Is the far-left out of touch with the workers?

[spartan]

Certainly we dont seem to have the mass support that we once had decades ago amongst first world workers.

Could this be because we aren't "mainstream" enough?

There are mainstream centre-left politial parties which have the financial backing and support of trade unions, are generally one of the top three parties in most European states and who's politicians and policies are always being shown on TV to a mass audience.

With this in mind would a bit of entryism be in order in some centre-left political parties, or the trade unions who support them, to make use of their resources and to eventually make them into a more left wing and worker friendly party again?

Sure i know that most Social Democratic/Democratic Socialist parties have now adopted "Third Way" free market policies but could this be because we abandoned them which forced them to change tact to get elected again? (i.e. appealing to the only people who would vote, the middle class)

Certainly these parties histories are one of being the traditional workingman's party who's sole purpose was getting a fair deal for the workingman and representing his intrests in government (And they have given us free universal health care, the minimum wage, etc).

The Labour party is currently in a financial crises and will be relying on the trade unions more and more to back them up, so if these trade unions had a more left wing influenced membership they could then force concessions out of the party which are favourable to the workers in return for their continued financial backing.

And concessions in favour of the working class will be sorely needed in this time of ever increasing economic uncertainty which will effect the working class the most.

Is entryism into mainstream centre left parties to influence their policies in our favour one of many tactics we should be making use of in our fight for the liberation of the working class?

[Bilan]

Spartan, are you American or English or...?



Certainly we dont seem to have the mass support that we once had decades ago amongst first world workers.

True, I don't think any party has "mass support", nor any political ideology. Most western societies are dominated by cultures of consumerism, and are continually being degraded - which is giving rise to reactionary ideologies and parties, like the BNP.
As far as the Left goes, whether anarchist, socialist, whatever, the biggest problem is their failure to organize - that means more than selling papers.
The places where the left is growing is where that has changed - places like Mexico and Greece.
There's a stark contrast between them, and its self evident why.

The other problem is this obsession with history, to the point where it doesn't validate shit, but just spurs new, pointless arguments.

There is a focus to much on the past, and not enough on the present and future. The future is spoken about rhetorically, "When the time is right".

The problem lies in the failure to organize.



Could this be because we aren't "mainstream" enough?

No.




There are mainstream centre-left politial parties which have the financial backing and support of trade unions, are generally one of the top three parties in most European states and who's politicians and policies are always being shown on TV to a mass audience.

You know its far more complex than that. The biggest thing there is the financial backing.
It's also the structure of most political systems - the two party system - which continues this.



With this in mind would a bit of entryism be in order in some centre-left political parties, or the trade unions who support them, to make use of their resources and to eventually make them into a more left wing and worker friendly party again?

No, certainly not. Parties like the Labour Party (at least in Australia) are completely lost.



Certainly these parties histories are one of being the traditional workingman's party who's sole purpose was getting a fair deal for the workingman and representing his intrests in government (And they have given us free universal health care, the minimum wage, etc).

That's history. They no longer represent the working class.




Is entryism into mainstream centre left parties to influence their policies in our favour one of many tactics we should be making use of in our fight for the liberation of the working class?

No, I think the best place to start is in the communities and workplaces, especially here in Australia.
Union membership is at an all time low, and decreasing, due both to the corruption of the unions (with exceptions), and the "class collaborationist" tendencies of many of the unions.

A revolutionary union, absent of the bureacratic tendencies of many of the unions, with a real working class base, and a militant approach to workplace organizing, is sure to capitalise on the continual attacks on the working class. A union like the IWW, which gives power to the working class, and which wont concede with the bosses, is a union that will revive the left.

Take, for example, when the IR legislation was going to be (and was) implemented here, many workers refused to join the general strike because they feared losing their jobs.
It's evident that their current unions don't offer them enough protection, and that the inspiring and revolutionary nature of the unions is lost in the current ones, and needs to be revived in a revolutionary one.

The contrast between the two airport strikes in Melbourne and Sydney reflect this two. Same company, different unions.
The Melbourne workers striked, with the support of union solidarity, the Sydney ones were threatened with scabs, and lacked the support of any real revolutionary, or militant group.
The former was much more successful (if not, completely?), whilst the latter was not (And I think in the end, didn't even strike).

[Devrim]

As far as the Left goes, whether anarchist, socialist, whatever, the biggest problem is their failure to organize - that means more than selling papers.
The places where the left is growing is where that has changed - places like Mexico and Greece.
There's a stark contrast between them, and its self evident why.

