and file of the union but it is not often reflected among the leadership, most of whom seem to be little more than apologists for the government.

Slavish

“Every year we are given more excuses for Labour’s failings. This slavish support has to stop and our union’s leadership must put our members before loyalty to Labour.

“I don’t believe that the union should disaffiliate immediately, but I do think that we need to start the process of consulting our members about our continued affiliation.

“The government should be given three months to respond to our demands over pensions and privatisation. If they do not meet them we should start a national ballot on affiliation.

“It’s not easy but I think there must be an alliance that allows those on the Labour left to work with those on the left outside Labour.”

Sensing the growing mood of hostility to the government the CWU executive put forward its own emergency motion that called a ballot on funding Labour at the next general election.

It also accepted one from London branches that gives the government nine months to change its ways.

Nevertheless, general secretary Billy Hayes and other strong Labour supporters issued repeated warnings to delegates not to break with Labour because it would benefit the Tories.

Speaking to a fringe meeting of CWU Labour supporters, Hayes said, “There is a growing realisation among the middle ground of this union that to break the link with Labour is David Cameron’s position.”

But there was little in his speech that explained why Labour is in such a deep crisis, or how it has managed to lose the votes of five million people since 1997. This “don’t rock the boat” strategy drew sharp criticism from many delegates.

“Labour has declared war on its own supporters, particularly those in the public sector unions,” said Simon Midgley, political officer for the Bradford branch.

Opportunities

“Yet some people think we should stick with Labour no matter what. This will give the Tories more opportunities to win Labour supporters, as they did over post office closures.

“Are we really saying that there are no circumstances in which we should break from Labour, even if they wreck our pensions and privatise our jobs? If that is the case it is a recipe for the kind of demoralisation that will allow the Tories to get in.”

Billy Hayes has mocked those who have attempted to build an organisation to the left of Labour, saying they are doomed to failure.

But the growing anger of working class people with New Labour can be channelled to the left if there is a credible alternative. The trade unions have a critical role in making such a formation a success.

http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=15159

What is it that makes New Labour a workers party and thus a suitable candidate for entryism?

The main argument supporting entryism is that workers will return to traditional organizations during an economic crisis when they are faced attacks on pay and working conditions, and so Socialists need to enter these organizations so they are ready to engage with workers when they decide to return. However, there is a need to discuss the extent to which this is still true in the case of the Labour Party. The discussions which have been taking place inside trade unions suggest that workers no longer regard New Labour as a party of the working class and are ready to turn to an alternative organization which is able to give expression to and fight for the interests of the working class.

Lenin argued that "whether or not a party is really a part of the working class does not depend solely on a membership of workers, but also upon the men that lead it, and the contents of its actions and its political tactics" (Lenin, On Britain) It would appear that, based on this conception, New Labour cannot be classified as a workers party, because the party has, by the policies it has implemented during its long term of office, especially the introduction of the profit motive into the NHS and the recent limit on pay increases in public sector, demonstrated that it is a party of the bourgeoisie. Is there still a credible case for entering New Labour instead of building independent party organizations?

[KC]

May I ask why IMT members apply union tactics to political parties in the first place?

[Guest1]

New Labour is the leadership, not the party.

New Labour is dead. The Labour party will likely be thrown out of government, and the Conservatives will quell all this talk of disaffiliation, by launching vicious attacks like none of us have seen in our time as Marxists.

Once Labour is thrown out of government, and it will likely be a disaster, not just a slim loss, much of the New Labour bureaucracy will abandon ship, others will be wiped out by a swell in working class militancy.

Faced with a situation where New Labour has been abandoned by all their millionaire friends, a situation where the Labour party is millions of pounds in debt and more reliant than ever on the unions for its funding, why the hell should the unions leave?

The balance of power has shifted, if the union leaderships flicked their fingers, New Labour would be flicked into the dustbin of history.

Force the leaderships to flex some muscle on behalf of the members, the party can be reclaimed, the smell of New Labour blood is in the air. Those leaders who stand by their corrupt Brownite/Blairite friends should be removed and replaced by new leaders who will represent the working class in a campaign to take back the party workers fought to build.

