A reply to the Socialist Party on the SWP's open letter (from Workers Power!)

[Holden Caulfield]

Opportunism, sectarianism and the new workers' party


[FONT=Lucida Sans]A reply to the Socialist Party on the SWP's open letter 29 June 2009

[/FONT]http://www.workerspower.com/index.php?id=47%2C2046%2C0%2C0%2C1%2C0

Dear comrades,

Your reply to the SWP’s Open Letter fails to address the urgency of the situation facing the working class today.

We face an acute economic crisis and a historic crisis of leadership in the Labour movement. Labour’s meltdown does not only show the historic need for a new working class party but the need to begin building that party here and now.

We know you believe that the No2EU platform in the European elections were one step in this direction. But neither of your main partners in that project - neither Bob Crow of the RMT nor the Communist Party of Britain - want to create a new party before the next election. That need not be an absolute barrier. A positive reply from your organisation to the SWP’s letter could have electrified the left, drawing many thousands of workers and youth to a conference to discuss mounting a united challenge to Labour.

The SWP’s letter does not propose a new party, some might object. The SWP has not been democratic in the past, others will say. And? In your reply you could have said yes to their proposal, and have used that to press for an open democratic conference and the formation of a new workers’ party.

You chose to do otherwise. Some might take your rejection as a sign of renewed confidence in the prospects for your organisation. Most will see it for what it is – an act of outright sectarianism.

The SWP is the largest of the socialist groups in Britain. It has significant forces in the unions and is able to mobilise more activists in anti-war, anti-imperialist and anti-fascist campaigns than any other group. Their proposal for unity of the left was one any group serious about building a new party should seize with both hands.

Instead you deliver a list of what are frankly petty grievances. They did not post the letter to your national office. They sent it to prominent individual members of your party. So what?

Replying positively to the SWP’s letter would not have implied backing their policies or tactics. As you know we share some of your criticisms of the SWP (Respect), just as we reject others (especially on the first Lindsey strike). But unless the programme of a new party is going to be imposed in advance – as Crow did with No2EU and as the People’s Charter has been by a meeting of 20 reformist MPs, union leaders and lawyers – then the process of forming the party will be a debate around its programme, one in which differences like these would be discussed out openly.

In our view any party based on “famous” MPs and trade union leaders – a Galloway, a Sheridan or a Scargill – will be open to the sort of ultimatums, disruptions and splits that such celebrities inevitably bring unless the party has a mass base that can discipline them and hold them to account. Similarly if you are worried about the effect of the SWP leaders engaging again in sectarian manoeuvres as during the time of the Socialist Alliance, these could be dealt with by ensuring that a future party has a much larger membership than the SWP and the other socialist groups combined (as in the case of the New Anticapitalist Party in France) , and by ensuring these members have to protect them a democratic constitution combined with a centralised decision making process and that every member (however famous) is bound by its discipline.

No2 EU - not the way
You criticise the SWP for making no reference to No2EU in their Open Letter. You are right – this was misplaced diplomacy. We won’t make the same mistake, which is why we say openly: like Respect, NO2EU was a complete diversion from the road to a new workers’ party.

Just like Respect, No2EU was a break from principled class politics and presented an obstacle to building a new working class party rather than a step towards it. Its platform farcically blamed all the ills facing British workers on the EU and, amazingly at such a moment in history, had hardly a concrete demand addressed to workers’ needs in the biggest crisis for decades. Its opposition to the free movement of labour put it firmly against the needs of migrant workers, whether the SP agreed with that element of its programme or not. And in an indication of where some would like to take it, No2EU included, amongst the “others” you coyly mention in your letter, the tiny capitalist Liberal Party.

We guess that Bob Crow and his CPB allies foisted these features on you, together with the dreadful name. After all they have been the stock-in-trade of British Stalinists for decades – ever eager to wrap themselves in the union jack. But they were unprincipled for anyone calling themselves a Trotskyist. You say it was intended “to provide an alternative to both the three establishment capitalist parties, and to the far-right racist BNP.” In fact it plainly set out to provide a nationalist alternative to these forces on the wretched principle “if you can’t beat them, join them”.

A vote of one per cent for a fighting working class programme against the economic crisis and a real internationalist alternative to Labour, the Tories, UKIP and the BNP would, for all its modesty, have been worth celebrating and something to build on. One more per cent for British nationalism and Europohobia was quite the opposite – just a fifth wheel on the cart of backward-looking Little England.