I find your outlook here rather strange, PTiT. Is the problem really about the left's failure to organise? The communist left has a conception opposed to that of anarchism in that we believe that the working class is completly capable of organising itself.

Also, I don't see what is exceptional about Mexico, and Greece. Greece had big strikes this year, but not on any significantly different level than anywhere else. Do you really think that this was down to the left organising better though?


A revolutionary union, absent of the bureacratic tendencies of many of the unions, with a real working class base, and a militant approach to workplace organizing, is sure to capitalise on the continual attacks on the working class. A union like the IWW, which gives power to the working class, and which wont concede with the bosses, is a union that will revive the left.

The IWW barely exists as a union. Whenever it does exist as a union it ends up doing exactly the same things as any other union, no strike deals, managers and workers in the same branch. It is all part of IWW practice.

The idea of a revolutionary union is only a fantasy. All unions are forced by material conditions to act in the same way.

Devrim

[Bilan]

I find your outlook here rather strange, PTiT. Is the problem really about the left's failure to organise? The communist left has a conception opposed to that of anarchism in that we believe that the working class is completly capable of organising itself.

I don't see how this negates that concept?






The IWW barely exists as a union. Whenever it does exist as a union it ends up doing exactly the same things as any other union, no strike deals, managers and workers in the same branch. It is all part of IWW practice.


Like when?
The IWW was just an example, anyway.

[Devrim]

I don't see how this negates that concept?

I think we have a different conception of this. Many anarchists think that it is the task of revolutionaries to organise workers. We think they are capable of doing it themselves.


Like when?


no strike deals- I think they currently have four in the USA, around Portland, Or. I can get the details if you want.

managers and workers in the same branch-Scottish parliament job branch, a year or two ago, which was their only job branch in the UK.



The IWW was just an example, anyway.

The question is whether any union can be different.

Devrim

[Bilan]

I think we have a different conception of this. Many anarchists think that it is the task of revolutionaries to organise workers. We think they are capable of doing it themselves.

How do you exactly see that as occuring?
I'm still not even sure what you mean.
"Organise themselves", as in...? What?




The question is whether any union can be different.

Devrim

I certainly think it can. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederaci%C3%B3n_Nacional_del_Trabajo)

[bootleg42]

As far as the Left goes, whether anarchist, socialist, whatever, the biggest problem is their failure to organize - that means more than selling papers.
The places where the left is growing is where that has changed - places like Mexico and Greece.
There's a stark contrast between them, and its self evident why.

True but I can give a possible explanation about this.

The reason why it's hard for us on the left to organize in richer countries (U.S. in particular) is because the poorest and lowest classes (who should be our main audiences) have better and more important things to do. And I don't say that in a negative way. They really work LONG hours, usually needed and doing overtime, where they only have about 4 hours at home time and they use that home time to deal with family issues, bills, cleaning the house, preparing dinner. They don't have time to join movements and organize and go to meetings.

A good example is when I was growing up, the schools always gave out notices home about PTA meetings and the PTA meetings were only attended by the parents of the only three white kids in our school. The reason why was because those white kids were a bit more privileged than all of us latinos in the school (who made up the rest of the population). Their parents had time to attend the meetings. The rest of us saw that our parents had no time to attend such meetings of school because they were working long hours, they came home straight to make us food and clean the house, etc. Our parents (the poor ones) had no time for the PTA meetings, even though it could have benefited all us kids. The same occurs in every inner city all over the U.S. Are you going to tell me these people are going to attend meetings about alternatives for the political future when they don't even attend PTA meetings when it could benefit us poorer latino kids due to time constraint????? The answer is obvious.

As for third world countries, the reason why it's been easier to organize there is because people just need the work and will organize and fight to get it. It's different than in the U.S. were most people have work.


The other problem is this obsession with history, to the point where it doesn't validate shit, but just spurs new, pointless arguments.

I agree here. Good point.


There is a focus to much on the past, and not enough on the present and future.

Another good point there.


The future is spoken about rhetorically, "When the time is right".

The problem lies in the failure to organize.



Well I'll like to defend the thinking of "when the time is right" because the time for a revolution (being of the true leftist values of self worker management, equality, peace and the end of the state) is WWWWWAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYY far away. I'm from the poorest classes and every time I mention the idea to other people of a world were the state is gone and workers and communities control their affairs, people looked with a stunned face and say things like "I would not feel comfortable with that" or "that's too much of a shock and not real", etc. These reactions are logical. Remember, people of lower classes are only thinking survival and they should.