Why destroy a party because of a leadership that is on the way out anyways? Back a Labour rebellion, and fight the right-wing within the party.

The GMB has shown the way, the Labour party is ours for the taking:

GMB set to cut Labour MP funding (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7443528.stm)

[Holden Caulfield]

New Labour is the leadership, not the party.

New Labour is dead. The Labour party will likely be thrown out of government, and the Conservatives will quell all this talk of disaffiliation, by launching vicious attacks like none of us have seen in our time as Marxists.

Once Labour is thrown out of government, and it will likely be a disaster, not just a slim loss, much of the New Labour bureaucracy will abandon ship, others will be wiped out by a swell in working class militancy.

Faced with a situation where New Labour has been abandoned by all their millionaire friends, a situation where the Labour party is millions of pounds in debt and more reliant than ever on the unions for its funding, why the hell should the unions leave?

The balance of power has shifted, if the union leaderships flicked their fingers, New Labour would be flicked into the dustbin of history.

Force the leaderships to flex some muscle on behalf of the members, the party can be reclaimed, the smell of New Labour blood is in the air. Those leaders who stand by their corrupt Brownite/Blairite friends should be removed and replaced by new leaders who will represent the working class in a campaign to take back the party workers fought to build.

Why destroy a party because of a leadership that is on the way out anyways? Back a Labour rebellion, and fight the right-wing within the party.

The GMB has shown the way, the Labour party is ours for the taking:


exactly, and may i just add the labour party leadership, mainly Blair, has shown it is beyond being a working mans party by their own lavish wages and excesses

[Guest1]

Is there any real reason not to be working within the Labour party at this point? This is a time of crisis internally, and people are looking for answers. The leadership is under attack. Can anyone explain to me why we shouldn't be there attacking them as well, alongside the rank and file?

[Q]

Is there any real reason not to be working within the Labour party at this point? This is a time of crisis internally, and people are looking for answers. The leadership is under attack. Can anyone explain to me why we shouldn't be there attacking them as well, alongside the rank and file?

Because there is no rank and file anymore in the old social-democracy or it is dropping fast. The working class is indeed looking for answers, but they won't be looking for them in old Labour, the campaign for a new mass workers party is therefore justified.

[Louis Pio]

Because there is no rank and file anymore in the old social-democracy or it is dropping fast. The working class is indeed looking for answers, but they won't be looking for them in old Labour, the campaign for a new mass workers party is therefore justified.

Labour parties have been empty of members time and time again, I know CWI claims that some qualitative change haven happened. I can't really see it and I don't think you have explained it, I don't see Blair/Brown as much different from say Wilson. I think your arguments are flawed in that respect when claiming to stand in the traditions of Militant. The arguments are the same IST put forward in the 70'ies, as I see it the CNWP it's just the logical culmination of the diasaster of the open turn and not the product of some well thought off analysis. But good luck with building Labour Mark 2 with revolutionaries in it, I don't think it's so easy as it is put by some of your members from time to time

[Coggeh]

Is there any real reason not to be working within the Labour party at this point? This is a time of crisis internally, and people are looking for answers. The leadership is under attack. Can anyone explain to me why we shouldn't be there attacking them as well, alongside the rank and file?
The membership of the labour party is not what it used to be , labour is gone more to the right than ever before and not only brought in vicious attacks on workers rights but also supported US imperialism in Iraq etc , their are some people who because out of shear hatred of the tories would vote for labour but would do so holding their noses , labour is not a working class party and never will be .

A new broad leftist party is needed in Britain and would be a very viable alternative to the labour and tory reactionary politics .

[Guest1]

The membership of the labour party is not what it used to be , labour is gone more to the right than ever before and not only brought in vicious attacks on workers rights but also supported US imperialism in Iraq etc , their are some people who because out of shear hatred of the tories would vote for labour but would do so holding their noses , labour is not a working class party and never will be .

A new broad leftist party is needed in Britain and would be a very viable alternative to the labour and tory reactionary politics .
The problem is that the bulk of the working class is still affiliate to the labour party, even if they don't go out and vote for them.

What's to stop us from forcing a change in the Labour party through the union links?

