Labour Party

[Labour Leftie]

Hello to you all,

Basically I just want to run through a few things and I would love your opinions/advice on my comments.

Currently, I am a member of the Labour Party in the UK. But don't scream just yet! I am also a member of the Labour Representation Committee (LRC) which is a grouping of socialists and the more left-wing of the Labour Party. We campaign within the Labour Party to try to push traditional left-wing policies which currently, under New Labour, are not being followed.

However, the situation looks dire, my left-wing friends. Gordon Brown and the Labour Party are currently 20-points behind the Conservatives and a possible general election defeat is imminent. From LRC meetings and the such, the possibility of Labour pushing a more left-wing policy before the next general election seems very unlikely, as all the main players in the party are either Brownites or Blairites, i.e. all neo-liberal New Labour.

Other socialist friends have told me that I should just scrap the Labour Party and join a smaller socialist party which will actually follow a left-wing policy. The Socialist Workers Party, the Communist Party of Britain and Peter Taaffe's Socialist Party have all been recommended to me. So, basically what do you think I should do? I know the obvious answer, for many of you, would be to join one of those parties. However, I think that many in the left-wing community maybe overlook the fact that there is still a very prominent core of leftists in the Labour Party. I have spoken to Marxists and hardcore communist trade-unionists that still firmly support the Labour Party and they advise me to stay. For, an election victory or defeat for Labour would certainly cause a policy change - likely to the left (seeing as Brown is now listening to the trade unions a bit more since he started getting attacked by backbench Blairites).

I believe in the Labour Party as well - if I throw away my lot with them then thats one less vote against the Conservative Party, and however, much you can hate the Labour Party, the Tories would be much, much worse.

So what do you guys advise? Do I stick with Labour and carry on trying to push left-wing reforms with the considerable bulk of socialists in the Labour Party. Or should I join a more revolutionary socialist/communist party where my views would be more in-sync with the party line?

Thanks in advance guys,

Labour Leftie

[Charles Xavier]

Social Democracy does not believe in extra-parliamentary Struggle, even the liberal Democrats are more progressive than labour now. You can still struggle to elect progressive labour MPs but as it stands Labour as a party stands behind big business.

Your energy and class consciousness would be better put to use in a vanguard party, get in contact with the Communist Party.

[Sam_b]

Break with the Labour party.
You will not be able to push through any left reforms because the dynamic of the party within the last 20 years has been of a sharp shift to the right and an embaracement of neo-liberalism. Labour's left wing has not changed anything in this time - so why would it now?

If you're serious in your anticapitalist credentials, don't give your support to a capitalist party.

[Post-Something]

Social Democracy does not believe in extra-parliamentary Struggle, even the liberal Democrats are more progressive than labour now. You can still struggle to elect progressive labour MPs but as it stands Labour as a party stands behind big business.

Your energy and class consciousness would be better put to use in a vanguard party, get in contact with the Communist Party.

Basically what this guy said.

Check out the SWP.

[Tower of Bebel]

Other socialist friends have told me that I should just scrap the Labour Party and join a smaller socialist party which will actually follow a left-wing policy. The Socialist Workers Party, the Communist Party of Britain and Peter Taaffe's Socialist Party have all been recommended to me. So, basically what do you think I should do? I know the obvious answer, for many of you, would be to join one of those parties. However, I think that many in the left-wing community maybe overlook the fact that there is still a very prominent core of leftists in the Labour Party. I have spoken to Marxists and hardcore communist trade-unionists that still firmly support the Labour Party and they advise me to stay. For, an election victory or defeat for Labour would certainly cause a policy change - likely to the left (seeing as Brown is now listening to the trade unions a bit more since he started getting attacked by backbench Blairites).

I believe in the Labour Party as well - if I throw away my lot with them then thats one less vote against the Conservative Party, and however, much you can hate the Labour Party, the Tories would be much, much worse.

Their is no lesser evil. This is capitalism and capital is using capitalist parties to rule society as a whole. Social-democracy (or social-liberalism) is dead. Once capital allowed social democrats to govern in order to escape from the proletarian revolution. Neither social-democracy nor fascism proved durable against crisis and the threat comming from the working class. Capital is dumping these ideological currents.
The Labour Party today is not leftist, nor social-democratic. It is as liberal as any other party. Conservatives do not differ from the Labourites. Labout wont turn left. No. It will sometimes use some leftist slogans but it wont turn left in opposition nor government.

You should struggle for a new vanguard party. You can do so by joining other parties on the left who also struggle for this goal, but you should stay critical of any false attempts or propaganistic lies.

[Magdalen]

I think it is time socialists drew a line in the sand and broke from the Labour Party once and for all. The Labour Party as an organisation is directly opposed to the interests of the working class, as it has a consistent history of being racist and imperialist. I'm not just talking about New Labour either, I'm talking about so-called "old Labour" too, which used the RAF to defend the British Empire against the Kurdish and Indian peoples, approved the use of battleships against the Chinese people to maintain the gains of the Opium Wars, used headhunters against Malayan freedom fighters.

John McDonnell's ten-point May Day Manifesto, while it contained some admirable points, failed to even mention the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan! Yet, the majority of the left outside of Labour (Respect Renewal, the SWP), gave the manifesto a blind endorsement. If McDonnell is a true socialist, he should leave Labour now, and help build a true socialist opposition to his old reactionary party.

[Faceless]

Hi there Labour Leftie,
I am a member of the Labour Party, the LRC and a marxist too. To be honest, we both know that the left wing groups out side of the Labour Party are irrelevant - the Communist Party, the Socialist Party, the SWP and so on. It isn't enough to maintain our ideological purity if it means we are keeping ourselves in splendid isolation completely apart from the REAL labour movement. We have to stay and fight to transform the workers' organisations - the unions and the Labour Party - in to real organs of class struggle. After all, if we don't have confidence in the working class to change its OWN organisations, how can we expect it to change the whole of society? There is nothing for marxists outside the labour movement, and for that reason I urge you to stay in the Labour Party. Look at all examples of big left labour groups that have left the Labour party - the ILP, the SLP, the Militant - they all vanished into nothing when they left. Why? Because there is nothing outside the workers' movement! However, we need to be organised independently as the revolutionary marxist tendency in the party. The LRC is a worthy organisation but it is still reformist and ideologically incoherent. For that reason I would suggest you join the marxist tendency of the Labour party - Socialist Appeal. Visit the website, socialist.net, or PM me for more info.

[Tower of Bebel]

Hi there Labour Leftie,
However, we need to be organised independently as the revolutionary marxist tendency in the party.
I have some questions. You could easily provide one answer if you like.

Is it possible to critize the capitalists within the Labour Party? Can you build a solid revolutionary organisation within the Labour Party and reach the masses within having to hide your revolutionary identity? Can you struggle dialecticly with the masses for a revolutionary vanguard through Labour Party membership?

[Holden Caulfield]

hopefully when you lose the next election and the middle class voters and support left with your party have fled your party will be forced to move to the left-wing, perhaps the unions money could be used, as it will be needed, as insentive for the labour party to move back to its traditional left wing positioning..

[spartan]

I think you should stay with the party as there is a very real chance of Labour adopting more left wing policies.

Everyone knows that Labour is near bankrupt and the only source of funding they get now is from the unions.

So with this in mind all you have to do is get the unions to only give Labour funding if they adopt more left wing policies.

Also if all the remaining socialists leave Labour then there would be nothing to stop the neo-liberals within Labour. At least with socialists still in the party there is a chance for Labour to be transformed back into the party it was of old.

Plus going to one of the smaller socialist parties wont make any difference as no one outside of the left knows of, or gives a shit about, these miniscule groups.

[Tower of Bebel]

Also if all the remaining socialists leave Labour then there would be nothing to stop the neo-liberals within Labour. At least with socialists still in the party there is a chance for Labour to be transformed back into the party it was of old.