But people actually want things and changes and they reflect it and THIS is were the left fails. Instead of thinking about a revolution that none of us will be alive to see, why not just go up to the poorest classes and working classes and ask the simple question......."what do you all want?", and fight to give them whatever they answer. You'll get answers. People in the U.S. want a nationalized fair tax funded healthcare system. People in the U.S. are worried about the economy of the country because they don't want to lose thier jobs. People are split 50/50 about their schools. The lower classes want lower income tax because (trust me) it kills them, all the while the higher classes COULD be taxed more to pay for social programs. The people WANT more social programs. Unfortunately the U.S. has only a few. All the polls shows this.

If the left fought for these things instead of yelling "OMG they're reformist" or immature stuff like that, the left can advance a long way in short time. You can actually save lives. This does not mean join the democratic party and become one of them. It means giving the people what they want, what they ask for. There will be a time in history when the state will be worn out for everything and the power structures of private and state power reach their limits, and it will be then when revolution comes. And that revolution might not be under the banner of anarchism or communism. It might be called something else or people will just refer to it as a democratic revolution. But it will happen because true socialist principles are just so natural for the poorest classes that they'll make it happen.

We could still write and record of the revolutionary principles we believe in and pass it down as knowledge but today people want changes that we need to actually listen to.

[Die Neue Zeit]

To find myself siding with an ANARCHIST over a left-communist on the question of "red unions," especially after the heated debate in the "Social Democracy" thread... :blink:

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

I think we need to dispel the "evil commie hates your freedoms" image we have in popular culture.

We also need to get rid of the "anarchists wants everyman for himself" image

As you can see the first thoughrt that comes to somones head when told about anarcho-communism is " What the fuck..." and a dismissal of those lot as nutters.

Another problem we face in england at least is the chav culture which makes some of the more snobish working class people ashamed to be working class.

Also the "politics is for nerds" culture that i see at my comprehensive stays on with
a lot of people and they remain apolitical.

Oh and religious style " i will tell you how to live your life attitude" which infects a lot of people ( see celeb magazines were they follow famous people around and throw a hissy fit if they do something wrong" ( i am not defending the majority of celebrities here just pointing it out as a example of the nosy attitude into peoples personal lives. Anyhoo this kind of attitude causes the "omg hez gay lol" kind of prejudice which separates the working class.*


*Although i have found recently that as I get older i find more and more of my class mates have stop being prejudice into peoples personal lives.

[Devrim]

I certainly think it can. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederaci%C3%B3n_Nacional_del_Trabajo)

I don't think the CNT really exists as a union any more.

Devrim

[Bilan]

Devrim, how goods your spanish? (http://www.cnt.es/)

[Devrim]

My Spanish is non-existent. However, I don't think the CNT really exists as a union any more. They may exist as an anarchist organisation, or as a historical re-enactment society, but not really as a union.

The CNT don't give out membership numbers, but I was speaking to Rata, the AIT General Secretary last year, and I said that I estimated that the CNT had about 2,000 members. He didn't contradict me, and he contradicted a lot of things that a lot of people said in the conversation. It makes me think that it is a reasonably accurate, possibly exaggerated figure.

So, let's say that they have 2,000 members for the sake of argument. Include amongst that the retired people (there are lots of CNT pensioners from the old days), and all the lifestyle anarchists that are attracted to it. What sort of unions do you think they actually have?

I think that it is quite clear when we see the big struggle that the CNT has been pushing recently the Mercadona strike (this is a small union recognition strike with twenty strikers http://libcom.org/news/article.php/mercadona-strike-month-four-230606 ).

If you compare this with the CGT (those the IWA called the reformists http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederacion_General_del_Trabajo_de_Espa%C3%B1a ) they have about 60,000 members and represent around 2,000,000 workers, and (their members) have been involved in struggles in central sectors such as the railways, and SEAT.

And why? Because they became just like any other union.

To conclude, in my opinion the CNT-AIT does not really exist in a real sence as a union any more. Like the IWW it can organise a few shops in marginal sectors, but the more it operates as a union the more it will behave like any other union.

Devrim

[Devrim]

How do you exactly see that as occuring?
I'm still not even sure what you mean.
"Organise themselves", as in...? What?