An RMT supported list of candidates – including reinstated Linamar convenor Rob Williams, the convenors of Basildon and Enfield Visteon plants, and militants from the Lindsey construction workers – would have been a major step forward if its basis had been to defend the working class and force the bosses to pay for the crisis. But it did not. The presence of excellent class militants on its list couldn’t change its character, because the political platform they collectively stood on was not working class.

Your suggestion that you participated “despite differences between ourselves and other participants on some issues” is evasive. You had to put out your own socialist leaflets because the No2EU platform did not have a whiff of socialism in it. Your claim that it could not have been nationalist because it called for “international solidarity of working-class people” is a joke. Internationalism means more than that – it is an explicit rejection of nationalism and the building of solidarity in action between workers from different countries, not blaming foreign bosses for British capitalism’s ills and backing strikes like the first Lindsey strike, and like South Hook, that try to replace foreign workforces in Britain with “local” ones. And it is incompatible with opposition to migrant labour, which was exactly how some of its candidates interpreted its position against the free movement of labour.

The way forward
It would appear the SWP is still debating internally whether to simply form another electoral bloc or a party closer to the model of the New Anticapitalist Party in France. We believe, as you know, that what the working class needs is a party. We do not believe that socialist propaganda societies - whether of 50, 500, or 5000 - are serious parties, really able to contend for the leadership of the working class.

During general elections, when there is a struggle for political power, the broad mass of the people expect those waging this struggle to be parties, not rag-tag and bobtail alliances that they never saw until election time and will not see after it. A party is not just for elections but for the class struggle, every day and in every arena: in their trade unions and workplaces, in the local communities. Wherever the BNP is putting down its poisonous roots, a mass working class party can rip them up, by showing that the most consistent opposition to the rich elite is not divisive nationalism but working class socialism, and by showing that the socialists are serious about fighting for power.

The long and deep effects of this recession on employment, public services, youth attempting to enter employment and the working class as a whole makes this a task too important to be set back by sectarian horseplay, including from the Socialist Party. We urge you to change course, accept the SWP’s proposal for a conference, build it and attend it as a mass democratic convention, and push the key questions of the day onto the agenda. The convention could discuss:
• New party or electoral alliance?
• How can we break the hold of the Labour Party over key unions?
• What should be the basis for an immediate action programme to meet the crisis?

At the same time this conference could launch a nationwide discussion – not only in England and Wales as you say but in Scotland too - on what kind of programme the party should have and what sort of party it should be. This could draw in people from all the struggles and from all working class communities, including immigrants and youth. In this way thousands could be rallied to the process, including many who would be ready for a radical anticapitalist and internationalist programme and for revolutionary change.

Dazzled by momentary success
We know the SWP’s letter came at a time of renewed confidence for your organisation. After some years of decline and stagnation following the collapse of your very own electoral schema of taking over the Labour Party in the 1980s, you are currently recovering your strength. Whereas the SWP is nursing its wounds after the collapse of Respect, your trade unionists were well placed to build exemplary solidarity with the Visteon occupations; Rob Williams’ courageous support for Visteon drew a fearful and vicious attack from the bosses and a tremendous display of solidarity from the workers themselves, securing a great victory.

Notwithstanding your shocking error in backing the first Lindsey walkout which, despite the demands your comrade succeeded in winning on the strike committee, began as a walkout against the hiring of foreign labour and ended when that labour was replaced, the second Lindsey strike this month against mass sackings was fought on the right lines - jobs for all - and won after a wave of unofficial solidarity strikes swept the country, forcing the bosses to back down. You have recruited key militants from these disputes and appear to have drawn the conclusion from these successes that this is not the time to compromise or strike alliances with other socialist organisations.

If this is your attitude and you persist with it, then you will be committing a huge error. There has been more than one occasion in the past when socialist groups, dazzled by momentary successes, misread the bigger picture and rule out the effective use of united front tactics. Your opportunism towards Crow and the CPB’s No2EU will only get you a new workers’ party if it is tied in advance to an entirely inadequate social democratic programme - or even an outright reactionary platform, such as the one you stood on in the Euro elections this summer. But an open conference, called by agreeing publicly to the SWP’s proposal, could draw in thousands of workers and youth who sense that Labour’s days are numbered and that a new party is the way forward.