Now, more than ever, Labour needs the unions, it is in debt, all its millionaire donors have left it, and the bourgeoisie has thrown it out like a used diaper.

New Labour is in meltdown. What happens when Labour is thrown out of government, and the working class continues to be radicalized by an even more rightwing conservative government? Do you really think the union leaders who support the New Labour trend won't be removed? Do you really think that won't have an effect on the Labour party?

[Coggeh]

The problem is that the bulk of the working class is still affiliate to the labour party, even if they don't go out and vote for them.

What's to stop us from forcing a change in the Labour party through the union links?

Now, more than ever, Labour needs the unions, it is in debt, all its millionaire donors have left it, and the bourgeoisie has thrown it out like a used diaper.

New Labour is in meltdown. What happens when Labour is thrown out of government, and the working class continues to be radicalized by an even more rightwing conservative government? Do you really think the union leaders who support the New Labour trend won't be removed? Do you really think that won't have an effect on the Labour party?
Do you have any real evidence to show how labour are going to move to the left if/when the tories win the election ? how do we know labour won't just move even further to the right ?

[Holden Caulfield]

Do you have any real evidence to show how labour are going to move to the left if/when the tories win the election ? how do we know labour won't just move even further to the right ?


the already fleeing middle class voters and support,
just look at the local election results

[Coggeh]

the already fleeing middle class voters and support,
just look at the local election results
Theri already fleeing discontent union links , Unison members are debating whether to withdraw all funding for labour and quite rightly they should as 11years of a blatant right wing government have gone on the workers have been attacked time and time again and now lately with the issue of pay restraint.Their is a new workers party needed plain and simple .

Fianna fail in ireland have a majority of working class membership and voting , why don't we work in them sure?:thumbup1:

[Redmau5]

the already fleeing middle class voters and support,
just look at the local election results

What about the fleeing working-class vote? Labour got hammered in some staunchly working-class areas, areas which never before voted Tory.

[Tower of Bebel]

The problem is that the bulk of the working class is still affiliate to the labour party, even if they don't go out and vote for them.

What's to stop us from forcing a change in the Labour party through the union links?

Now, more than ever, Labour needs the unions, it is in debt, all its millionaire donors have left it, and the bourgeoisie has thrown it out like a used diaper.

New Labour is in meltdown. What happens when Labour is thrown out of government, and the working class continues to be radicalized by an even more rightwing conservative government? Do you really think the union leaders who support the New Labour trend won't be removed? Do you really think that won't have an effect on the Labour party?
Will Labour - assuming it might move to the left - create the right conditions for revolutionaries to reach and organize the working class?

[Louis Pio]

Will Labour - assuming it might move to the left - create the right conditions for revolutionaries to reach and organize the working class?

As always that would depend on the revolutionaries, Militant did to some extent until the organisation was smashed.

[Guest1]

Do you have any real evidence to show how labour are going to move to the left if/when the tories win the election ? how do we know labour won't just move even further to the right ?
Well, every time labour has been kicked out of government, the even more right-wing policies of the conservative government radicalized the rank-and-file of the trade unions. There tended to develop a left-wing within the unions, which expressed itself in a left-wing tendency within Labour, since any changes in the unions mean changing their representatives in the Labour party.

I'm going to recommend the following two articles again:
When Labour went left (http://www.socialist.net/when-labour-went-left.htm)
By Mick Brooks
Friday, 16 November 2007
http://www.socialist.net/images/stories/labour80slogo.gif
In 1970, just like today, the Labour Party seemed dead from the neck up. After six years of desperately disappointing government, Labour had been unceremoniously bundled out of office. The Tories were back, aiming to put the boot in to the working class.

Labour - how the right wing gained control (http://www.socialist.net/labour-how-the-right-wing-gained-control.htm)
By Barbara Humphries
Friday, 04 January 2008
http://www.socialist.net/images/stories/blair-demon_eyes_poster_pa_.jpg
Did Blair and his right wing policies make Labour electable? The defeats of the 1980s led many activists to despair. The claim that dominance of the Party by the left was responsible for the defeats needs careful scrutiny, as it is completely at odds with the facts. Like all other aspects of history, the story of the 1980s has been written by the so-called victors and what actually happened needs to be investigated.


