Trots: Why is ____ party a working class party, and what does that mean?

[genstrike]

I guess this question is directed mostly at the Trotskyists, because that is where I generally hear this line from the most.

And although I use the example of the NDP, it is just because that is what I am familiar with, and you could replace them with pretty much any mainstream Labour or Socialist Party in the country of your choice

Basically, I often hear the argument that the NDP is a working class party, and that somehow that means that we should support it or try some sort of entryism. I just want to know how "working class party" is defined, and how that differentiates them from any other party, particularly when a lot of the time they do the exact same shit as the other capitalist parties whenever they get in power.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Actually, that question should be directed at Grantites, specifically. Most Trotskyists thankfully regard "mainstream Left" parties as class-collaborationist:

IMT = Reformist

Grant and Woods split from Militant over this issue as they argued that we should remain in Labour as it was still the party of the working and that the masses would fall back to Labour eventually ... They subsequently formed Socialist Appeal in the UK and the IMT internationally and are working inside Labour (and similar parties internationally) to this day. They've in effect dogmatised the whole tactic of entryism.

As for this board, the Grantites have fled it to perpetuate their real-life class collaborationism and then shout "sectarian" and "ultra-left" when exposed for such activities. The frequency of those two words being used usually exposes Grantites.

[Invincible Summer]

I guess this question is directed mostly at the Trotskyists, because that is where I generally hear this line from the most.

And although I use the example of the NDP, it is just because that is what I am familiar with, and you could replace them with pretty much any mainstream Labour or Socialist Party in the country of your choice

Basically, I often hear the argument that the NDP is a working class party, and that somehow that means that we should support it or try some sort of entryism. I just want to know how "working class party" is defined, and how that differentiates them from any other party, particularly when a lot of the time they do the exact same shit as the other capitalist parties whenever they get in power.

As Jacob Richter said, Trots would say the NDP is a "deceiver of the working class" or "so-called socialists" or something with sensationalist language.

Just curious Genstrike, did you ask this question because you encountered members of FightBack? I know that they claim to be Trotskyists, but they really love the NDP.

[genstrike]

Just curious Genstrike, did you ask this question because you encountered members of FightBack? I know that they claim to be Trotskyists, but they really love the NDP.

I don't think I've ever encountered FightBack (or Socialist Caucus for that matter) folks that I am aware of (I don't even think there are any in this city), but I've heard this line from a variety of sources including some NSG folks, a couple people who claim to be trots but I don't know if they are affiliated with any org, some people on this forum, people on another forum, and a variety of places on the internets.

My first instinct is to say that that line is a load of crap, but I just want to know where people are coming from. Especially when they say "working class party", I want to know what the definitions are of a "working class party"

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Theirs is based on plain demographics, comrade: "organized labour." However, as I have noted in my work, you cannot have a proper "worker-class" party (note the subtle difference between this two-noun combination and both "working-class" and "workers") without a firm commitment to the politico-ideological independence of the working class, with the workers coming together consciously as a class (hence the two-noun combination above).

[Tower of Bebel]

Marx characterized proletarian or workers' parties as parties aiming at the formation of an independent working class. We can think of Lassalle's efforts in Southern Germany as an example of this. The proletarian parties of the Communist Maniesto are definately not the capialist parties with close connections to bureaucratic trade unions.

In what relation do the Communists stand to the proletarians as a whole? The Communists do not form a separate party opposed to the other working-class parties.
They have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole.
They do not set up any sectarian principles of their own, by which to shape and mould the proletarian movement.
The Communists are distinguished from the other working-class parties by this only: 1. In the national struggles of the proletarians of the different countries, they point out and bring to the front the common interests of the entire proletariat, independently of all nationality. 2. In the various stages of development which the struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie has to pass through, they always and everywhere represent the interests of the movement as a whole.

The immediate aim of the Communists is the same as that of all other proletarian parties: formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat.

But I don't think that the IMT sees Labour as a workers' party. I think they go back to Lenin's concept of a bourgeois workers' party.

[el_chavista]

Is it a dead end for commie parties? A Vanguard is not a workers-class party. So workers got to get their class-conscious by their own?

[Kassad]

Is it a dead end for commie parties? A Vanguard is not a workers-class party. So workers got to get their class-conscious by their own?

Yeah. Good luck with that.

[Pogue]

Is it a dead end for commie parties? A Vanguard is not a workers-class party. So workers got to get their class-conscious by their own?

They could do it by other means, such as revolutionary unions.

[Charles Xavier]

They could do it by other means, such as revolutionary unions.

There are no revolutionary unions in Canada or in the vast majority of the world. Don't speak out of your ass, you make a ridiculous amount of useless posts.

I guess this question is directed mostly at the Trotskyists, because that is where I generally hear this line from the most.

And although I use the example of the NDP, it is just because that is what I am familiar with, and you could replace them with pretty much any mainstream Labour or Socialist Party in the country of your choice

Basically, I often hear the argument that the NDP is a working class party, and that somehow that means that we should support it or try some sort of entryism. I just want to know how "working class party" is defined, and how that differentiates them from any other party, particularly when a lot of the time they do the exact same shit as the other capitalist parties whenever they get in power.

Entryism is a failed method it has constantly failed what ends up happening if the left is any major threat to the right-wing social democrats they just purge them from the Party the NDP have done this several times already in History most recently in the 1970s under Tommy Douglas. You pretend like the NDP has a strong activist base, but really there is very little grass roots organization going on with the NDP (and most other social democratic parties) it is primarily an electoral party. There is very little Extra-parliamentary struggle the NDP engage in and what they do engage in is 100% controlled by them else they will not participate as a policy. The working class are easy to find you don't need to misled your way and be dishonest to find them.