Plus going to one of the smaller socialist parties wont make any difference as no one outside of the left knows of, or gives a shit about, these miniscule groups.

What are these left wing policies? Is it Left-Blairism, militant "syndacilism", ..., wont it just be another social mask put on an ugly liberal face?

Why would the trade union force the Labour party to adopt certain "left wing" policies anyway? If liberal policies fail their is still nationalism, populism and other tactics to keep the masses occupied.

And even if the Labour Party is forced to adopt some "left wing" policies I don't think any honest revolutionary will get the chance to benefit without having to restrain himself. I think that the bureaucratic and oppresive structure of the party keeps revolutionaries away from the labour movement. Merging with this movement is much more than just trying to work within the party were the current labour movement is looking at.

[redarmyfaction38]

Hello to you all,

Basically I just want to run through a few things and I would love your opinions/advice on my comments.

Currently, I am a member of the Labour Party in the UK. But don't scream just yet! I am also a member of the Labour Representation Committee (LRC) which is a grouping of socialists and the more left-wing of the Labour Party. We campaign within the Labour Party to try to push traditional left-wing policies which currently, under New Labour, are not being followed.

However, the situation looks dire, my left-wing friends. Gordon Brown and the Labour Party are currently 20-points behind the Conservatives and a possible general election defeat is imminent. From LRC meetings and the such, the possibility of Labour pushing a more left-wing policy before the next general election seems very unlikely, as all the main players in the party are either Brownites or Blairites, i.e. all neo-liberal New Labour.

Other socialist friends have told me that I should just scrap the Labour Party and join a smaller socialist party which will actually follow a left-wing policy. The Socialist Workers Party, the Communist Party of Britain and Peter Taaffe's Socialist Party have all been recommended to me. So, basically what do you think I should do? I know the obvious answer, for many of you, would be to join one of those parties. However, I think that many in the left-wing community maybe overlook the fact that there is still a very prominent core of leftists in the Labour Party. I have spoken to Marxists and hardcore communist trade-unionists that still firmly support the Labour Party and they advise me to stay. For, an election victory or defeat for Labour would certainly cause a policy change - likely to the left (seeing as Brown is now listening to the trade unions a bit more since he started getting attacked by backbench Blairites).

I believe in the Labour Party as well - if I throw away my lot with them then thats one less vote against the Conservative Party, and however, much you can hate the Labour Party, the Tories would be much, much worse.

So what do you guys advise? Do I stick with Labour and carry on trying to push left-wing reforms with the considerable bulk of socialists in the Labour Party. Or should I join a more revolutionary socialist/communist party where my views would be more in-sync with the party line?

Thanks in advance guys,

Labour Leftie

whilst i fully understand your reluctance to abandon the time and effort you have put in to trying to make "new" labour back into "old" labour, the truth is "new" labour has so alienated the average worker, let alone the "politically aware" worker, that, personaly, i can't see any way back.
given your obvious loyalty to the history and your fellow "socialists" within new labour, may i suggest, that you try "dual membership", remain where you are, yet, join the campaign for a new workers party.
then, based on your personal experience of both, decide what your next move is.
that way, you do not have to leap blindly into the arms of the swp, the socialist party, workers power etc.
but can judge from personal experience.
"an ounce of experience is worth a ton of theory".
best wishes mate.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Spartan:


I think you should stay with the party as there is a very real chance of Labour adopting more left wing policies.

After a 100 years of LP sell-outs and compromises, one would think you'd get the meassge.:rolleyes:

[Faceless]

I have some questions. You could easily provide one answer if you like.

Is it possible to critize the capitalists within the Labour Party? Can you build a solid revolutionary organisation within the Labour Party and reach the masses within having to hide your revolutionary identity? Can you struggle dialecticly with the masses for a revolutionary vanguard through Labour Party membership?

Yes, it is possible to criticise the capitalists within the Labour Party. Socialist Appeal regularly condemn the Blairite leadership and hold the entire parliamentary party (with the exceptions of John McDonnell and a few others) in the contempt that it deserves. Here are a few very recent criticisms:
http://www.socialist.net/labour%E2%80%99s-national-policy-forum-the-warwick-2-fiasco.htm
http://www.socialist.net/labour-leadership-tearing-themselves-apart.htm
Indeed, we have a solid revolutionary organisation around Socialist Appeal, do not hide our revolutionary identity and maintain our membership of the Labour Party. Marxists have been a part of the Labour Party since the SDF was involved in its foundation, and will continue to be. Of course, Labour does not attract masses at the moment but is in free fall. However, to be a marxist is to take a long view to history. And that means recognising that the Labour Party, however removed its leadership is from its base, remains based upon the unions and the working class. This will force it to look left in the future simply to survive. Look at the history of the Labour Party. It has been just as right-wing in the past and yet it has shifted dramatically to the left because it has nowhere else to go. As a negative proof of this, look at the complete failure of the left-wing sects outside of the Labour Party - the working class has never been attracted to them. They have never amounted to anything. On the other hand, mass left reformist and centrist tendencies, not to mention large marxist tendencies (Labour League of Youth, Militant etc.) have developed periodically in the Labour Party. The long view of history - that is the key to understanding how to look at the Labour Party.

In summary: maintaining our own distinct identity in the Labour party is possible and necessary so that we can intervene in the party in the future.

[Redmau5]

In summary: maintaining our own distinct identity in the Labour party is possible and necessary so that we can intervene in the party in the future.

So basically, create another Marxist tendency within the Labour Party, only for it to be squeezed out when it becomes too troublesome?

Hmmm, seems awfully familiar.

[Gold Against The Soul]

I'm a nominal member of the party because I won't campaign for New Labour scumbags to get elected. And yes, you're expected to support James Purnell as much as John McDonnell. Whereas my attitude is that any New Labour defeat, even to the Tories, is a good result. Surely better to have official Tories rather than Tories within the Labour Party? Such views turned into action would get me expelled. They expelled Militant members 25 years back for a lot less. Now they have even more control of the party and can now more than ever do what the hell they like.

The masses might never have flocked to the likes of the SP or SWP but they *hate* Labour. Look at the big support at the grassroots level to disaffiliate from the party. It is often only the union leadership that blocks these moves or argues against it as otherwise some unions would have stopped supporting the party long ago.

So suffice to say, whilst I sympathise with Socialist Appeal I think they're pissing in the wind. There is slim chance Labour can be won back around so time to start working outside it.

[spartan]

After a 100 years of LP sell-outs and compromises, one would think you'd get the meassge.:rolleyes:
Labour gave us the welfare state, national health service and nationalised most major industries in post-war Britain.

This situation remained until Thatcher was elected and privatised huge swaths of British industry.

Meanwhile Labour thought that the reason they were voted out was because they weren't "left enough", so they went more to the left to get re-elected but the voters kept on turning out for Maggie instead.

So in this situation the centerist social democratic element, which has always been present in Labour, started adopting Thatcherite policies in the early 90's as they knew that this is what the British people were voting for.

And hey presto in 1997 a centerist controlled Labour party, resembling a more moderate Tory party, absolutely destroyed the Tories in the elections getting elected with a huge majority!

Now Labour is in trouble with a resurgent Tory party, which has gone even more to the centre then Labour did in 1997 to get elected, and a financial crises (for the party not the one the country is facing) which only the unions can solve.

This is the chance that the left-wing of the Labour party and the trade unions (whom Labour need for funding) should be taking advantage of by demanding more worker-friendly policies and cabinet positions for left-wing Labour members in return for the unions money.

A bit of entryism should also be taking place in unions which fund the Labour party and the Labour party itself to back up these demands and force a general change in attitude amongst Labour and labour supporting union members.

Oh yeah and bring back Tony Benn.