Theri already fleeing discontent union links , Unison members are debating whether to withdraw all funding for labour and quite rightly they should as 11years of a blatant right wing government have gone on the workers have been attacked time and time again and now lately with the issue of pay restraint.Their is a new workers party needed plain and simple .
Debating means nothing. None of the major unions will withdraw from Labour, and it would be incredibly short-sighted to advocate this kind of political suicide for the working class.

Why should they withdraw? They can run the Labour party if they wanted, Blairites like Brown and company wouldn't survive for a single day if the unions actually used their full powers.

The Labour party has zero funding outside the unions, all their corporate friends have lined up with the Conservative party. The party is millions of pounds in debt, and unions like Unison have membership fees worth millions, for each union.

New Labour would be crushed, if their friends in the unions are removed and replaced by leaders radical enough.

And if you are advocating the formation of a new - socialist - workers' party, then clearly you think that the friends of New Labour in the unions would be replaced by radicals. If radicals took over the unions, why would they need a new party? New Labour came to power within the Labour party, with the active support of the union bureaucracy. Any fight against the union bureaucracy is a fight against New Labour.

Why abolish the party, if the people who made it right-wing are all removed?


Fianna fail in ireland have a majority of working class membership and voting , why don't we work in them sure?:thumbup1:
Working-class membership does not make a Labour party.

The Labour party is linked to the unions organizationally. They have union representation at their conferences, with a block-vote for each union.

The union representatives have defended New Labour time and time again at the Labour Party conference, voting on behalf of millions of members. These same people, with your perspective "for a new workers' party", would have to be replaced by radical representatives. It would be these new, radical representatives who would form your new party.

If you're replacing these representatives, why not just vote on behalf of millions for radical policies and radical candidates at the conference instead? Why not withdraw funding for right-wing Labour MPs and run a campaign to rid the party of New Labour party brass?

Without the support of the union higher ups, the party right-wing cannot continue to run the organization. In that case, why do we need a new party?


What about the fleeing working-class vote? Labour got hammered in some staunchly working-class areas, areas which never before voted Tory.
And consistently, it was from working-class abstention, not an actual right-wing shift. The one exception to the rule? Ken Livingstone, ex-Labour mayor of London, who seemed more detached from New Labour higher-ups. He lost with a decently small margin, not a collapse like in the rest of the country. There was also a high turnout, relative to the rest of the country.

He presented more radical policies, and the results show what came of it. He still tried to "moderate" himself, and sucked up to the financial bosses in the City, which was his undoing, but there is a huge difference between his slim loss and the complete collapse of New Labour's support.

This shows that just as after previous right-wing Labour regimes: if Labour goes left, the working class will return.


Will Labour - assuming it might move to the left - create the right conditions for revolutionaries to reach and organize the working class?
Labour going left will be the result of a rise in rank-and-file union militancy. I'm not going to debate chicken and egg here, but the whole perspective in Britain is for a return to radical unionism, and if you think that the Labour party will not be effected by this, you haven't thought it through.

In the next period, politics is about to be turned on its head across the world, "3rd way" counter-reformism is going to be on the defensive, and we can make sure they lose inside the traditional social-democratic parties. Even if it means a build-up to mass-splits at a later period, our work should start with organizing mass left-wing tendencies within these big parties for now.


As always that would depend on the revolutionaries, Militant did to some extent until the organisation was smashed.
Exactly, and they did pretty well for themselves.

Next time, there needs to be an understanding that pulling out is a last resort, not something we do because a handful of big names have been expelled. 8000 Marxist cadres, inside Labour in the 80's, three Marxist Labour MPs, weekly national news coverage at one point, all thrown down the drain. For nothing.

[Q]

Will Labour - assuming it might move to the left - create the right conditions for revolutionaries to reach and organize the working class?

I think this comment is pretty spot on. The old social-democratic parties, New Labour included, have seen a sharp decline in membership over the past two decades due to the complete embracement of neoliberal policies. The militant rank and file in the unions is indeed calling for more action, but not with Labour at its head! On the contrary, it's the rank and file that calls for cutting all (financial) links with Labour.