Communists should always and everywhere be open about their views, not pretend to be a social democrat when you aren't. That is just dishonest and you will learn from experience, you will not win the trust of the masses by being secretive and dishonest.

Communists must always be open and straight forward, they mustn't hide their views from anyone, even Marx says this in the communist manifesto.

[Yehuda Stern]

A reformist workers' party is generally a party with a bourgeois leadership which has an organic connection to the labor movement, for example, through some sort of union control of it. The British Labor Party is (was? I'm not really sure) the best example of it.

However, I must add that just because a party is a reformist workers' party, that doesn't immediately mean that entryism in it is necessary or desirable. Reformist parties are one of the enemies of the revolution - the revolutionary organization must destroy them eventually. Entryism is a tactic which is designed to assist in that at certain times when a centrist current develops in these parties - certainly not at all times.

[iraqnevercalledmenigger]

This is far from an easy question. When does a bourgeoisified workers party stop being one? Are the CPs of the world still workers' organizations? Can we judge this based on trade union membership/support alone? I know not the answers but I do agree with the tactical considerations put forward by Yehuda regarding entryism.

As for the IMT/Grantites (or Woodies as they should be called now) their criterion for entryism is not even the party in question being a workers' party. As their entryism with Mexico's PRD and Pakistan's PPP show, if the masses have illusions to the point of following that party in some kind of action the IMT will flock like birds.

[Die Neue Zeit]

They could do it by other means, such as revolutionary unions.

Sorry, but that "strategy" has failed even more miserably:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?...cussionid=1321

[Pogue]

Sorry, but that "strategy" has failed even more miserably:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?...cussionid=1321

Failed more miserably than the 'socialist' states?

It doesn't really count when you source your argument to, er, your own arguments. I think you have an inflated idea of self-importance and intelligence. Alot of your work is really not worth reading.

[Pogue]

There are no revolutionary unions in Canada or in the vast majority of the world. Don't speak out of your ass, you make a ridiculous amount of useless posts.




Entryism is a failed method it has constantly failed what ends up happening if the left is any major threat to the right-wing social democrats they just purge them from the Party the NDP have done this several times already in History most recently in the 1970s under Tommy Douglas. You pretend like the NDP has a strong activist base, but really there is very little grass roots organization going on with the NDP (and most other social democratic parties) it is primarily an electoral party. There is very little Extra-parliamentary struggle the NDP engage in and what they do engage in is 100% controlled by them else they will not participate as a policy. The working class are easy to find you don't need to misled your way and be dishonest to find them.

Communists should always and everywhere be open about their views, not pretend to be a social democrat when you aren't. That is just dishonest and you will learn from experience, you will not win the trust of the masses by being secretive and dishonest.

Communists must always be open and straight forward, they mustn't hide their views from anyone, even Marx says this in the communist manifesto.

Look at your reputation bar, then look at mine. I think we see who talks out of their arse and makes useless posts more often.

There are no revolutionary parties (beyond 1 man and his dog) in most countries of the world. The point is to build them.

Political parties are not the home of the working class, though.

[Pogue]

Sorry, but that "strategy" has failed even more miserably:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?...cussionid=1321

From briefly skimming over this latest edition to the pile of jarognised tripe you spew out in place of (as you admit yourself) any real activism I see you thoroughly misunderstand the anarcho-syndicalist or IWW position on revolutionary unionism and workers struggle.

We don't mystify the general strike, and we specifically make it clear that occupations and actually running the factories are (obviously) completely neccesary. Anarcho-Syndicalism is the most natural form of socialism.

[alhop10]

They could do it by other means, such as revolutionary unions

All the main Unions in the UK at least are far too dominated by bureaucracy and self-serving egos to ever become revolutionary forces in their own right. They are a useful tool for economic struggle but by themselves will never mount a collective challenge to the wider power structures that they have literally bought into and are ultimately controlled by.

[Bilan]

All the main Unions in the UK at least are far too dominated by bureaucracy and self-serving egos to ever become revolutionary forces in their own right. They are a useful tool for economic struggle but by themselves will never mount a collective challenge to the wider power structures that they have literally bought into and are ultimately controlled by.

He did say revolutionary unions.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Failed more miserably than the 'socialist' states?

It doesn't really count when you source your argument to, er, your own arguments. I think you have an inflated idea of self-importance and intelligence. Alot of your work is really not worth reading.

There are no revolutionary parties (beyond 1 man and his dog) in most countries of the world. The point is to build them.

Political parties are not the home of the working class, though.

From briefly skimming over this latest edition to the pile of jarognised tripe you spew out in place of (as you admit yourself) any real activism I see you thoroughly misunderstand the anarcho-syndicalist or IWW position on revolutionary unionism and workers struggle.

I suppose the two of us have radically different organizational perspectives. BTW, where I live is, at the present time, tailing even the US in terms of "real activism":

http://www.rabble.ca/babble/canadian...-canada-sigh-0

"A lot of my work not worth reading" ( ) deals with "the point of building revolutionary parties beyond one man and his dog." BTW, why are you repeating the IMT's line?

[Pogue]

I suppose the two of us have radically different organizational perspectives. BTW, where I live is, at the present time, tailing even the US in terms of "real activism":

http://www.rabble.ca/babble/canadian...-canada-sigh-0

Theres not a massive amount of activity anywhere, really. You have to make an effort though, like everyone else. You could at least do a few paper sales or the odd meeting here and there. How do you intend to make yourself useful to the workers movement (or whatever you personally call it) which you seem to be so interested in if you don't actually do anything to support it?