Workers Party gets registered as a political party

[RHIZOMES]

http://workersparty.org.nz/2008/10/03/workers-party-registered-today/



The Workers Party today became a registered political party. This means that in the upcoming 2008 general election for the first time a hard-left party will be able to contest the party list vote and be on the ballot paper in every part of the country!
With just a month to go to election day we don’t need to worry about peaking too early : )
Workers should be running the country!

Only took us 6 years! :lol:

[Die Neue Zeit]

Congrats! :cool:

[I would suggest expanding the program to include more radical demands, though.]

[Wakizashi the Bolshevik]

Congratulations Comrade!

[Herman]

[I would suggest expanding the program to include more radical demands, though.]

I agree.

[Saorsa]

The 5 Point Platform isn't intended to be an in-depth revolutionary programme. We have one of those, and it's in the process of being edited before we put it out in full.

But even the 5 Point Platform raises a hell of a lot of radical demands, and these are demands that challenge capitalism.

1. Opposition to all New Zealand and Western imperialist intervention in the Third World and all Western imperialist alliances.
2. Secure jobs for all with a living wage and a shorter working week.
3. For the unrestricted right of workers to organise and take industrial action and no limits on workers’ freedom of speech and activity.
4. For working class unity and solidarity - equality for women, Maori and other ethnic minorities and people of all sexual orientations and identities; open borders and full rights for migrant workers.
5. For a working peoples’ republic.

That's hardly a reformist platform, and I doubt there's anything in there that comrades on Revleft would disagree with. I can't even think of much that can be added, espescially seeing as how this is a basic set of demands we raise, not a programme that outlines how we intend to achieve them.

[Herman]

It doesn't actually challenge capitalism. It mentions a "working people's republic", but that could mean anything if it isn't explained.

Your party should add a sixth point explicitly stating that the party is for working class control of the workplace and industry.

[Saorsa]

It doesn't actually challenge capitalism.

You could not implement a program like this without challenging capitalism.


It mentions a "working people's republic", but that could mean anything if it isn't explained.

Which is why if someone asks us what it means, we explain it to them. This is a lot better than turning a bulelt point into a paragraph.


Your party should add a sixth point explicitly stating that the party is for working class control of the workplace and industry.

I wouldn't oppose a move to do that, but I don't see it as necessary. All of the points in our platform heighten worker's class consciousness and threaten capitalism, and the term "working people's republic" obviously a republic controlled by and run in the interests of working people.

[OI OI OI]

Well congrats people.

Now get your 0.01% in the elections and waste your time living in a leftist ghetto.


btw 666 Posts:hammersickle:

[Bilan]

The 5 Point Platform isn't intended to be an in-depth revolutionary programme. We have one of those, and it's in the process of being edited before we put it out in full.

But even the 5 Point Platform raises a hell of a lot of radical demands, and these are demands that challenge capitalism.

1. Opposition to all New Zealand and Western imperialist intervention in the Third World and all Western imperialist alliances.
2. Secure jobs for all with a living wage and a shorter working week.
3. For the unrestricted right of workers to organise and take industrial action and no limits on workers’ freedom of speech and activity.
4. For working class unity and solidarity - equality for women, Maori and other ethnic minorities and people of all sexual orientations and identities; open borders and full rights for migrant workers.
5. For a working peoples’ republic.

That's hardly a reformist platform, and I doubt there's anything in there that comrades on Revleft would disagree with. I can't even think of much that can be added, espescially seeing as how this is a basic set of demands we raise, not a programme that outlines how we intend to achieve them.

It is reformist.

The second demand, a "living wage and a shorter working week" are not 'revolutionary'. It still demands a wage. Revolutionary would be the abolishment of the wage system entirely, and production to be reorganized from below, and be molded to the needs of the people.
It doesn't contain that.

Not to say its necessarily "bad", but its just not "revolutionary".

[apathy maybe]

Well congrats people.

Now get your 0.01% in the elections and waste your time living in a leftist ghetto.
Yeah, I think it's a waste of time too. But not as much as telling people to vote Labour...

I'm not an arsehole about it either, you should try not being an arsehole sometime.


It is reformist.

The second demand, a "living wage and a shorter working week" are not 'revolutionary'. It still demands a wage. Revolutionary would be the abolishment of the wage system entirely, and production to be reorganized from below, and be molded to the needs of the people.
It doesn't contain that.