But even if, as a result of this, the Labour leadership were to move to the left, could they actually give political leadership to the class struggle? The answer to that, based on international experience with other social-democratic parties and the fact that the leadership is filled with careerists, is a definite No. They left their own alternative to capitalism, the welfare state, behind years ago and burned all bridges towards it.

Yes a political leadership is needed, but New Labour can't provide it. The campaign for a new mass workers party is not a sectarian demand, but a step forwards in rebuilding the workers movement. Severing the financial links to Labour won't change Labour, but it will be a first step in a truely New Labour. A New Labour that can organise the class struggle or at least adds to a radicalisation of the working class.

[Guest1]

I think this comment is pretty spot on. The old social-democratic parties, New Labour included, have seen a sharp decline in membership over the past two decades due to the complete embracement of neoliberal policies. The militant rank and file in the unions is indeed calling for more action, but not with Labour at its head! On the contrary, it's the rank and file that calls for cutting all (financial) links with Labour.
Yes, often the first rumblings of discontent have elements that are destructive and short-sighted, we see this in spontaneous riots. We also see this in the knee-jerk reaction against the Labour party.

In this case, it won't go very far, the bureaucrats in the trade unions are still entrenched, and will deflect this wave of attempted disaffiliations for the most part. Once Labour is out of power, talk of disaffiliating won't be so loud. The conservatives will be the main enemy.

During that period, it is actually likely that some of the smaller organizations that disaffiliated will return. Labour in opposition could become a pole of attraction.

So unless the mass of the workers' unions disaffiliates before the coming Conservative government, and all unites around a miraculously born New Workers' Party, Labour will still be the dominant political representative of the working class movement.

Right now, that movement is under the leadership of union bureaucrats who will get their own radical rank-and-file members fired, just to keep power over the unions. Can we really say that New Labour hasn't faithfully represented the state of the working class movement?

And can we truly say that, were these parasitic bureaucrats in the unions to fall, the New Labour bureaucrats would hang on without them?

If the right-wing union leaders are overthrown by a rank-and-file revolt demanding more militant strikes, the new representatives thrown up by the rank-and-file would include honest class fighters, who would refuse to support the New Labour bureaucrats.


But even if, as a result of this, the Labour leadership were to move to the left, could they actually give political leadership to the class struggle? The answer to that, based on international experience with other social-democratic parties and the fact that the leadership is filled with careerists, is a definite No. They left their own alternative to capitalism, the welfare state, behind years ago and burned all bridges towards it.
Some of the leadership might adopt left-wing phraseology and "move to the left", launching some minor left-wing policies from the top in order to stem the tide from below.

But honestly, who cares?

This isn't about the right-wing leaders being "transformed". This is about them facing growing union militancy, which reflects itself in a louder and louder militant representation of the unions within labour itself, and eventually, a civil war within the party.

Just like in the 70's. The same conditions that created that civil war, the one which led to Militant's 8000 organized Marxists inside Labour, are opening up before our eyes.

My point is, whether you're there or not, this civil war can already be seen, but we haven't seen anything yet. Labour is about to enter into explosive change. This is the party that governed for 11 years, and is about to be thrown out into opposition with millions of pounds of debt. Even a regular bourgeois party would have its party apparatus decimated, and enter into crisis, after such a decline. But a party linked to the trade unions, whose only funders are trade unions?

We're at the beginning of a worldwide recession, with the return of stagflation for the first time since the 70's, and the IMF predicting the worst crisis since the great depression. Food prices are up massively, pay has stagnated and fallen compared to inflation.

Situations like this bring down governments, why can't they bring down a party leadership?


Yes a political leadership is needed, but New Labour can't provide it. The campaign for a new mass workers party is not a sectarian demand, but a step forwards in rebuilding the workers movement. Severing the financial links to Labour won't change Labour, but it will be a first step in a truely New Labour. A New Labour that can organise the class struggle or at least adds to a radicalisation of the working class.
Comrade, no one is arguing New Labour can provide leadership. On the contrary, they have turned on each other with all sorts of internecine factional infighting. They are in crisis, and can't even lead themselves.

