Britain's most recent campaigns

What do you guys think of the most recent campaigns in Great Britain around the question of a new mass workers' party? I think there are tree such campaigns:

1. Respect (with the SWP)
2. Campaign for a New Workers' Party (with the SPEW)
3. Campaign for a Marxist Party (with the CPGB)

Some of them reflect comparable situations in other countries. For instance we have a new left party in Germany (Die linke; comparable with point 2) and finally a possible breakthrough France (campaign for a "anti-capitalist party"; compare with point 2 and 3).

What are your ideas on these campaigns?

1) Without wanting to be accused of sectarianism, comrade, I'll say that other groups have been concerned about what they perceive to be the SWP's heavy-handedness in the RESPECT debacle (it has to do, once more, with their perception of "democratic centralism").



2) Please enlighten me on the CWI party proposal.



3) I've read quite a bit of CPGB stuff with regards to the CMP, and their lead theoreticians, as well as the Revolutionary Democratic Group comrades (see my thread on "economism") still have a problem with the British party concept:

http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/647/craig.htm
http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/629/macnair.htm

As for the LCR in France:

http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/732/newparty.html



[Of the three proposals, I'm naturally inclined to go with #3. ]

2) Please enlighten me on the CWI party proposal.

Well, the SPEW is struggling for a new mass workers' party with the idea that today no independant workers party exists. Organisations willing to join this party should be able to do so without any restrictions (which means they should be able to keep their own identity). It will propably have a "reformist" character, as "reformist" ideas have a majority amongst today's workers.
Starting from the current situation a new workers' party would be an important step forward since today's working class is very much devided and demoralized on the question of politics. It would also be an important alternative to growing fascism.

http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/campaign/CNWP/2094

And from the SP's manifesto:

The Campaign for a New Workers' Party (CNWP) was launched in 2006.
It brings together socialists, community and trade union activists who believe that New Labour today – whether led by Blair or Brown – is an out-and-out party of the billionaires, and want to see the formation of a new mass party of a totally different kind – a party that fights for working-class people – not for the fat cats.
So far more than 45 trade union National Executive Committee members and 2,500 activists have signed up to support the campaign.
The CNWP is holding its second national conference on Saturday 12 May.
The conference will bring socialists and anti-cuts and anti-privatisation campaigners together with trade union activists to discuss the way forward after the local elections.
www.cnwp.org.uk

Hmmm...

It will probably have a "reformist" character, as "reformist" ideas have a majority amongst today's workers.

Comrade, I've been thinking more about labels today, and I have thought about one key deficiency in the "Social Labour" label: that there is no reference whatsoever to worker class struggle, or Arbeiterklassenkampf. "Workers' parties" don't refer to this concept, either, as is the case in Brazil.

[At least even plain "proletocracy" refers to this just by stating the goal of dem Arbeiterklassenkampf.]

A lot of electoral socialist parties today should adopt "class struggle" as part of the party name and program: Class-Struggle Socialist-such-and-such Party or Socialist Worker Class Struggle Party (best expressed in German with its combination of words ). Besides, having the label "class struggle" instead of "Marxist" will at least attract more level-headed anarchists (those who are militant about less-than-revolutionary demands even while talking about the bigger picture).



Now, on to the CWI's website:

If a significant step towards a new mass workers' party already existed it would undoubtedly make CWU disaffiliation more likely.

It would also quickly attract the support of militant postal workers, even if not initially the official support of the union.

However, in the absence of such a party, disaffiliation will inevitably contain a strong element of syndicalism.

Given the rotten nature of the three main capitalist parties and the absence of an alternative there is bound to be a certain 'anti-party' mood in society.

The existence of a large-scale serious, fighting, workers' party would begin to cut across this, particularly as it gained a reputation for fighting for workers' rights.

However, given the anti-party mood, amongst trade union militants the absence of such a party is inevitably reflected by a feeling that no political alternative is possible or necessary, that industrial militancy is sufficient.

Of course, it would be wrong to imagine that the establishment of a new party would automatically completely obliterate this trend, particularly if it has developed further.