Not to say its necessarily "bad", but its just not "revolutionary".
But, it is a "Marxist" party ;).

One of the original demands of radicals in Europe was a progressive tax rate, it came about too.. ('Course, we are still stuck with capitalism.)

[OI OI OI]

It is reformist.

The second demand, a "living wage and a shorter working week" are not 'revolutionary'. It still demands a wage. Revolutionary would be the abolishment of the wage system entirely, and production to be reorganized from below, and be molded to the needs of the people.
It doesn't contain that.

That is not reformist according to communists.

It is a transitional demand.

If you want to bring people closer to your ideology you need to talk about transitional demands and not shout revolution , revolution all the time as that makes you ridiculus.

Also we communists don't seek to abolish wages right after the revolution.

That is idealist bullshit.
Wages would be abolished only in a post-scarcity society when there is a material basis for it.

In a society of scarcity you cannot expect abolishion of wages to happen.


Yeah, I think it's a waste of time too. But not as much as telling people to vote Labour...

I'm not an arsehole about it either, you should try not being an arsehole sometime.

We don't tell people to vote labour.

People already vote for labour.

We call for labour to return to its socialist program and in that way we expose the bureaucratic pro-capitalist leadership.

But for some people this concept is too difficult to understand I guess.

[chegitz guevara]

I, for one, welcome our new Kiwi commie overlords.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Some armchair revolutionaries will try to dispute your socialism, but I think the platform is just fine for now.

[Die Neue Zeit]

That is not reformist according to communists.

It is a transitional demand.

If you want to bring people closer to your ideology you need to talk about transitional demands and not shout revolution , revolution all the time as that makes you ridiculus.

I'm not sure:

"Secure jobs for all" MAY sound transitional, but "a living wage and a shorter working week" does not.

[Colonello Buendia]

That is not reformist according to communists.

It is a transitional demand.

If you want to bring people closer to your ideology you need to talk about transitional demands and not shout revolution , revolution all the time as that makes you ridiculus.

Also we communists don't seek to abolish wages right after the revolution.

That is idealist bullshit.
Wages would be abolished only in a post-scarcity society when there is a material basis for it.

In a society of scarcity you cannot expect abolishion of wages to happen.



We don't tell people to vote labour.

People already vote for labour.

We call for labour to return to its socialist program and in that way we expose the bureaucratic pro-capitalist leadership.

But for some people this concept is too difficult to understand I guess.
we as anarchists seek to have our transitional stage pre-revolution

[OI OI OI]

I'm not sure:

"Secure jobs for all" MAY sound transitional, but "a living wage and a shorter working week" does not.It is a transitional demand .

Although it would be better if they said" For a shorter working week without loss of pay(or wage reduction)".

In general combating the length of the working week must be a transitional demand as the 40 hour working week and 65 hour working week in some cases are awful.

Of course we add the no loss of pay .

Remember that the working week and its length has proven to be a very good transitional demand.



we as anarchists seek to have our transitional stage pre-revolution

what the hell?

[Zurdito]

ThatWe don't tell people to vote labour.

People already vote for labour.

We call for labour to return to its socialist program and in that way we expose the bureaucratic pro-capitalist leadership.

But for some people this concept is too difficult to understand I guess.

You're a liar. You do tell people to vote for Labour. Whether or not they "already vote for Labour" isn't the point. You support Labour. We all know it. You tell dissafilliated unions who do not already support Labour to affiliate back to Labour. You tell workers who have been attacked by Labour and who hate the Party to vote for Labour and to work within it.

Saying "vote Labour" means supporting Labour. Is this concept "too difficult to understand"?

And even when talking to workers who already support Labour (minority of the working class these days), so what? You are still reinforcing the lie, and that is not something with any precedent in Marxism.

Also another peice of advice: if you're not as clever or knowledgeable as Lenin, don't try to be as harsh as him. ;)


The 5 Point Platform isn't intended to be an in-depth revolutionary programme. We have one of those, and it's in the process of being edited before we put it out in full.

But even the 5 Point Platform raises a hell of a lot of radical demands, and these are demands that challenge capitalism.

1. Opposition to all New Zealand and Western imperialist intervention in the Third World and all Western imperialist alliances.
2. Secure jobs for all with a living wage and a shorter working week.
3. For the unrestricted right of workers to organise and take industrial action and no limits on workers’ freedom of speech and activity.
4. For working class unity and solidarity - equality for women, Maori and other ethnic minorities and people of all sexual orientations and identities; open borders and full rights for migrant workers.
5. For a working peoples’ republic.