New Labour is dead, even the bourgeois media has declared it. Their counter-reformist policies brought the Labour party to this catastrophe, and have systematically destroyed the standards of living of sector after sector of the working class. Their right-wing policies didn't make Labour more electable, that lie has been shown false once and for all.

They have handed the country back to the Conservatives, who will go way further in destroying the welfare state than even New Labour ever did.

The New Labour bureaucrats were not alone in bringing on this catastrophe. They were just the reflection of the right-wing union bureaucrats who supported them, and systematically signed away the rights of workers, refusing to take a stand.

We have to start with the unions, and clean the opportunists out, but it can't stop there.

It is time to kick them out of the labour unions and the Labour party for good, and create a real opposition party capable of retaking power, on a socialist platform.

There is a place to argue for socialist, revolutionary ideas within the mass unions and their affiliated mass party, even if it's an uphill road. When Labour is in opposition, and the conservatives launch an all-out attack on the working class in the middle of a recession: who can honestly say that the slogan "Labour to power on a socialist programme" will not resonate with an important layer of the workers?

[Guest1]

*bump*
I really am interested in continuing this conversation.

[Tower of Bebel]

My point is, whether you're there or not, this civil war can already be seen, but we haven't seen anything yet. Labour is about to enter into explosive change. This is the party that governed for 11 years, and is about to be thrown out into opposition with millions of pounds of debt. Even a regular bourgeois party would have its party apparatus decimated, and enter into crisis, after such a decline. But a party linked to the trade unions, whose only funders are trade unions?

We're at the beginning of a worldwide recession, with the return of stagflation for the first time since the 70's, and the IMF predicting the worst crisis since the great depression. Food prices are up massively, pay has stagnated and fallen compared to inflation.

Situations like this bring down governments, why can't they bring down a party leadership?There is no clear link between radicalism and going back to old labour. In many countries it are the fascists and other populists who profit from the fall of social democracy (social liberalism), because of populist language and the working class falling behind when it comes to class consciousness. Indeed, I would argue that a populist campaign of New Labour could revive the party in an electoral way without strenthening both the workers and the left opposition within the party.

For the workers to turn towards labour you need - indeed - a visible left opposition with a clear program. But in most parties this opposition is not visible (enough) to proceed with a serious attack on the conservative, reactionary leadership of both the unions and the party. Only a visible, free and democratic left opposition can fight through dialectical relations with the masses against the reactionary forces. I don't see why any militancy of workers would result in strengthening an almost invisible opposition within a much hated party.
Within the current labour parties and unions struggle against the leadership isn't possible. The current parties are not democratic and this keeps the opposition from reaching the masses in the way it should be.
As long as the party or union has no working class basis than it is futile to operate within them (unless you could prove that the opposition can operate (in opposition to stay) within these structures).

(edit) Btw, the Flemish Christian Democrats, who relied on the Christian Democratic Trade union (the strongest in the country) were punished for more than 25 years of "anti-social" government. Instead of radicalisation the party tried to recover with a populists, nationalist program and by placing so called trade-union politicians at the head of the party. They succeeded and the party's president received 800.000 votes (population of 5 mil) and after 12 months of no government because of continious fights between governing parties, the biggest inflation of all European countries and a loss of purshasing power the biggest union of the country still doesn't leave the party's leadership behind. In 13 years (12 of opposition, 1 of pseudo-government) the party which lost all credit, togheter with the union's bureaucracy, succeeded at surpressing any threatening radicalisation amongst the workers. This is an example of how a party with support from the unions can recover in an populist, electoral way without losing control over the working class.

[BobKKKindle$]

The problem is that the bulk of the working class is still affiliate to the labour party, even if they don't go out and vote for them.

This assumption forms the basis of all the arguments you have put forward, and yet you have not given evidence to show that it is actually true. The persistent failure of Labour to meet the demands of the working class means that Labour has been discredited and is no longer seen as the only electoral option, and it could be argued that even a socialist platform and the emergence of a radical leadership would not be enough to convince workers to vote for Labour. Labour lost the 1983 election by a large margin despite a radical manifesto (which included the use of a five-year plan to restore economic prosperity, developed in consultation with union organizations) and so clearly a radical program will not always allow an established party to secure the electoral support of its traditional social base. The change in the way workers view Labour is shown by the electoral rise of the BNP, which has made an attempt to portray itself as a party which defends the interests of white workers and resists the power of large corporations, thereby taking advantage of popular dissatisfaction with Labour. This means that an independent vanguard party is a pressing task for socialists, as, in the absence of this party, workers will become politically apathetic, or will continue to turn towards ethnic nationalism and other reactionary ideas which create divisions within the working class.