[Gold Against The Soul]

I believe in the Labour Party as well - if I throw away my lot with them then thats one less vote against the Conservative Party, and however, much you can hate the Labour Party, the Tories would be much, much worse.

Would they? As I say above, I have big problems with this attitude. I just will never support the likes of John Hutton, Miliband etc because that is what it means when you take the view that Labour will always be better than Tories. You end having to support Tories with red rosettes on.

In fact, the official Tories have successful been able to paint themselves at times as defenders of the workers, of civil liberties etc because of how far right New Labour have gone. The Tories will probably go further if they won but then New Labour probably will too, in the unlikely event of them winning next time.

Surely if you'd like to see someone like John McDonnell as leader it would be better to take the pain of a massive landslide defeat and hope the likes of John survive? Otherwise he and the Labour left have no chance whatsoever.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Spartan:


Labour gave us the welfare state, national health service and nationalised most major industries in post-war Britain.

Which they screwed up, and are now privatising slowly.


Oh yeah and bring back Tony Benn.

Greta idea! Benn armed the nuclear police and pushed through the bonus scheme in the mines (against the wishes of the union), which split the NUM in 1984, helping to defeat the miners!

Even amoebae learn faster!:lol:

[Gold Against The Soul]

Greta idea! Benn armed the nuclear police and pushed through the bonus scheme in the mines (against the wishes of the union), which split the NUM in 1984, helping to defeat the miners!

Even amoebae learn faster!:lol:

Surely that was long before he finally 'got it' and that was never his intention? He now he thinks that 'Marx basically had it right'. He says he only read the Communist Manifesto for the first time a few years back and was amazed at accurate it all was. :laugh: Shame it took him 83 years or whatever he is now to work all this out but at least he got there in the end.

[spartan]

Which they screwed up, and are now privatising slowly.
Yes they are merely carrying on the "popular" policies of Thatcher because they believe it is what the people want, and lets face it Thatcher was re-elected even after doing all those (what we consider) terrible things so they must have been quite popular with the people as otherwise they would have voted her out.


Greta idea! Benn armed the nuclear police and pushed through the bonus scheme in the mines (against the wishes of the union), which split the NUM in 1984, helping to defeat the miners!

I meant it half-jokingly.

Besides this was all done before (like someone else said) Benn finally "got it".

It's this left-wing Benn who I wish had won the Labour party leadership challenges in the early 80's instead of the compromise candidate Michael Foot (who was there to appease the right-wing of the party, their own candidate Denis Healy having lost, who wouldn't accept Benn and his "too radical" syndicalist ideology Bennism).

[Led Zeppelin]

Yes they are merely carrying on the popular policies of Thatcher because they believe it is what the people want, and lets face it Thatcher was re-elected even after doing all those (what we consider) terrible things so they must have been quite popular with the people as otherwise they would have voted her out.

Huh? What? You actually believe bourgeois democracy is really a democracy?

[spartan]

Huh? What? You actually believe bourgeois democracy is really a democracy?

I was making a point.

Thatcher won elections because the middle class came out and voted for her, whilst the apathetic working class (who were mostly against her) largely stayed at home.

Since Thatcher all governments have been promoting voter apathy as a way of keeping things the same and not allowing too radical politics to get in by real popular support.

[Tower of Bebel]

Labour gave us the welfare state, national health service and nationalised most major industries in post-war Britain.

This situation remained until Thatcher was elected and privatised huge swaths of British industry.

Meanwhile Labour thought that the reason they were voted out was because they weren't "left enough", so they went more to the left to get re-elected but the voters kept on turning out for Maggie instead.

So in this situation the centerist social democratic element, which has always been present in Labour, started adopting Thatcherite policies in the early 90's as they knew that this is what the British people were voting for.

And hey presto in 1997 a centerist controlled Labour party, resembling a more moderate Tory party, absolutely destroyed the Tories in the elections getting elected with a huge majority!

Now Labour is in trouble with a resurgent Tory party, which has gone even more to the centre then Labour did in 1997 to get elected, and a financial crises (for the party not the one the country is facing) which only the unions can solve.

This is the chance that the left-wing of the Labour party and the trade unions (whom Labour need for funding) should be taking advantage of by demanding more worker-friendly policies and cabinet positions for left-wing Labour members in return for the unions money.

A bit of entryism should also be taking place in unions which fund the Labour party and the Labour party itself to back up these demands and force a general change in attitude amongst Labour and labour supporting union members.

Oh yeah and bring back Tony Benn.

I think you blame certain currents or persons too much. You should focus on capitalism and the role the state is playing within the system. Tatcher was the epigone of a bourgeois attack that had to come. The Labour Party could swing to the left because the bourgeoisie was focusing on Tatcher. But when the Labour Party came to power they again became a party of the bourgeoisie albeit using social language to keep the workers occupied.

Political economy today reveals that capital leaves no space for any social-democratic (reformist) demands anymore. The time when capital (and its agent the bourgeoisie) allowed socdems and fascists to rule the states is over (at least for the moment). Any reformist party comming to power will have to deal with situation. Either it will have to swing to the right or it will have to leave.

You could say the working class could support a reformist party comming to power that wont give in to capitalism, but I think the working class today is not in a good shape. It is hopelessly devided and it has no clue of where to go next. I think their is still a lot of work if we want to shape the working class as a political class. Untill that day any reformist party comming to power will not have a solid basis for serious attacks against the bourgeoisie.
So my guess is that the Labour Party will swing to the right.

[Vanguard1917]

But when the Labour Party came to power they again became a party of the bourgeoisie albeit using social language to keep the workers occupied.

Yeah, Labour's traditional role was basically that of a back-up, or substitute, party of British capitalism, which would, due to its influence within the working class, be called upon to step in to restore capitalist order when the Tories, i.e. the 'natural party of British government', could not.

Its role today is different, though. Times have changed. Labour's base in the working class has largely been eroded and there is no working class movement today threatening the capitalist system. In terms of policy or social role, there's no real difference between Labour and the Tories.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Spartan:


Yes they are merely carrying on the "popular" policies of Thatcher because they believe it is what the people want, and lets face it Thatcher was re-elected even after doing all those (what we consider) terrible things so they must have been quite popular with the people as otherwise they would have voted her out.

And that is what the LP always does -- it caves in to the right.

As I said, amoebae learn faster!


Besides this was all done before (like someone else said) Benn finally "got it".

Even after 'he got it' he remained a Privy Councillor:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privy_council

As I said, too, they always sell out.

That is because the LP changes them, they do not change the LP.

[Labour Leftie]

Hey, thank you all for your replies, there has been some good debate going on :)


Social Democracy does not believe in extra-parliamentary Struggle, even the liberal Democrats are more progressive than labour now. You can still struggle to elect progressive labour MPs but as it stands Labour as a party stands behind big business.

Your energy and class consciousness would be better put to use in a vanguard party, get in contact with the Communist Party.

I agree at the moment the Labour Party does certainly stand by big business, however, I disagree that the Liberal Democrats are more progressive now than Labour. The Lib Dems are still very much a middle class party who really only differ from the Conservatives in the fact that they are more liberal on social policy, but they are still right-wing capitalists for sure. You could also say that the Labour Party are right-wing capitalists at the moment but the reason why Labour is more progressive is that Labour still has a left-wing core working class which will always pressure and push for Labour to follow a more progressive stance. Just look at the recent 10p tax rate fiasco, people were up in arms that the poor would be worse off - for one, I cannot see that sort of uproar happening in the more middle class Liberal Democrat party.



The Labour Party today is not leftist, nor social-democratic. It is as liberal as any other party. Conservatives do not differ from the Labourites. Labout wont turn left. No. It will sometimes use some leftist slogans but it wont turn left in opposition nor government.