Will you change course? Or will the crisis of 2009 be yet another example of a missed opportunity, in which that combination of opportunism and sectarianism so characteristic of the socialist left is allowed to thwart the possibility of a political breakthrough for the class as a whole?

With communist greetings,

Workers Power

[Die Neue Zeit]

What should be the basis for an immediate action programme to meet the crisis?

[...]

many who would be ready for a radical anticapitalist and internationalist programme and for revolutionary change.

I can't seem to compute this. The "transitional program" is merely a glorified action program that talks down to workers with cheap sloganeering (with perhaps a lack of detailed knowledge on the part of "action program" writers themselves). What is needed is a formal program for workers' power, as I've outlined in my thread "Class-Strugglist Democracy and the Demarchic Commonwealth."

http://www.revleft.com/vb/class-stru...390/index.html (article)
http://www.revleft.com/vb/class-stru...457/index.html (Theory)

[Holden Caulfield]

talks down to workers with cheap sloganeering

...

Class-Strugglist Democracy and the Demarchic Commonwealth

[scarletghoul]

This has already been posted in Q's thread of the SPEW's response to SWP. Please keep the sectarian trotwankery confined to one thread

[KC]

I actually think that the SWP is mostly in the right with this issue; all petty bickering aside, the SP really should have accepted the invitation from the SWP and debated with them on that basis. The SWP's assertion that it would have "electrified the left" in my opinion is spot on, and an acceptance would have shown a willingness on the part of the SP to work together with the SWP on the matter.

All of the issues raised in this back-and-forth should have been addressed with the idea that they are willing to work through these differences towards some form of unity instead of focusing on these differences as a justification for remaining divided. This all should have happened at the debate that was originally proposed.

I can't seem to compute this. The "transitional program" is merely a glorified action program that talks down to workers with cheap sloganeering (with perhaps a lack of detailed knowledge on the part of "action program" writers themselves). What is needed is a formal program for workers' power, as I've outlined in my thread "Class-Strugglist Democracy and the Demarchic Commonwealth."

You really need to quit whining about the Transitional Program, considering the fact that you haven't even read it and you have no fucking clue what you're talking about.

[Led Zeppelin]

Holden, what he said isn't "cheap" sloganeering, it's actually very "expensive", which is why no working-class person can (or wants to) buy it.

[Holden Caulfield]

This has already been posted in Q's thread of the SPEW's response to SWP. Please keep the sectarian trotwankery confined to one thread

Its hardly that since I'm in the SP and not Workers Power.

Anyways:
The Party egoism, dogmatism and empty words issued back and forth between the SP & SWP is really disheartening to me as a councillor and as a revolutionary leftist

[h0m0revolutionary]

Anyways:
The Party egoism, dogmatism and empty words issued back and forth between the SP & SWP is really disheartening to me as a councillor and as a revolutionary leftist

What's really sad is that the SP, with their commitment to reform capital - as opposed to it's abolition (nationalism of the top 200 industires isn't anti-capitalist), with their commitment to a Labour Party mark two (mark oen hasn't ever been greta thanks :/) - not a revolutionary working class movement, are now in a position where the headless SWP want to come begging for unity.

As for what WP think.. who cares? When they're not cuddling up to Hizbollah and kissing the meet of the 'Iraqi resistance' they're comdemning workers for walking out against the wishes of the unions :/

[Holden Caulfield]

I don't agree with WP but it doesnt invalidate their criticism

[Q]

This critique had indeed already been posted. But I'm happy it has created some extra discussion.

The CPGB also issued a reply to this btw.

[Pogue]

this is like a trot mass off

in L&S we're basically black trots so can i issue my own response to this in the form of a self-righteous letter?

[Q]

this is like a trot mass off

in L&S we're basically black trots so can i issue my own response to this in the form of a self-righteous letter?

I'm unaware what L&S is but the CPGB isn't Trotskyist.

[Pogue]

I'm unaware what L&S is but the CPGB isn't Trotskyist.

i know, as with all brawls innocent bystanders will naturally become involved

i'm waiting for the sparts to join the fray

[Die Neue Zeit]

You really need to quit whining about the Transitional Program, considering the fact that you haven't even read it and you have no fucking clue what you're talking about.