That's hardly a reformist platform, and I doubt there's anything in there that comrades on Revleft would disagree with. I can't even think of much that can be added, espescially seeing as how this is a basic set of demands we raise, not a programme that outlines how we intend to achieve them.

these do not challenge capitalism at all. You do not even call for the expropriation of private property by the state, let alone under workers control!

Using Trotsky's transitional prograame I would say

1.) Why no call for their defeat and victory to the resistances.
2.)Should call for a sliding scale of wages to match inflation, or else full employment will be compensated for by devluation of wages. Also, here you could include expropriation without compensation, and under workers control, of any employer laying off workers. Considering we are going into a global recession, I think you missed a chance to relate the demands of a current crisis to measures which logically link these demands to challenging private property itself. As it stands, this is pure reformism.
3.) Why not workers control in the workplace?
4.) Good, but after full rights for women, why no specify "including full abortion rights".
5.) I don't know what that means. Either you are putting the demand for a workers state created by an armed revolution as one of your 5 points, or you are not. What exactly is this half-way house, a "working people's Republic", and how is it going to be acheived? By winning the election?:confused:

5.) Looks like weasel words to me, sadly, I doubt workers will trust such a formulation.

[Yehuda Stern]

I would like to say also that using the transitional program in a situation where there isn't a militant movement of the workers against capitalism is tantamount to left reformism. The transitional demands become merely more radical-sounding reformist demands when they are not explicitly meant to bridge between the consciousness of backwards workers and that of the vanguard.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ I don't know why I agree with you there. Perhaps you should comment in my Theory forum thread on programmatic issues.


Also another peice of advice: if you're not as clever or knowledgeable as Lenin, don't try to be as harsh as him. ;)

LOL! :lol:


2.)Should call for a sliding scale of wages to match inflation, or else full employment will be compensated for by devaluation of wages.

That isn't a really revolutionary demand, though (note Comrade Rakunin's comment):

http://www.revleft.com/vb/sliding-scale-wages-t87470/index.html

They're called "cost of living adjustments," and they are widespread amongst North American jobs paying well above the minimum wage (such as mine).


Also, here you could include expropriation without compensation, and under workers control, of any employer laying off workers.

That's a dead end, unfortunately. What is needed first is the proliferation of worker buyouts with state aid.

[peaccenicked]

Did not Lenin get it right when he said, a real step forward in the movement is worth more than a dozen programmes? More publicity is a real step.
A transitional programme needs reforms capitalism cannot implement, and a wage rise under present conditions might just make it such a demand:rolleyes:

[Zurdito]

Did not Lenin get it right when he said, a real step forward in the movement is worth more than a dozen programmes?

This is true of course. But Lenin devoted his life to the creation of a revolutionary proletarian party, so what he meant by this and what someone else might interpret him as meaning, are two different things.


A transitional programme needs reforms capitalism cannot implement, and a wage rise under present conditions might just make it such a demand:rolleyes:

capialism could implement those demands in the programme. Some capitalists may need to go to the wall or be expropriated. But, captialism would remain as a system.

[Zurdito]

Yehuda Stern: why is it incorrect to fight for the Transitional Programme amongst vanguard sectors and workers in struggle?

[Yehuda Stern]

Quote:
A transitional programme needs reforms capitalism cannot implement, and a wage rise under present conditions might just make it such a demandhttp://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies/001_rolleyes.gif
capialism could implement those demands in the programme. Some capitalists may need to go to the wall or be expropriated. But, captialism would remain as a system.

Tsk tsk tsk. Inaccurate! The transitional programme is exactly based on demands that are unrealizable under capitalism, but don't go over the consciousness of the militant workers. That answers your question to me. In the end, the transitional programme is meant to convince militant workers that radical demands could only be implemented through a socialist revolution, that is, that the attempt to implement them under capitalism is futile. If workers are not currently militant of radical, the transitional programme appeals to no one - it in fact serves to moderate the demands of the revolutionaries and fit them to a backwards consciousness of the workers.

[ashaman1324]

Your party should add a sixth point explicitly stating that the party is for working class control of the workplace and industry.
congratulations to our new zealand comrades, and i agree there should be a sixth point, to better outline your partys goals and probably attract more members.
i agree this is reformist, but its a step forward at least, im noticing a slight lack of radical socialists in america and im assuming you have a similar problem in new zealand.
and yehuda, how do you plan to better associate new zealand workers with socialism?