Although I agree that there is little difference between Labour and Conservative at the moment, I would disagree that Labourites are the same as Tories. On face value, they are similar but I think you have to also look at the underlying current within each of the parties. In Labour, there is a current of left-wing socialism which is never that far from the surface but suppressed at the moment. The Tories have an undercurrent of right-wing neo-liberalism that is being suppressed by Cameron at the moment in an attempt to seem more liberal and less....toff-like. Either party could swing back to their traditional roots - therefore I don't think that Labour and Tories are the same, or should be treated as the same, from a left-wing viewpoint.


Hi there Labour Leftie,
I am a member of the Labour Party, the LRC and a marxist too. To be honest, we both know that the left wing groups out side of the Labour Party are irrelevant - the Communist Party, the Socialist Party, the SWP and so on. It isn't enough to maintain our ideological purity if it means we are keeping ourselves in splendid isolation completely apart from the REAL labour movement. We have to stay and fight to transform the workers' organisations - the unions and the Labour Party - in to real organs of class struggle. After all, if we don't have confidence in the working class to change its OWN organisations, how can we expect it to change the whole of society? There is nothing for marxists outside the labour movement, and for that reason I urge you to stay in the Labour Party. Look at all examples of big left labour groups that have left the Labour party - the ILP, the SLP, the Militant - they all vanished into nothing when they left. Why? Because there is nothing outside the workers' movement! However, we need to be organised independently as the revolutionary marxist tendency in the party. The LRC is a worthy organisation but it is still reformist and ideologically incoherent. For that reason I would suggest you join the marxist tendency of the Labour party - Socialist Appeal. Visit the website, socialist.net, or PM me for more info.

Yeah, I agree with your points here. The decision, I suppose, would have to come from my own viewpoint. I could stay firm to my ideology and join a Socialist Party or I could carry on taking a more realist stand and campaigning within the Labour Party for left-wing change. I mean doesn’t it come down to: which is more likely – a left-wing party such as the SWP, SP or CPB coming to power or the Labour Party reverting back to the left. Although it could be debated, I think the latter is more likely. I know people in the Socialist Appeal and I am definitely interested in joining.



Indeed, we have a solid revolutionary organisation around Socialist Appeal, do not hide our revolutionary identity and maintain our membership of the Labour Party. Marxists have been a part of the Labour Party since the SDF was involved in its foundation, and will continue to be. Of course, Labour does not attract masses at the moment but is in free fall. However, to be a marxist is to take a long view to history. And that means recognising that the Labour Party, however removed its leadership is from its base, remains based upon the unions and the working class. This will force it to look left in the future simply to survive. Look at the history of the Labour Party. It has been just as right-wing in the past and yet it has shifted dramatically to the left because it has nowhere else to go. As a negative proof of this, look at the complete failure of the left-wing sects outside of the Labour Party - the working class has never been attracted to them. They have never amounted to anything. On the other hand, mass left reformist and centrist tendencies, not to mention large marxist tendencies (Labour League of Youth, Militant etc.) have developed periodically in the Labour Party. The long view of history - that is the key to understanding how to look at the Labour Party.

In summary: maintaining our own distinct identity in the Labour party is possible and necessary so that we can intervene in the party in the future.

I think what you say here is very true.


whilst i fully understand your reluctance to abandon the time and effort you have put in to trying to make "new" labour back into "old" labour, the truth is "new" labour has so alienated the average worker, let alone the "politically aware" worker, that, personaly, i can't see any way back.
given your obvious loyalty to the history and your fellow "socialists" within new labour, may i suggest, that you try "dual membership", remain where you are, yet, join the campaign for a new workers party.
then, based on your personal experience of both, decide what your next move is.
that way, you do not have to leap blindly into the arms of the swp, the socialist party, workers power etc.
but can judge from personal experience.
"an ounce of experience is worth a ton of theory".
best wishes mate.

Thanks for the advice. That had been an option for me before but because of my busy schedule I felt I did not have time for dual membership. I may look into it again but I only really want to join a party that I can actually put my full effort into and work within the party. With dual membership I may not have enough time to work for the Labour Party and for a smaller Socialist party which would disappoint me because once I join something I want to be active in it.


I'm a nominal member of the party because I won't campaign for New Labour scumbags to get elected. And yes, you're expected to support James Purnell as much as John McDonnell. Whereas my attitude is that any New Labour defeat, even to the Tories, is a good result. Surely better to have official Tories rather than Tories within the Labour Party? Such views turned into action would get me expelled. They expelled Militant members 25 years back for a lot less. Now they have even more control of the party and can now more than ever do what the hell they like.


Would they? As I say above, I have big problems with this attitude. I just will never support the likes of John Hutton, Miliband etc because that is what it means when you take the view that Labour will always be better than Tories. You end having to support Tories with red rosettes on.

In fact, the official Tories have successful been able to paint themselves at times as defenders of the workers, of civil liberties etc because of how far right New Labour have gone. The Tories will probably go further if they won but then New Labour probably will too, in the unlikely event of them winning next time.

Surely if you'd like to see someone like John McDonnell as leader it would be better to take the pain of a massive landslide defeat and hope the likes of John survive? Otherwise he and the Labour left have no chance whatsoever.
I think what you say presents one, and I must say, convincing, side of the argument. Here’s what I would say: a Labour Party defeat at the next general election would *only* be a good thing in the fact that Labour, as the opposition party, would have to, in my opinion and many others within the LRC, go to the left. The Labour Party would struggle being a centre-right, middle-class pandering party (as it is now) in opposition because the general people would be saying: “there’s no point voting Labour because they are exactly the same as Tory but I remember a couple of years ago Gordon Brown fucked up the country so I’m going to vote Conservative.” I think Labour would have to go left – the unions and many in the party would be pressurising the party leaders too much for them to be ignored as they are being now. But I disagree that a Tory government would be better than a current Labour government. Whatever you say about Labour it has a deep undercurrent of left-wing policies which will always be present – something that is obviously not present in the Conservative Party. New Labour is similar to the Tories, but they are not the same, I think this has to be remembered. On the other hand if Labour win the next election – umm I think the future is more murky. However, something will have to change. Brown will unlikely stay long – election victory or defeat. Then there is a major chance for a left-wing change – but I agree with you in the fact that an election defeat for Labour would create a better environment for policy change than an election victory – I just don’t know if I can stand 4+ years of Conservatives.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

LL:


I just don’t know if I can stand 4+ years of Conservatives.

Especially since we have just had 11 years of conservatives...

[Tower of Bebel]

Although I agree that there is little difference between Labour and Conservative at the moment, I would disagree that Labourites are the same as Tories. On face value, they are similar but I think you have to also look at the underlying current within each of the parties. In Labour, there is a current of left-wing socialism which is never that far from the surface but suppressed at the moment. The Tories have an undercurrent of right-wing neo-liberalism that is being suppressed by Cameron at the moment in an attempt to seem more liberal and less....toff-like. Either party could swing back to their traditional roots - therefore I don't think that Labour and Tories are the same, or should be treated as the same, from a left-wing viewpoint.
So both parties are suppressing the neoliberal current a bit just to gain some credibility again. But what would turn the Labour Party left? By left I mean really left: supporting the working class in their daily struggles, organising the working class as an independant force, fighting the capitalist state and imperialism (for example: campaigning for an end to participation in the wars "on Terror"), etc. Is this possible with a party backed by the capitalist state, backed by the industries? I don't believe so.

By the way; I believe that the left should not fight certain governments (that is what the lesser evil is all about). It should fight capital and the state - All governments are managing capital so they're not worth supporting! The left should fight imperialism and the bourgeoisie. It should organise the working class instead of building electoral campaings.