Workers set up their own organisations, mass assemblies, strike committes, and ultimately workers councils in struggle. This has been shown time, and time again.

The task of revolutionaries, in our opinion, is not to organise the working class. It is a conception that comes from the 19th century worker's movement.

Devrim

[Kwisatz Haderach]

In Europe, many communist parties promised something they could never deliver: victory in bourgeois elections. They became reformist, and this gave them a temporary, short-term boost in popular support (during the 1970s), after which they entered a long, slow decline when it became obvious that they weren't making any progress towards achieving political power through electoral means.

The working class isn't supporting revolutionary groups as much as it used to because revolutionary groups have been completely ineffective for the past two decades. What have we done to improve the lives of working people in recent memory? Preciously little.

Far too many of us are stuck in "let's defend the historical gains of the working class" mode. Yes, such defence is important, but protecting something you already have is not going to make you more radical - if anything, it will make you more conservative.


The reason why it's hard for us on the left to organize in richer countries (U.S. in particular) is because the poorest and lowest classes (who should be our main audiences) have better and more important things to do. And I don't say that in a negative way. They really work LONG hours, usually needed and doing overtime, where they only have about 4 hours at home time and they use that home time to deal with family issues, bills, cleaning the house, preparing dinner. They don't have time to join movements and organize and go to meetings.
But here's what doesn't fit: The socialist movement was born, and achieved amazing growth, during the 19th century - when hours were even longer and conditions much worse than they are today.

It used to be common wisdom that the worse off workers are, the more political and radical they become. Until just a few decades ago, when for some reason working class living standards began to decline without workers getting radicalized. So, what changed? I really don't know.

[bootleg42]

But here's what doesn't fit: The socialist movement was born, and achieved amazing growth, during the 19th century - when hours were even longer and conditions much worse than they are today.

It used to be common wisdom that the worse off workers are, the more political and radical they become. Until just a few decades ago, when for some reason working class living standards began to decline without workers getting radicalized. So, what changed? I really don't know.

Well you said it yourself.....during the 19TH CENTURY organization was better. We're in the 21st century where things are different. Read my post, I basically lay out a whole thing the left itself should do.

[Bilan]

Workers set up their own organisations, mass assemblies, strike committes, and ultimately workers councils in struggle. This has been shown time, and time again.

The task of revolutionaries, in our opinion, is not to organise the working class. It is a conception that comes from the 19th century worker's movement.

Devrim

How do you expect that to occur?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Workers set up their own organisations, mass assemblies, strike committees, and ultimately workers councils in struggle. This has been shown time, and time again.

The task of revolutionaries, in our opinion, is not to organise the working class. It is a conception that comes from the 19th century worker's movement.

Devrim

Alas, the latter view IS quite valid. Working-class elements of the organized "vanguard" lead their co-workers by setting up such (case in point: the SPD).

You are too much into that reductionism known as spontaneism, I'm afraid. :(

[Sam_b]

In Europe, many communist parties promised something they could never deliver: victory in bourgeois elections. They became reformist, and this gave them a temporary, short-term boost in popular support (during the 1970s), after which they entered a long, slow decline when it became obvious that they weren't making any progress towards achieving political power through electoral means.

I agree. A classic example of this is the PCF in France during 1968 where they completely misread the political climate, and in many cases ended up going against the workers, opposing lock-ins and the like. Too many times in the late 20th century and beyond we have seen one of two things happen: that parties dilute their politics or alter them altogether to try and win victory in bourgeois elections (Labour Party, for instance); or that the party has taken decisions or roles that are invisible or have no relevance to workers.

The idea of entryism into 'centre-left political parties' in order to gain a wider audience, to me, is poor politics. The left already plays a productive role in the Trade Union movement, such as the Organisation for Fighting Unions, in order to revert them back into a true militant representation of workers. Entryism, into parties such as the SNP or whatever, is fruitless because these centre-left entities were never founded as working-class organisations. Such entryism for popular support and a wider TV audience is sloppy and a quick-fit solution of Lenin's idea to 'patietly explain' and to build in working class areas. As PTiT rightly says, it has to start in communities and in the unions, on the streets and working to build a base.

Ultimately, a lot of the left fails in this by carrying the idea that they are somehow 'leading' workers, or being untra condescending and believing that they have the correct line on everything and workers should automatically carry it - otherwise they are not worth having within the movement. These people forget that it is the self-emancipation of the working class that is key, that working class people can organise and make their own decisions.