SP/SWP merger

  1. Angry Young Man
    Angry Young Man
    What are the opinions on this. I keep getting (from both sides) 'we have some very important differences.' So aside from them both being Trotskyist parties - quite a significant similarity IMO - they are unable to merge or join up due to the degenerated-workers'-state/state-capitalist disagreement. If someone can deliver an eloquent and irrefutable argument for this making the two irreconcilable, then I'll shut up on the matter.
  2. Q
    Q
    Historical differences are indeed... historical (although I'd argue still valid in the case of at least Cuba). Then we see that the SWP focuses not on the working class, but on communalist politics. Students, muslims, etc. RESPECT was a good example of why communalism is a bad outlook as pro-capitalist muslims joined the alliance and weren't opposed by the SWP. Another example of why communalism is a bad approach is their support towards Hamas and Hezbollah, very reactionary anti-worker organisations.

    Another difference with the SWP is that they left the transitional approach completely. So they don't think it is needed to link the day to day struggle with the need for a different, socialist, society. This leads them from sectarianism to opportunism, however the wind blows.

    Last but not least it's interesting to highlight their very centralist and cultish organisational layout. In my experience with Dutch SWP members, most have no idea what they're standing for simply because they're not educated, discussions happen very seldomly.
  3. Tower of Bebel
    Tower of Bebel
    What communists need to agree on is principles (internationalism f.e.), not this or that theory (the transitional method f.e.). In theory all those historical differences are obsolete. When Luxemburg opposed the merger of the SDKPiL and the RSDLP over the national question as written by Lenin her attitude was that of a sectarian. Not because she opposed the Bolshevik theoretical view of national self-determination, but because she didn't want to merge with another party internationalist in principle.
    But principles are principles. They're just words on paper. The practical difficulties consist of getting rid of bureaucratic, undemocratic forms centralisation. Luxemburg could get along with Karl Kautsky, even though he was the leading theoretician on the subject of national self-determination and she was sometimes a sectarian. You know why? It was because she could openly express her views in his paper. This a reflection of (genuine?) democratic centralism. But most parties today don't have those open and frank discussions. This is a reflection of centralism bureaucratic in character.

    The SWP and the SP will never get along as long as they (a) forget about their principles and especially (b) when they don't fight for a genuine democratic party on the left.
  4. Die Neue Zeit
    Die Neue Zeit
    Could the SP merge with the "official Communist" CPB? [And yeah, well put by Comrade Rakunin on Luxemburg's views in Kautsky's paper.]
  5. Crux
    Crux
    Why? An actual merger of two organisations (as opposed to say a "Unite Front"-type alliance) requires quite a significant agreement on both tactics and theory. Now I am not familiar with CPB, but, jacob, since you brought it up, why do you think such a merger would be possible?
  6. Tower of Bebel
    Tower of Bebel
    The problem is that the united front doesn't work like it used to do . The workers are "politically homeless" as we used to say. We need to build political alternatives and the merger of smaller organizations can (but doesn't need to) be a solution under definite circumstances. A merger can bring some quarrel, but so do bureaucratic moves from rightwingers.
  7. Crux
    Crux
    True, but when it comes to merging political organisations it must always be done on a principled basis, if not it runs the risk of actually making our tasks harder and diminishing our capabilities to act.
  8. Q
    Q
    True, but when it comes to merging political organisations it must always be done on a principled basis, if not it runs the risk of actually making our tasks harder and diminishing our capabilities to act.
    Why yes, but what are our principles exactly? I haven't read an actual definition as of yet, so I'll propose to define this as "a central idea to being a communist". Thusly, without a principle, you can't be considered a communist. I furthermore propose these principles, just for the sake of discussion:

    1. A working class orientation: self-explainatory really, the working class is the only consistently revolutionary class that can change society.
    2. Struggle: change can only be done by class struggle.
    3. Solidarity: basic solidarity among all of the working class in the direct class struggle and unity in political organisation.
    4. Internationalism: the logical extension of solidarity on an international scale, but also the realisation that the struggle against capitalism has to be international.
    5. Socialism: our intermediate goal.
    6. Revolution: the means to this goal.
    7. Workers' democracy: without workers' control and management over society, socialism is doomed from the start.

    If we then take these principles and look towards the SWP, they comply on all points besides the very first as they don't have a class orientation but a communalist outlook (which leads them to weird constructions such as RESPECT in which bourgeois muslims were also a member and their support of reactionary organisations such as Hamas and Hezbollah). Also, they don't comply consistently to principle 3 as was recently shown in the Lindsey strike and because their united front politics are always highly centralised in their favor.

    So I agree, based on these proposed principles a merger with the SWP is not possible.
  9. BOZG
    BOZG
    http://www.socialistalternative.org/...ure/leftunity/

    That was an article written a number of years ago in response to the SWP in Ireland. It's somewhat outdated but still contains important points on the differences in our organisations.
  10. AlMack
    AlMack
    The differences Q listed in his/her first post manifest themselves in practise as much as in theory unfortunately
    SP is behind the CNWP which the SWP is yet to support. Im afraid I doubt they will as they prefer to monopolise everything they touch
    A lot of SP would rather have a pint with an anarchist than a SWP member, not out of petty sectarianism but because of the SWP stereotype of guilty white middle class studenty sorts rings true all too often
  11. Sproule
    Sproule
    I agree with Almack but i assure you i am happy to drink with both anarchist and swp member as long as they are buying
  12. Q
    Q
    I agree with Almack but i assure you i am happy to drink with both anarchist and swp member as long as they are buying
    You parasite you
  13. electro_fan
    electro_fan
    I think thats one of the worst ideas Ive ever heard
  14. Cork Socialist
    Cork Socialist
    In Ireland for the recent election the SWP and the Socialist Party have joined together to form the ULA-United Left Alternative and made a historic breakthrough winning 5 seats in the Dáil. So the possiblity of SWP/SP co-operation is possible and has worked.
  15. Cork Socialist
    Cork Socialist
    Well technically they are not a member but People before profit one of there front organisations is a part of the group.
  16. Q
    Q
    It's funny how much I've changed my positions since my initial posts here and how little Rakunin has. Today I'd formulate it along the lines of him. Also, the "principled base" has to be quite a bit smaller in my contemporary opinion (working class independence, radical democracy, internationalism) while there alongside these should also be a programmatical unity. The latter should be based on acceptance of a common document describing our objective tasks from getting where we are today, towards working class rule and towards communism after that. Open debates in party press then set out the party (and potentially workers movement) opinion on the subject of theory, programmatic details, strategy and tactics.