[Labour Leftie]

Rakunin,

Well, I think that the implementation of socialism back into the Labour Party would be a gradual one - it obviously wouldn't go really left, really quickly, as you eloquently point out. However, I do believe the Labour Party can head left after the next election (obviously not before) and that's a start. From that start we leftists from within the party (and outside the party as well) can hopefully build on that for a more postive, and left-wing, future for the Labour Party.

Rosa Lichtenstein,

I enjoyed your wit and clever-thinking there, but I do think that Conservative "conservatism" would be a lot worse than Labour "conservatism" (for want of a better phrase!).

[Faceless]

So basically, create another Marxist tendency within the Labour Party, only for it to be squeezed out when it becomes too troublesome?

Hmmm, seems awfully familiar.
It's funny but the marxist tendencies dont usually leave the Labour Party because they are "squeezed out". Take these marxist tendencies and more often than not you will find that they left of their own accord because they were scared of the pin pricks of the right-wing bureaucracy. The SDF left of its own accord. And what happened? They went on to form the CPGB. And what did Lenin recommend they do? Affiliate to the Labour Party!! The ILP left of its own accord. The Militant also chose to leave en-masse. The idea that they were expelled is a myth. Only a few leading members actually were expelled. Of course, if you want to talk of expulsions look at the witch hunts that Unison are undertaking against the union's left-wing. No serious socialist would suggest that workers leave their traditional unions. Why is it that they should call on workers to leave their traditional political parties? We can build a strong marxist tendency only once we have learned the lessons of history.

[redarmyfaction38]

It's funny but the marxist tendencies dont usually leave the Labour Party because they are "squeezed out". Take these marxist tendencies and more often than not you will find that they left of their own accord because they were scared of the pin pricks of the right-wing bureaucracy. The SDF left of its own accord. And what happened? They went on to form the CPGB. And what did Lenin recommend they do? Affiliate to the Labour Party!! The ILP left of its own accord. The Militant also chose to leave en-masse. The idea that they were expelled is a myth. Only a few leading members actually were expelled. Of course, if you want to talk of expulsions look at the witch hunts that Unison are undertaking against the union's left-wing. No serious socialist would suggest that workers leave their traditional unions. Why is it that they should call on workers to leave their traditional political parties? We can build a strong marxist tendency only once we have learned the lessons of history.
as one of those miltant members that left labour on their own accord i fully understand the point you are trying to make, unfortunately, you are wrong, most of my comrades were subjected to "witch hunts" at a local level, as most of those comrades were lay members, their expulsions attracted little interest outside of left wing circles.
another truth of the times is that it wasn't just "militant supporters" that found themselves "witch hunted", supporters of publications like "the labour herald" found themselves in the same situation.
"miltant" was the excuse for purging the labour party of its revolutionary/ left wing tendancy that the capitalist right had been looking for since the foundation of the labour party.
the labour party was at best a capitalist reformist party seeking not to reform capitalism out of existence but to gain a better share of capitalist "progress" for the working class.
there had been previous attempts at removing clause 4 from the labour party constitution, they had all failed in the face of the memerships opposition.
the "new labour right" within the trade unions, now feels strong enough to persue its capitalist agenda in the trade unions, it has to, cos if it doesn't, it will lose its main source of income.
despite all the dodgy donations, despite all the corporate sponsorship, new labours main source of income is trade union donations.
the rev. left, regardless of which trading name it chooses, is threat to that source of income.
hence the witch hunts.
difference is, in the trade unions, it is much harder to potray an active member of the union as some sort of threat to the union, all the workers around that individual have seen how much he puts his head on the line, how hard he works for them and how little financial reward, if any, he gets.
a worker is more likely to leave his union should such a shop steward, activist or regional organiser get expelled.

[Die Neue Zeit]

It should organise the working class instead of building electoral campaigns.

Here, RevLefters, is the single most important, pro-spoilage statement of this thread!

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

LL:


I enjoyed your wit and clever-thinking there, but I do think that Conservative "conservatism" would be a lot worse than Labour "conservatism" (for want of a better phrase!).

That is like saying that being stabbed to death is worse than being shot.

The only good thing about the LP being in office (they are never in power) is that it squashes any illusions that they will act like genuine socialists.

[Labour Leftie]

LL:

That is like saying that being stabbed to death is worse than being shot.

The only good thing about the LP being in office (they are never in power) is that it squashes any illusions that they will act like genuine socialists.

Neither are desirable obviously but if I had to choose between one of the two, I would choose Labour everytime, no denying that.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

LL:


Neither are desirable obviously but if I had to choose between one of the two, I would choose Labour everytime, no denying that.

Even if they continued to privatise, tail-end US imperialism (and start a war with Iran), line the pockets of the rich, sack public sector workers, attack working class living standards, erode civil liberties, scape-goat muslims, fill the gaols, criminalise youth, attack the disabled, maintain the worst anti-union laws in Europe, waste billions on Trident and other weapons systems, sell weapons to repressive regimes, etc?

I suppose if you have sold your soul to electoralism, then you will put up with the LP, and choose death by the gun over death by the blade.

[Black Sheep]

what the hell?
since when social democrats are considered revlefters?
:mad: :cursing:
I d advise u to abandon ur degenerate and politically numb party and join a REVOLUTIONARY leftist group.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

We normally restrict reformists, so it depends on how LL's ideas develop.

Recall that LL is asking for our advice, so he/she might change his/her mind.

[Labour Leftie]

Rosa Lichtenstein,

I was merely saying that if you had to choose between the two, I would choose Labour. I'm in no way saying that over the last 11 years Labour has been good for socialism, neither am I saying that I support the capitalist, right-wing policies that Labour has performed.

At your electoralism comment: I want socialism. I don't mind whatever form it comes from. Violent revolution or electoralism, I'm not that bothered. What I am bothered about is helping to establish socialism in today's society - isn't that what we are all here for? I'm not restricting myself to establishing socialism to just one way, I can believe in electoralism and revolutionary tactics if I want.

mauroprovatos, I'm not a social democrat. Social democracy combines socialism and capitalism - that's not what I want. If I was a social democrat I would be relatively happy with Labour over the past 11 years (which I'm not) and if I was a social democrat I wouldn't be considering moving to a party such as the SWP or CPB.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

LL:


I was merely saying that if you had to choose between the two, I would choose Labour. I'm in no way saying that over the last 11 years Labour has been good for socialism, neither am I saying that I support the capitalist, right-wing policies that Labour has performed.

If the last 100 years has not taught you that the LP always caves in to the right, then nothing I can say will sway you.


At your electoralism comment: I want socialism. I don't mind whatever form it comes from. Violent revolution or electoralism, I'm not that bothered. What I am bothered about is helping to establish socialism in today's society - isn't that what we are all here for? I'm not restricting myself to establishing socialism to just one way, I can believe in electoralism and revolutionary tactics if I want.

The ruling-class will not give up their wealth and power as a result of a few votes in parliament.

And as far as achieving socialism in the here and now is concerned, the last place to look will be the LP -- see my first comment above.

[OI OI OI]

I d advise u to abandon ur degenerate and politically numb party and join a REVOLUTIONARY leftist group.

You have no idea about Leninist tactics and I advise you to read first and then advise other people.
The labour party and other organizations of the proletariat even if they are degenereted they are an excellent place for the small forces of marxism to recruit people.
Also don't look at them staticaly .
They have internal contradictions which make them move to the right or to the left. They are centrist. When the class struggle is more acute the internal contradictions inside the labour party will be acute also with the masses moving to the left and the reformist/byreaucratic/pro-capitalist leaders will be to the right. They will be eventualy ousted and by working inside these parties we can transform them to genuine revolutionary parties.

So go back to your leftist ghetto and leave alone the Marxist-Leninists who know what they are doing .

Go back to your party compoised by two men and a dog.

Woe to the sectarian ultra-lefts which are divorced from society.