No. I've read it several times already, and I know exactly what I'm talking about, especially with the bigger history of worker-class movements across the globe.

[Tower of Bebel]

We urge you to change course, accept the SWP’s proposal for a conference, build it and attend it as a mass democratic convention, and push the key questions of the day onto the agenda. The convention could discuss:
• New party or electoral alliance?
• How can we break the hold of the Labour Party over key unions?
• What should be the basis for an immediate action programme to meet the crisis?

At the same time this conference could launch a nationwide discussion – not only in England and Wales as you say but in Scotland too - on what kind of programme the party should have and what sort of party it should be. This could draw in people from all the struggles and from all working class communities, including immigrants and youth. In this way thousands could be rallied to the process, including many who would be ready for a radical anticapitalist and internationalist programme and for revolutionary change.

Such conventions look prettier or more convenient than they actually are. I'm all in favor of a broad left movement without the bureaucratic shit; but much of the supposed cooperation could easily turn into one or another form of show off between different parties that are involved. If one does not like the result of a party it could use its numbers to block any proposal going in that direction. Maybe it's time for the organizations involved in this early debate to keep responding to each other's open letters and start an open debate within the respective parties.

I really would like to hear more from the Nouveau Parti Anti-capitaliste. Even though it failed to consolidate along electoral lines it did organize, in some regions, the crème de la crème of the workers' vanguard. But I recall the International Luxemburg Network claiming that the NPA also wasn't democratic, by posponing elections for the party's leadership.

Demarchy seems nice, but I would suggest granting each fraction (which does not necessarily mean organization) its own representative; irrespective of its size.

[KC]

No. I've read it several times already, and I know exactly what I'm talking about, especially with the bigger history of worker-class movements across the globe.

If you've read it "multiple times" then you must have completely misunderstood it "multiple times," as it's quite clear from your blatant misrepresentation of the Transitional Program, as well as linking to "comrade Mike Macnair's" article on the matter, which misrepresents it equally as badly, that neither you nor your comrade understand the Transitional Program one bit.

[Die Neue Zeit]

CPGB comrade Mike Macnair used to be a Mandelite Trotskyist via the International Marxist Group. He knows the Trotskyist-specific account of: the theses, resolutions, etc. of the first four congresses of the Comintern; same of the international Left Opposition, and same of the original Fourth International.

BTW, I believe the "article on the matter" was written by CPGB comrade Jack Conrad, not Macnair, in spite of the latter equating the sliding scale of hours with Pol Pot's "Year Zero" (if implemented on a daily or weekly basis and not, for example, on an annual one).

Demarchy seems nice, but I would suggest granting each fraction (which does not necessarily mean organization) its own representative; irrespective of its size.

Comrade, that is the whole point of demarchy. "Qualifications" for random selection to some body, especially the editorial board, could take into consideration fractions/tendencies, irrespective of size. For the editorial board, this allows the minority to speak out at a moment's notice, especially in these "new times" ( ).

[Yehuda Stern]

CPGB comrade Mike Macnair used to be a Mandelite Trotskyist

Which, quite frankly, just makes the argument that he does not understand the Transitional Program or Trotskyism even more valid.

[KC]

Such conventions look prettier or more convenient than they actually are. I'm all in favor of a broad left movement without the bureaucratic shit; but much of the supposed cooperation could easily turn into one or another form of show off between different parties that are involved. If one does not like the result of a party it could use its numbers to block any proposal going in that direction. Maybe it's time for the organizations involved in this early debate to keep responding to each other's open letters and start an open debate within the respective parties.

This basically amounts to "well it could suck so let's not even try," which to me seems to be a pretty shitty outlook that isn't going to get us anywhere. Sure, what you have outlined could happen; it's happened in the past, for sure. But that does not in any way justify the fact that some form of principled unity should not be attempted. In fact, it's completely counterproductive to make such a statement; unity (in any form) cannot be achieved if it is not even attempted. So what's the point of this attitude? Where do you think it will get us? What is the harm that will come out of accepting the SWP's offer and debating with them on the basis of unity instead of division?

Frankly I see nothing at all productive in your viewpoint; it's hopelessly pessimistic and ultimately damaging.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Which, quite frankly, just makes the argument that he does not understand the Transitional Program or Trotskyism even more valid.

WTF are you babbling about? "I am more Trotskyist than thou"?