[RHIZOMES]

I wouldn't consider us reformists, although I may be a bit biased! :lol: We all admit that capitalism cannot be overthrown through parliamentarianism. What our electoralism does is challenge the bourgeois political parties, especially the ones that portray themselves as "pro-worker", like the Labour party. The Labour party has actually made it more difficult for immigrants to get into the country and has continued the anti-union, anti-worker laws under National. Our electoralism is especially good during election time, as it's a period of raised interest in politics. It raises the profile of not only our party but also revolutionary leftism in general. We get funding to have a 1 minute address on TV during prime-time and radio spots for a month, which we'll talk about how workers produce all the goods in society and how they get jack shit, and tie this with anti-capitalism. And it's definitely not the only work we do (That'd be bad), we are also active in union struggles, protests, solidarity and demonstrations like the Ali Panah case and the "terror" raids. Now onto our "reformist" platform.


1. Opposition to all New Zealand and Western imperialist intervention in the Third World and all Western imperialist alliances.
2. Secure jobs for all with a living wage and a shorter working week.
3. For the unrestricted right of workers to organise and take industrial action and no limits on workers’ freedom of speech and activity.
4. For working class unity and solidarity - equality for women, Maori and other ethnic minorities and people of all sexual orientations and identities; open borders and full rights for migrant workers.
5. For a working peoples’ republic.


I think the real intention of our five-point platform is to widen the debate in New Zealand politics, to highlight the failures of capitalism and raise the consciousness of the workers. For example, with #1, people will then ask us during stalls, etc why we oppose ALL NZ imperialist intervention, and we'll then explain how this ties in with the capitalist order and how it hurts the working people of the third world. #2, people usually go "OMG THAT'LL DESTROY THE ECONOMY!" and that's a starting point to explain how capitalism cannot provide employment for all. And so on, so forth. It's not meant to be a manifesto and the end-all, be-all of the positions and issues we're gonna raise during the elections.

http://comradealastair.wordpress.com/2008/07/21/how-revolutionaries-choose-their-political-priorities/

[Yehuda Stern]

and yehuda, how do you plan to better associate new zealand workers with socialism?I'll have to be a bit abstract, because I know very little about the country. But in general, when there's no militant workers' movement, the role of revolutionaries is to propagate Marxism to the working class vanguard. That is, to find those individual workers who are already revolutionary-minded and convince them that only Marxism (Trotskyism) can show the way forward to the workers.

[Saorsa]

I'll have to be a bit abstract, because I know very little about the country. But in general, when there's no militant workers' movement, the role of revolutionaries is to propagate Marxism to the working class vanguard. That is, to find those individual workers who are already revolutionary-minded and convince them that only Marxism (Trotskyism) can show the way forward to the workers.

There are precious few workers here who are already revolutionary minded. There's militant workers, but not many revolutionary ones. Those are the people we try to propogate Marxism to.

[Bilan]

That is not reformist according to communists.

It is a transitional demand.

Interestingly, you're confusing reform with transition. Transitional demands are not reforms unless you believe socialism can be achieved from the top down.



If you want to bring people closer to your ideology you need to talk about transitional demands and not shout revolution , revolution all the time as that makes you ridiculus.

Who's saying we, or WPNZ, should shout "revolution, revolution" all the time? I don't see what shouting that would achieve...
Or do you mean that, because I don't believe in your cowardly approach, of hiding revolutionary demands?



Also we communists don't seek to abolish wages right after the revolution.


Not "we communists", you Leninists. I'm as much a communist as I am an anarchist, and I think you're talking rubbish.

Just tell me, right after you revolution, when wages are kept, what fundamental changes to society are you actually planning to achieve?
And dont "liquidate the bourgeoisie omg" me, I don't care for rhetoric. What structural changes do you, as a Leninist, actually plan to implement to destroy bourgeois society? Or are you of some persuasion that the current bourgeoisie, once eliminated, eliminates bourgeois structures?:lol:




That is idealist bullshit.
Wages would be abolished only in a post-scarcity society when there is a material basis for it.

In a society of scarcity you cannot expect abolishion of wages to happen.


Just for fun, why don't you substantiate that, rather than just stating it as "fact"?