[Tower of Bebel]

The labour party and other organizations of the proletariat even if they are degenereted they are an excellent place for the small forces of marxism to recruit people.
I don't know about Labour being an organization of the proletariat. Continuous betrayal and leaving workers unorganized (and disarmed) against both capital and the capitalist state means it is an effective organization of the bourgeoisie.

[OI OI OI]

I don't know about Labour being an organization of the proletariat. Continuous betrayal and leaving workers unorganized (and disarmed) against both capital and the capitalist state means it is an effective organization of the bourgeoisie.

It is pro - capitalist at times. It's roots historicaly are in the working class and its actions depend on the equilibrium of the two contradictory forces inside it and also in the material conditions.
After the Second world war we had a capitalist upswing and that favoured the right wing bureaucracy.

But now because of the continuous attacks to the working people the unions involved in the labour party(almost all the unions of britain) will push the labour party to the left. And if there are concious marxists working inside the labour party they can make significant gains in the next period of time and even gain control of the party.

This is one option.
Another option is to have a party of 100 , 200, or even 5000 and have no influence on the working class whatsoever.
Remember the Militant and its influence with only 8000 activists precisely because it worked inside the labour party? And what does the majority of the militant which decided to leave the labour party do now?
What is their influence and what are their numbers?
Unfortunately the Taafites destroyed the patient and intense work done for 40 years inside the labour party.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

IDOF:


The labour party and other organizations of the proletariat even if they are degenereted they are an excellent place for the small forces of marxism to recruit people.
Also don't look at them staticaly .
They have internal contradictions which make them move to the right or to the left. They are centrist. When the class struggle is more acute the internal contradictions inside the labour party will be acute also with the masses moving to the left and the reformist/byreaucratic/pro-capitalist leaders will be to the right. They will be eventualy ousted and by working inside these parties we can transform them to genuine revolutionary parties.

The Labout Party was in fact a party set up by the Trade Union bureaucracy, not the workers. It now enjoys minimal and passive support of the working class.


Also don't look at them staticaly.

Indeed not, we just have to sit back and watch the LP vacillate between the centre and the right, but never the left.


They have internal contradictions which make them move to the right or to the left.

These are not 'contradictions' -- or, I defy you to tell us what they are.

It seems to me that you are the 'static' one: wedded to an entryist policy that never changes!:lol:

[Tower of Bebel]

After the Second world war we had a capitalist upswing and that favoured the right wing bureaucracy.

But now because of the continuous attacks to the working people the unions involved in the labour party(almost all the unions of britain) will push the labour party to the left. And if there are concious marxists working inside the labour party they can make significant gains in the next period of time and even gain control of the party.
Why would they? What makes you so sure?

In Belgium both Flemish parties with strong unions (the Socialist Party-Alternative and the Christian-Democrats & Flemish) use a nationalist discourse, against their Walloon counterparts (the Humanist Christian Democrats and Socialist Party) to succeed at dividing the country and its working class (while keeping that class occupied with petty bourgeois lies). Some expected the parties to turn left after some recent struggles with the workers, but the parties didn't. They used the economic and institutional crises to push forward a neoliberal agenda.

And what did the unions do (and what are they doing now)? They either licked their parties' asses or just shut their mouths while keeping the workers occupied with something else.

What makes the British situation so different?

[Redmau5]

Unfortunately the Taafites destroyed the patient and intense work done for 40 years inside the labour party.

Destroyed? Kinnock referred to Militant as a "maggot" feeding on the body of the Labour Party, and done everything in his power to have members of Militant expelled from the party. How exactly do you expect to put forward a Marxist line in those conditions?

Today's Labour Party has shifted even further to the right than under Kinnock's tenure. It's historical roots may well have been with the working-class, but that's far from the case today.

[spartan]

Today's Labour Party has shifted even further to the right than under Kinnock's tenure. It's historical roots may well have been with the working-class, but that's far from the case today.
Yes because we allowed the right-wing to take it over.

I have seen alot of members criticising modern day Labour for what they are, which is fair enough, but I don't see them criticising themselves and the working class for letting it happen in the first place.

Labour did what Labour needed to do which was get elected. Trouble was the only way to get elected was by adopting the centre ground and appeal to the middle class, who voted for free market policies, as the working class weren't voting and deciding elections anymore.

Labour was our party and we should have fought against the right-wing third way elements within it but we didn't. Why we didn't I don't know perhaps it was apathy, a widespread belief that socialism was "unworkable" after the fall of the USSR (changing times), increasing marginalisation of blue collar workers, the disappearence of traditional jobs and the rise of white collar jobs and their workers who had no intrest in the class struggle, who knows?

What I do know is that Labour was once the party of Hardie, Attlee, Bevan and Benn, now it's leadership is dominated by neo-liberals who tag along on whatever US imperialist adventure Bush plans next.

It's sad but it needn't have come to this, nay it should never have come to this.

[Black Sheep]

So go back to your leftist ghetto and leave alone the Marxist-Leninists who know what they are doing .

Go back to your party compoised by two men and a dog.

Woe to the sectarian ultra-lefts which are divorced from society

Dude,what the hell is your problem!? Somebody has to get that primate out of your digestion areas.

I posted that considering the current state of Britain's labour party.
Since Labour Leftie made that clarification,then my bad,my bad.

[OI OI OI]

The Labout Party was in fact a party set up by the Trade Union bureaucracy, not the workers. It now enjoys minimal and passive support of the working class.

Yes but this passive support will change to an active support when the material conditions are here for that. We already see the unions cutting funding to anti-worker mp's , the rich donors gong over to the torries and the left wing of the labour party gaining more and more support and power within the party.
Parties are not dead corpses but living things and we can gaina massive amount of recruits and possibly take over the party.

The militant example showed that this is the correct way.

Which other group managed from being non-existent to have 8000 cadres and massive influence in the politics of a country?

The organizations of the proletariat should be the place where leftists work and they should not set up their own "parties". Of course working in Labour doesn't mean that you don't have an organization of your own. On the contrary, you need to have one.



Indeed not, we just have to sit back and watch the LP vacillate between the centre and the right, but never the left.

After WW2 we had a capitalist boom. Are there conditions to make it move to the left?
But now things changed and we see a change in the Labour Party and this change will be more Radical in the next couple of years .

Getting out of the Labour party was the wrong move. From 8000 cadres now the CWI has only about 400 while the IMT from being tiny in Britain has made a lot of progress thanks to the work in the labour party.



These are not 'contradictions' -- or, I defy you to tell us what they are.

So the interests of the bureaucrats and carreerists are not contradictory to those of the working class? Then I guess we should support Blair and Brown:laugh:


It seems to me that you are the 'static' one: wedded to an entryist policy that never changes!:lol:

:lol::lol:
I dont think that we should change the tactic of entrism especialy now that the Marxists are a tiny minority,
We need to find the road to reach to the workers and entyism is good for that,




In Belgium both Flemish parties with strong unions (the Socialist Party-Alternative and the Christian-Democrats & Flemish) use a nationalist discourse, against their Walloon counterparts (the Humanist Christian Democrats and Socialist Party) to succeed at dividing the country and its working class (while keeping that class occupied with petty bourgeois lies).

We dont work in these organizations for their policies. On the contrary , that is what we want to change:lol:


Some expected the parties to turn left after some recent struggles with the workers, but the parties didn't. They used the economic and institutional crises to push forward a neoliberal agenda.

And what did the unions do (and what are they doing now)? They either licked their parties' asses or just shut their mouths while keeping the workers occupied with something else.

Do you expect something better for the bureaucrats and the carreerists?
When we work inside those parties we criticize them and critisize them ALOT!
So we gain support from the dissatisfied workers and we offer a platform for the party to move to the left.
Some vaccilations might occur from the bureaucrats themselves but if there are no genuine socialists in those parties this centrism will not be radical enough and won't change a lot of shit.


What makes the British situation so different?