[Guest1]

This assumption forms the basis of all the arguments you have put forward, and yet you have not given evidence to show that it is actually true.
I didn't think it was actually necessary to... the bulk of the organized working class is affiliated to the Labour party. The proof of this, there is only one major union which is not affiliated to the Labour party... Pretty simple, eh?


The persistent failure of Labour to meet the demands of the working class means that Labour has been discredited and is no longer seen as the only electoral option, and it could be argued that even a socialist platform and the emergence of a radical leadership would not be enough to convince workers to vote for Labour.
You could argue that, but it would be a stretch.


Labour lost the 1983 election by a large margin despite a radical manifesto (which included the use of a five-year plan to restore economic prosperity, developed in consultation with union organizations) and so clearly a radical program will not always allow an established party to secure the electoral support of its traditional social base.
Are you making the argument that the Labour party couldn't win on a left-wing platform in 1983, but could win on a right-wing platform in 1997?

If so, why are you a socialist? Clearly the workers prefer Blairism.

The reality is, in 1983 the Labour party bureaucracy actively sabotaged the campaign, so that they could come back after the election and launch an offensive against "unelectable" socialist ideas. Besides which, in 1983 there was also the Social Democratic Party split by the most insane elements of the right-wing bureaucracy. This was also an election that came hot on the heels of Thatcher's victory in the Falklands war.

Kinda weird to try to smear the platform, when it was clearly the only good thing the Labour party had going for it in that election.


The change in the way workers view Labour is shown by the electoral rise of the BNP, which has made an attempt to portray itself as a party which defends the interests of white workers and resists the power of large corporations, thereby taking advantage of popular dissatisfaction with Labour.
Ok, so the far right exists, and tries to paint itself as "socialist". How is this different, and are you making the argument that the working class sees the BNP as better than Labour, now and forever?

Are you saying this is a mass phenomenon? Are you saying that even though an intense war is beginning within the trade unions and, by extension, the Labour party, the rank and file will win this war only to leave the party unchanged because they don't want to vote for it?

9 out of every 10 pounds in the Labour party's budget now comes from the unions. Are you telling me that if the rank and file throw out the union bureaucrats, they won't use this power to throw out the bureaucrats in the Labour party? Are you telling me they will continue electing right-wing trade union representatives to the party's democratic structures?


This means that an independent vanguard party is a pressing task for socialists, as, in the absence of this party, workers will become politically apathetic, or will continue to turn towards ethnic nationalism and other reactionary ideas which create divisions within the working class.
Building the revolutionary party is not in question. Its independence is not in question either.

The question is how to build it. You're looking for, not dozens, but thousands, even hundreds of thousands of members of the revolutionary mass party.

In the Labour party we have a mass party, in Militant we saw the potential for building a revolutionary tendency within that mass party. At their peak, they reached 8000 members. Their methods worked. We should build and expand on them. It is only within the trade unions and the Labour party that we can gain the ear of the mass of the working class. There, we can wage a battle for our ideas which can gather around us thousands of the best fighters of our class.

Pretending that the Labour party is the enemy, or an actual right-wing tendency in and of itself is delusional. The Labour party is not cohesive, it is a mass party with contradictory tendencies within it. New Labour is but one of those tendencies, and it is now on its death bed. This is the time for socialists to fight back within the Labour party.

[Die Neue Zeit]

CyM, may I suggest reading the CPGB-PCC's series on "The revolutionary party"?

http://www.cpgb.org.uk/theory/series.htm

That series more or less says what I have said in my WIP (and what will be posted hopefully by tonight or tomorrow, depending on off-board receptions to my Bordiga section).

[Guest1]

Can you respond to me without linking me to something, for once?

Take my post, dissect it, say something.