[Yehuda Stern]

There are precious few workers here who are already revolutionary minded. There's militant workers, but not many revolutionary ones. Those are the people we try to propogate Marxism to.That is alright. The precious few are those Marxists* should be after, mainly. Of course, when you intervene in struggles, there's nothing wrong with using agitation as well - but when Marxist groups are small, propaganda is their main tool. Like one experienced party builder once wrote, "better fewer, but better."

*If what the WPNZ propagates is Marxism - why, that is a subject for a different thread.

OI OI OI, of course, confuses transitional demands with reforms, as pointed out by SACT. Living wages and shorter work weeks are demands entirely realizable under capitalism. But then, even when orto-'trots' use transitional demands, they use them in a way which is meant to hide the full revolutionary program, not near militant workers to it.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I'll have to be a bit abstract, because I know very little about the country. But in general, when there's no militant workers' movement, the role of revolutionaries is to propagate Marxism to the working class vanguard. That is, to find those individual workers who are already revolutionary-minded and convince them that only Marxism (Trotskyism) can show the way forward to the workers.

It seems you are self-conflicted on the question of merger vs. organic consciousness. You yourself acknowledge that, while social-revolutionary consciousness is developed within the class, it is developed OUTSIDE the class movement and has to be imported a la "bourgeois intelligentsia" (a.k.a. "theory nuts").

[Yehuda Stern]

No, see, when I speak of revolutionaries, I mean revolutionary workers. Your conflict is that subconsciously, you cannot comprehend of a thing such as a revolutionary worker, so when I write "revolutionary" you read that as "bourgeois intellectual."

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ WTF? Did I not say that social-revolutionary consciousness is developed within the class?

[RHIZOMES]

Just some stuff to back up my argument: Workers Party press release!

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0810/S00072.htm

Anti-capitalists to contest party list vote

Monday, 6 October 2008, 9:46 am
Press Release: Workers Party of New Zealand - Workers Party Media Release, 6.10.08
Anti-capitalist group the Workers Party will be contesting the party list vote for the first time in the upcoming general election, after having its application to register with the Electoral Commission approved last Friday.
"Unlike all the other parties standing in these elections we aren't basing our policies on what is realistic or affordable under the
current economic system," says Workers Party national organiser Tim Bowron. "We believe that since workers create all the wealth in
society they - and not corporate CEOs or capitalist politicians - should be running the country."

The Workers Party is running on a platform that includes the the repeal of all laws which restrict workers' freedom of speech and
political activity (including the anti-strike provisions of Labour's Employment Relations Act as well as the Electoral Finance Act), a
shorter working week without loss of pay and the nationalisation (under workers' control) of all businesses in which job losses are threatened.
The party contested both the 2002 and 2005 elections as the Anti-Capitalist Alliance, but only stood candidates in individual electorate seats.
"2008 marks the first time in New Zealand history that an openly anti-capitalist, revolutionary political party will be on the ballot
paper in every part of the country," says Mr Bowron. "We have no illusions that the sorts of pro-worker policies that we are
campaigning for can be won through parliamentary reform, but if any of our candidates are elected they will use their positions to support
the movement out in the streets and on the picket line."
"All of our candidates if elected are pledged to accept only the average workers' wage (around $15 an hour) and donate the rest to a fighting fund that supports workers in struggle."
The Workers Party has already announced it is standing candidates in the Manukau East, Wellington Central, Christchurch Central and
Christchurch East electorates. It will release its party list in the next few days.
ENDS

[PRC-UTE]

it's good to see this kind of activity. best of luck to you comrades.

[Bilan]

Your platform sucks :P
But good luck!

[RHIZOMES]

Your platform sucks :P
But good luck!'

Yes let's call for the abolishment of wages, which noone without a Marxist education will understand. :rolleyes: And so the tradition of tiny left-wing sects continues...

[Bilan]

I'm in !

[Yehuda Stern]

Why wish good luck to party whose platform sucks?

[Saorsa]

Your platform sucks :P

You suck!

[Bilan]

Because the few WPNZ lads on here are goodens.

[Saorsa]

Why wish good luck to party whose platform sucks?

And so do you!

[Saorsa]

Because the few WPNZ lads on here are goodens.

Appreciate it, but I stand by my earlier statements. ;)

[Yehuda Stern]

And so do you!

Yep, them WPNZ boys sure do a lot to raise the level of discussion on these boards.

[Herman]

I wish luck to your party. I can understand the reasons why they'd use this platform, although I may disagree with it.

[Bilan]

Appreciate it, but I stand by my earlier statements. ;)

So do I ;)