However, at this stage syndicalism is an embryonic trend in the British working class born primarily out of anger at the lack of a political alternative.

This is eerily similar to the "tred iunionizm" (yellow-trade-union reductionism) of Lenin's day, only bolstered by more sour history.

This is eerily similar to the "tred iunionizm" (yellow-trade-union reductionism) of Lenin's day, only bolstered by more sour history.

I also noticed this when reading Lih's interpretation.

Since Die Linke has a similar history, yet has succeeded in becoming a respected left "oppositional" party, do you think it will also fail in its objective and lead to such "trade-unionism"?

^^^ I'm less optimistic about the British case. Ever since the early 20th century, something that was OK with the German yellow trade unions didn't replicate itself with the British equivalents. Perhaps the British yellow trade unions were/are more bureaucratic and less oppositional in nature? I mean, per my "Beyond the Labour Movement" section, why didn't UNITE "unite" with French, German, Italian, and other continental unions?

^^^ I'm less optimistic about the British case. Ever since the early 20th century, something that was OK with the German yellow trade unions didn't replicate itself with the British equivalents. Perhaps the British yellow trade unions were/are more bureaucratic and less oppositional in nature? I mean, per my "Beyond the Labour Movement" section, why didn't UNITE "unite" with French, German, Italian, and other continental unions?

If such tactics really lead to trade-unionism then it doesn't matter wether or not the party is "succesful" (having sufficient support). In both cases (party or no party) the workers only achieve some trade-unionist consciousness. To use the words of the ICC; such parties advocating "new mass workers' parties" really are capital's left wing.

Notwithstanding PM content, I would agree with you, but I'll extend it further with one word: such parties advocating "new mass workers' parties" really are bourgeois capital's left wing.

In the meanwhile, the "revolutionary" class-strugglist reformists pushing for "non-reformist" reforms - the kind of reformists we should be working with (as opposed to the minimalist yellow "reformists") - are still sidelined.

What about the influence of revolutionary currents within reformist mass workers' parties? In case of Die Linke the strong influence of both the imminent economic and political crises, and the revolutionaries (like the SAV and unlike the SWP in GB) made the reformist leadership (represented by Oskar Lafontaine) take an ideological centrist line (for example). Or is it of no importance whether their is a revolutionary alternative within such a reformist party? Is the case of SAV and Die Linke also "tred-iunionizm"?

I'm not sure Oskar Lafontaine is a centrist, in spite of his desire to include a direct mention of Marx or two in Die Linke's manifesto. Like you said in the Theory forum, the traditional interpretation of minimum demands today is more vulgar and defensive than the forgotten interpretation. Remember, this guy was a former chairman of the SPD.

If he were a proper centrist, he wouldn't resort to mentioning Marx (individualism), but rather class struggle.

A couple of days ago I actually read Die Linke's program, and I came out of it very unimpressed.

Maybe I'm the one who's confused here...

I now see at least three factors (the first two being closely linked, but not exactly the same) when determining who to work with:

1) Commitment to worker class struggle;
2) Commitment to "non-reformist" reforms (which doesn't address the agent of these reforms, be it the working class or some other "popular"/left-populist demographic); and
3) Commitment to some form of socialism that is NOT Keynesian.

* #2 is the least solid criteria, since I can work with ultra-maximalists ("nothing but the maximum") that set up their own factions, so long as they accept the "dynamic" programmatic approach as the official programmatic approach. *



P.S. - You may be interested in the program of the United States Labor Party:

http://www.thelaborparty.org/a_progra.html

I must say that it for some reason it's more appealing than the Die Linke program. It doesn't mention socialism at all, but it seems that the tone here is more class-combative (in spite of the fact that Die Linke mentions "class struggle" as a question at the end). Besides, it's a helluva lot shorter.

BTW, I don't like the CMP's Hillel Ticktin, a sectarian prick:

http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/734/whatis.html
http://www.sademocracy.org.uk/Defeat...0hijackers.htm