What about that link do you want to point out to me? What is your position on the question at hand? Can I find that out without reading 10 articles?

Jacob, please, just address my posts, or stop replying to me. I don't mean to be rude, but your posting style is kinda disruptive. It offers me nothing to reply to. I read quite alot and I could just as easily throw some books at you. I don't, because I'd rather debate.

Are you here to debate? Or are you just here to throw links out to fill in for your own ideas?

[Guest1]

Bump.

[Tower of Bebel]

Building the revolutionary party is not in question. Its independence is not in question either.

The question is how to build it. You're looking for, not dozens, but thousands, even hundreds of thousands of members of the revolutionary mass party.

In the Labour party we have a mass party, in Militant we saw the potential for building a revolutionary tendency within that mass party. At their peak, they reached 8000 members. Their methods worked. We should build and expand on them. It is only within the trade unions and the Labour party that we can gain the ear of the mass of the working class. There, we can wage a battle for our ideas which can gather around us thousands of the best fighters of our class.

Pretending that the Labour party is the enemy, or an actual right-wing tendency in and of itself is delusional. The Labour party is not cohesive, it is a mass party with contradictory tendencies within it. New Labour is but one of those tendencies, and it is now on its death bed. This is the time for socialists to fight back within the Labour party.
Now, to make a revolutionary tendency, a (revolutionary) vanguard, you should fight New labour openly; you should battle by reaching the masses loud and clear; you should fight oppression by the party's bureaucracy; in short, the IMT should struggle in such a way that your tendency stands in a dialectical relation with the masses, which will create the (revoltionary) vanguard the working class always needed. Is this possible within Labour today, tommorrow, in the future?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Why not organize a mass electoral spoilage campaign?

[YKTMX]

I'm absolutely astonished there are still people out there who think "retaking" the party is a viable option. Firstly, the word "retake" suggests we ever "had it" in the first place, which we didn't. New Labour is not as radical a break with the past as the idealists would have us believe - from Ramsay McDonald, to nuclear weapons, to Callaghan, to Kinnoch and the miners, betrayal has always been close for working class Labour members and supporters.


Once Labour is thrown out of government, and it will likely be a disaster, not just a slim loss, much of the New Labour bureaucracy will abandon ship, others will be wiped out by a swell in working class militancy.


By what mechanism? Can't you see how it's totally incoherent to claim both that the leadership is an alien, parasitical force, foisted upon a membership that doesn't want it AND that the membership can also remove the leadership?


Those leaders who stand by their corrupt Brownite/Blairite friends should be removed and replaced by new leaders who will represent the working class in a campaign to take back the party workers fought to build.


By what mechanism? The apparatus commonly used by ordinary members (conference motions) was removed at the last conference. The local PLP's in most areas are totally defunct (I live in working class Glasgow and I haven't seen ANYTHING from the Labour Party in at least 6 years). Those who stay behind (and these people you do meet at University) are middle class careerists, looking for a career in politics. Their working class membership is completely shattered. I mean, look at the Glasgow East by-election going on right now. This is deep red, Labour through-and-through country, and the Scottish Nationalists have got like 10 times the volunteers pounding the streets.


Why destroy a party because of a leadership that is on the way out anyways? Back a Labour rebellion, and fight the right-wing within the party.

Completely idealistic. There is NOTHING hinting a rebellion inside the party. The PLP is moribund and packed with lackeys. The government continues its relentless assalt on the welfare state and public service workers with barely a whimper from the union leadership. The workers themselves satisfy themselves with pointless 1-day strikes and the left intellegenstia and the IMT both tell us to "wait it out" and by some ozmosis, which is never explained, the party will be reclaimed for lukewarm social democracy.

Brilliant.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Miliband calls for 'radical' change in government (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080730/wl_uk_afp/britainpolitics;_ylt=Ankx5hvv9uSGvpZRUX8P41Z0bBAF)


"New Labour won three elections by offering real change, not just in policy but in the way we do politics," Miliband wrote.

Electoralism is historically AND politically obsolete. Of course, I am NOT advocating abstention, but rather SPOILAGE (http://www.revleft.com/vb/why-abstention-and-t77658/index.html).