    In Ireland for the recent election the SWP and the Socialist Party have joined together to form the ULA-United Left Alternative and made a historic breakthrough winning 5 seats in the Dáil. So the possiblity of SWP/SP co-operation is possible and has worked.
    How much more is the ULA currently from being an electoral list? I know some groundwork has been done in becoming a real party, but on what basis will this be? I'm very interested.
  17. Olentzero
    Olentzero
    I don't know as I'd call the ULA a merger between the SP and the SWP, however positive I see the development. It's not just those two; at least as recently as December it also involved the Workers and Unemployed Action Group as well. They certainly don't seem to see themselves as simply an electoral list, either. Joe Higgins had this to say at the founding of the ULA:
    The presence of a number of genuine left [representatives] in the Dail offering a visible political alternative will be a massive pole of attraction to workers, unemployed and young people and can become a real factor in the unfolding crisis.
    They really can't become a 'real party' without that. Narrowing the 'principled base' (and I don't seem to get a clear understanding of it from this discussion) would be a mistake in my opinion; the ULA needs to throw its doors open to anyone hoping for radical change. That's the only thing that will get them from being little more than an electoral list right now.

    That's not to say I'm not absolutely thrilled that 5 radical leftists are in the Dail now. Especially as they stem from the two traditions I'm steeped in.
  18. Q
    Q
    Narrowing the 'principled base' (and I don't seem to get a clear understanding of it from this discussion) would be a mistake in my opinion; the ULA needs to throw its doors open to anyone hoping for radical change. That's the only thing that will get them from being little more than an electoral list right now.
    Why yes, I agree. What I meant with "narrowing" is that I think there is only a minimal base of agreement needed that any worker would have no real trouble with, least of all any activists. Besides this there are also needs to be an acceptance (not agreement) on a programme. Acceptance, because a programme ought to be open for debate and tests against living experiences. On this basis, I believe, we could build a principled mass (think hundreds of thousands or millions, depending on the country) Marxist movement or at least a movement in which Marxism can play an important role.

    But yes, the ULA should very much open the doors for anyone thinking about and effecting radical change.
  19. Cork Socialist
    Cork Socialist
    I think the ULA has laid the foundations to build on this election, With the possibility of more TDs next time around ( Mick Barry in cork for example). But the group has become more than a Electoral List, I have not been very active the last few months but from my understanding the ULA is holding meetings in towns still after the election.
  20. redphilly
    redphilly
    Not a bad set of principles. I might add consistent anti-imperialism and opposition to all imperialist wars (humanitarian and otherwise)

    Yes, there /are/ political-ideological differences keeping various currents separated but building united front type formations for action around specific points of agreement is possible and necessary.

    Perhaps through such joint activity the other "historical" questions could be discussed and clarified?

    Why yes, but what are our principles exactly? I haven't read an actual definition as of yet, so I'll propose to define this as "a central idea to being a communist". Thusly, without a principle, you can't be considered a communist. I furthermore propose these principles, just for the sake of discussion:

    1. A working class orientation: self-explainatory really, the working class is the only consistently revolutionary class that can change society.
    2. Struggle: change can only be done by class struggle.
    3. Solidarity: basic solidarity among all of the working class in the direct class struggle and unity in political organisation.
    4. Internationalism: the logical extension of solidarity on an international scale, but also the realisation that the struggle against capitalism has to be international.
    5. Socialism: our intermediate goal.
    6. Revolution: the means to this goal.
    7. Workers' democracy: without workers' control and management over society, socialism is doomed from the start.

    If we then take these principles and look towards the SWP, they comply on all points besides the very first as they don't have a class orientation but a communalist outlook (which leads them to weird constructions such as RESPECT in which bourgeois muslims were also a member and their support of reactionary organisations such as Hamas and Hezbollah). Also, they don't comply consistently to principle 3 as was recently shown in the Lindsey strike and because their united front politics are always highly centralised in their favor.

    So I agree, based on these proposed principles a merger with the SWP is not possible.
  21. Olentzero
    Olentzero
    Why yes, I agree. What I meant with "narrowing" is that I think there is only a minimal base of agreement needed that any worker would have no real trouble with, least of all any activists. Besides this there are also needs to be an acceptance (not agreement) on a programme. Acceptance, because a programme ought to be open for debate and tests against living experiences.
    Now that I understand what you're saying here, I'm pretty much in agreement. The ULA is a hell of a development, especially considering the simmering undercurrent of resistance that's running through southern Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East.
  22. Kollontaist
    Kollontaist
    Could the SP merge with the "official Communist" CPB? [And yeah, well put by Comrade Rakunin on Luxemburg's views in Kautsky's paper.]
    Honestly; i'd much sooner see us merge with the CPB than the SWP.
  23. Q
    Q
    Honestly; i'd much sooner see us merge with the CPB than the SWP.
    Really? Why is that?