Nothing. But what you just said was not an arguument against entrism but a confirmation for a need for it!



Destroyed? Kinnock referred to Militant as a "maggot" feeding on the body of the Labour Party, and done everything in his power to have members of Militant expelled from the party. How exactly do you expect to put forward a Marxist line in those conditions?

Only a handfull of leading members among them Ted Grant were expelled .
The majority of the people in the militant were still working in the labour party and they controlled its youth wing.
You have to expect the attacks of the bureaucracy and not be scared of them . They should be scared of you.
When you control a youth wing of tens of thousands and when you have enormus influence to the rank and file you don't just walk away and blow the shit up, just because a handfull of people were expelled.
You continue your patient work and eventuyaly you get hold of the labour party when the conditions allow it and you expell the bureaucracy all together.



Today's Labour Party has shifted even further to the right than under Kinnock's tenure. It's historical roots may well have been with the working-class, but that's far from the case today.

Why did they shift to the right?
Precisely because now we have no influence inside as we had 20 years ago, because the Taafites left!
Bow the party is full of rich donors with little antagonism.
But when the lose the next ellections the donors will move over to the Party which will form the government plus we have this increased stricness by the unions towards anti-worker MPs. The left is gaining power and influence and there are changes going on now which will intensify after the lost election!
It is time for the leftists to return to Labour ..



Dude,what the hell is your problem!? Somebody has to get that primate out of your digestion areas.

Dude, you wrote ignorant bullshit against people who work in the labour party.
I don't care if you knew what you were writting or not.
Have you heard about the word "polemics" ?
Us leftists use them some times and it seems that some people can't handle them..

Look at the CWI now in Britain. Compared to its influence as the militant now it lives in the leftist ghettos having no influence in British politics.
It s a pity .

[Q]

Look at the CWI now in Britain. Compared to its influence as the militant now it lives in the leftist ghettos having no influence in British politics.
It s a pity .

The IMT has been a lot more successful? I dare to say the Socialist Party is far wider known and has a far wider impact than Socialist Appeal.
The impact of events of the last 20 years have been the cause of the general decline of the left, this blaming on the CWI is rather childish.

[OI OI OI]

The IMT has been a lot more successful? I dare to say the Socialist Party is far wider known than Socialist Appeal.

haha
Why don't you look on how the CWI started and fucked it all up?
They had the majority of the 8000 members of the militant.
Have they increased their numbers and influence compared to what they had or dramaticaly decreased? I would say dramatically decreased.

Look at how the IMT started. A handful of "loyalists" .
Where are they now? They are close to reaching the membership of the CWI .

It is like comparing a race between two race-cars in F1 when the one had a head start of an hour. This is what you are doing comrade.

[AGITprop]

I don't think he was blaming the CWI.Just criticizing their actions, especially they're decision to leave the LP.

I think ALL sections of the left have been crushed and marginalized in the last 20 years.

[Q]

Damn you guys are fast in responding. Anyway, the second line of my previous post was meant to elaborate that I'm not talking of a "race", but rather that blaming the CWI doesn't help.

[OI OI OI]

Damn you guys are fast in responding

Cuz we don't have a life:)



Anyway, the second line of my previous post was meant to elaborate that I'm not talking of a "race", but rather that blaming the CWI doesn't help.

Of course it is not a race I just used an every-day example to show that we cant compare the CWI and the IMT since the CWI started with 93% of the members of the Militant and has decreased in size by alot compared to its size during the 80s, while the IMT started with 7% and after a difficult re-start it has tripled its numbers over the years. This is a practical example of the correctness of the tactics of the IMT.

And of course "blaming" the CWI is productive. If we say , oh you know what it's all good and sweet we will never correct our mistakes and go forward. That's my position

[Q]

Cuz we don't have a life:)
I guess.


And of course "blaming" the CWI is productive. If we say , oh you know what it's all good and sweet we will never correct our mistakes and go forward. That's my position
True, but keep it political. The whole "evil Taaffeites" thing is just silly.
Also, afaik, the IMT is still small internationally. So while the conditions in the UK may have been good, in countries like Belgium for example you're still as tiny as the day you splitted.

[OI OI OI]

True, but keep it political. The whole "evil Taaffeites" thing is just silly.
I never said evil Taaffeites! I just blamed them for leaving the Labour Party with disastrous effects...and that is political as far as I know


Also, afaik, the IMT is still small internationally. So while the conditions in the UK may have been good, in countries like Belgium for example you're still as tiny as the day you splitted.

I wouldn't say that. On the contrary we are a big international. In Canada for example you guys have 2 people. We have 50.
In Pakistan we have an organization of thousands(precisely because of our work in the PPP). I don't know about Belgium. Maybe the comrades had internal problems or maybe their problem is their subjective factor. I know that 6 leading comrades died in a car accident while going to the World Congress a couple of years back. That must have slowed their work by a lot.

I don't think that the Belgium example is enough (and with not taking into account subjective factors) to make an argument against entrism. While Internationaly and in places that matter the most because of the conditions there, the IMT plays a huge role .

Also, afaik, the IMT is still small internationally. So while the conditions in the UK may have been good, in countries like Belgium for example you're still as tiny as the day you splitted.

[Q]

I wouldn't say that. On the contrary we are a big international. In Canada for example you guys have 2 people. We have 50.
I'm not sure here as I don't have membership numbers with me right now or am aware of our Canadian situation, I'll let an US or Canadian comrade reply to this.


In Pakistan we have an organization of thousands(precisely because of our work in the PPP).
Well, the PPP is having a clear anti-working class policy (as featured for example here (http://www.socialistworld.net/eng/2008/07/29pakisa.html), so I'm strongly doubting the benefits of being affiliated to such a party.


I don't know about Belgium. Maybe the comrades had internal problems or maybe their problem is their subjective factor. I know that 6 leading comrades died in a car accident while going to the World Congress a couple of years back. That must have slowed their work by a lot.
Well, crap.


I don't think that the Belgium example is enough (and with not taking into account subjective factors) to make an argument against entrism. While Internationaly and in places that matter the most because of the conditions there, the IMT plays a huge role .
As do we.

[OI OI OI]

I'm not sure here as I don't have membership numbers with me right now or am aware of our Canadian situation, I'll let an US or Canadian comrade reply to this.You won t find any Canadian comrades. Its two old guys only:lol:



Well, the PPP is having a clear anti-working class policy (as featured for example here (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.socialistworld.net/eng/2008/07/29pakisa.html), so I'm strongly doubting the benefits of being affiliated to such a party. Heh, Labour too has an anti-working class policy.
But just like labour the PPP is a living organim and does not exist in a vacuum.
We do not go to parties because we like their policies. On the contrary! We go there to find the road to workers and recruit them, and possibly taking over the party!
Our work in Pakistan proves exactly that!
The Struggle(its the name of our section) is the strongest marxist force there with thousands of members, 30 offices and 259 branches!
I suggest you read the pamphlet entrism by Ted Grant.
If you can't find it then I can send it to you by mail:lol:, for free!

Btw I am not sure but I think that we control the union of the Telecom workers :lol:(the link you just sent me)

[Tower of Bebel]

In Belgium both Flemish parties with strong unions (the Socialist Party-Alternative and the Christian-Democrats & Flemish) use a nationalist discourse, against their Walloon counterparts (the Humanist Christian Democrats and Socialist Party) to succeed at dividing the country and its working class (while keeping that class occupied with petty bourgeois lies).
We dont work in these organizations for their policies. On the contrary , that is what we want to change:lol:
I think that's obvious. The example I have given is context.


Some expected the parties to turn left after some recent struggles with the workers, but the parties didn't. They used the economic and institutional crises to push forward a neoliberal agenda.

And what did the unions do (and what are they doing now)? They either licked their parties' asses or just shut their mouths while keeping the workers occupied with something else.
Do you expect something better for the bureaucrats and the carreerists?No, but you do! You write this:
But now because of the continuous attacks to the working people the unions involved in the labour party (almost all the unions of britain) will push the labour party to the left. And if there are concious marxists working inside the labour party they can make significant gains in the next period of time and even gain control of the party. I, on the contrary, gave an example in which parties with the support of their trade unions - against the working class which was activly putting pressure on the trade unions - countered such a call for left politics.


What makes the British situation so different?
Nothing. But what you just said was not an arguument against entrism but a confirmation for a need for it!
Nothing indeed, there is no difference. But it is not an argument in favor of your reason for entryism.

[redarmyfaction38]

LL:



If the last 100 years has not taught you that the LP always caves in to the right, then nothing I can say will sway you.



The ruling-class will not give up their wealth and power as a result of a few votes in parliament.

And as far as achieving socialism in the here and now is concerned, the last place to look will be the LP -- see my first comment above.
LEARNING, rosa, the guy is learning, whilst i agree with your analysis, god forgive me, your attitude stinks.

[OI OI OI]

No, but you do! You write this: Quote:
Originally Posted by IDoM
But now because of the continuous attacks to the working people the unions involved in the labour party (almost all the unions of britain) will push the labour party to the left. And if there are concious marxists working inside the labour party they can make significant gains in the next period of time and even gain control of the party.

I, on the contrary, gave an example in which parties with the support of their trade unions - against the working class which was activly putting pressure on the trade unions - countered such a call for left politics.
I am not aware of the situation in Belgium , if there is a left wing in those parties, if the pressure was strong enough etc. So I cannot answer.




Nothing indeed, there is no difference. But it is not an argument in favor of your reason for entryism.

As you said there was pressure from the workers in those parties and the party did not move to the left.
If there was a marxist wing with some power they would have formulated demands and gained recruits and influence from the dissatisfied workers .

The gains could have been enormous and then a revolutionary wing could have been formed in those parties with enough strength to move the party to the left.

But I am not sure about the situation in Belgium as I said before .
I don't know where the IMT works there because in many countries we work inside CPs and not SPs

[Tower of Bebel]

But I am not sure about the situation in Belgium as I said before .
I don't know where the IMT works there because in many countries we work inside CPs and not SPs
There is one: Vonk

[Chapaev]

As Lenin said, the Labour Party is a thoroughly bourgeois party. Although it is made up of workers, it is led by reactionaries, and the worst kind of reactionaries at that, who act quite in the spirit of the bourgeoisie. It is an organisation of the bourgeoisie, which exists to systematically dupe the workers.

[ajs2007]

As Lenin said, the Labour Party is a thoroughly bourgeois party. Although it is made up of workers, it is led by reactionaries, and the worst kind of reactionaries at that, who act quite in the spirit of the bourgeoisie. It is an organisation of the bourgeoisie, which exists to systematically dupe the workers.
I'm a bit loathe to jump into this thread 4 pages in, but anyway....

I agree Velior. But didn't Lenin advocate that the British CP affiliate to the Labour Party, and if it couldn't affiliate then CP members should join anyway?

The situation now is, of course, different, but the same principles apply. For better or worse, notwithstanding the current disillusionment, the party British workers look to is the Labour Party.

[Q]

The situation now is, of course, different, but the same principles apply. For better or worse, notwithstanding the current disillusionment, the party British workers look to is the Labour Party.
The rapidly declining numbers of workers voting labour and the rapidly declining membership of Labour over the past two decades disagree with that statement.
Looking towards Labour as your party and "looking" towards Labour as the lesser evil - because the Tories are even worse - are two very different things.

[ajs2007]

The rapidly declining numbers of workers voting labour and the rapidly declining membership of Labour over the past two decades disagree with that statement.
Looking towards Labour as your party and "looking" towards Labour as the lesser evil - because the Tories are even worse - are two very different things.
Numbers of votes, and Party membership figures, are an important indication of the mood of workers. But in and of themselves they cannot prove either, for example, that British workers look to the Labour Party or that they no longer do so. Only an analysis of the mood of the working class, and the underlying causes, can do that.

The total numbers of votes for Labour has risen and fallen over the past 100 years, usually falling following the election of a Labour Government because, I would argue, of disillusion in that Government. For instance, in 1997 the number of votes for Labour was one of the highest on record - does that mean by your criteria that you agree with me that in 1997 British workers did look to Labour?

At the last British General Election, Labour lost over 4 million votes compared to 1997. If workers were looking elsewhere for a political voice then why didn't at least some of those votes go to one of the projects to build a working class party outside the Labour Party? While the loss of electoral support is a sign of the deep disillusionment in the current Government, it's not resulting in workers looking elsewhere. Electoral statistics are useful but are necessarily snapshots.

I think you have a stronger case with Labour Party membership figures. They are at an all-time low and do reflect an emptying out of the Party with activists leaving in the past 11 years. (Although the vast majority of Labour Party members remain workers and it remains the case that more workers are active in the Labour Party than in any other political organisation.) But again, in 1997 membership was at an all-time high, so did workers look to Labour in 1997 (if you want to use membership figures as a test) and therefore why weren't the CWI in the Labour Party in 1997?

Don't get me wrong, I agree with Lenin's characterisation of The Labour Party quoted above. I also agree with his advice to Communists to join the Labour Party. The reason why is essentially the same as that given by Lenin - when the mass of British workers move into struggle, and as Marxists we know they will, they will initially move through their traditional organisations which in Britain is the Labour Party and the trade unions. We need to be ready for that.

[redarmyfaction38]

Numbers of votes, and Party membership figures, are an important indication of the mood of workers. But in and of themselves they cannot prove either, for example, that British workers look to the Labour Party or that they no longer do so. Only an analysis of the mood of the working class, and the underlying causes, can do that.

The total numbers of votes for Labour has risen and fallen over the past 100 years, usually falling following the election of a Labour Government because, I would argue, of disillusion in that Government. For instance, in 1997 the number of votes for Labour was one of the highest on record - does that mean by your criteria that you agree with me that in 1997 British workers did look to Labour?

At the last British General Election, Labour lost over 4 million votes compared to 1997. If workers were looking elsewhere for a political voice then why didn't at least some of those votes go to one of the projects to build a working class party outside the Labour Party? While the loss of electoral support is a sign of the deep disillusionment in the current Government, it's not resulting in workers looking elsewhere. Electoral statistics are useful but are necessarily snapshots.

I think you have a stronger case with Labour Party membership figures. They are at an all-time low and do reflect an emptying out of the Party with activists leaving in the past 11 years. (Although the vast majority of Labour Party members remain workers and it remains the case that more workers are active in the Labour Party than in any other political organisation.) But again, in 1997 membership was at an all-time high, so did workers look to Labour in 1997 (if you want to use membership figures as a test) and therefore why weren't the CWI in the Labour Party in 1997?

Don't get me wrong, I agree with Lenin's characterisation of The Labour Party quoted above. I also agree with his advice to Communists to join the Labour Party. The reason why is essentially the same as that given by Lenin - when the mass of British workers move into struggle, and as Marxists we know they will, they will initially move through their traditional organisations which in Britain is the Labour Party and the trade unions. We need to be ready for that.
you need to add in the ever increasing numbers of workers that don't even bother to vote.
british "party politics" is reflecting the experience of the capitalist "party politics" of the usa, where thereis no clear difference between the policies of the "political parties", workers vote with their feet, so to spoeak and don't bother.
in britain, this has allowed fascist parties like the bnp to gain an audience by presenting themselves as an "alternative".
what is needed, imo, is a credible working class based alternative.
unfortunately, the "left" in britain, is more concerned with "dialectical" differences than working toward such a goal and will inevitably find itself in the same situation as the radical left in the usa.