Results 1 to 20 of 49
SPEW builds links with "left wing" trade union leaders
"[FONT=Verdana]The weekend took place against a background of capitalist crisis and as the three big business parties compete to slash our public services. But Socialism 2009 was about a different kind of politics. We discussed the fightback of working-class and young people and about an alternative to the rotten capitalist system [...] [/FONT][FONT=Verdana]Brian Caton, the left-wing general secretary of the Prison Officers Association (POA) spoke of the shackle the anti-trade union laws are to the efforts of his union members to defend their pay and conditions"
SPEW - Socialism 2009, an excellent weekend!
Just in case anyo[/FONT]ne doesn't know who Caton is apart from his role as the leader of the POA, he was one of the riot squad members at Strangeways who charged into the protesting prisoners and gave evidence in court putting someone away for a further 9 years. He's also the man who, in a press release released just a few days ago, available here, slammed Jack Straw for the so-called "compensation culture" that supposedly exists in prisons, as if prisoners are treated too well by the British state, going so far as to state that "[the] POA have been raising the issue of capitulation by the Home Office/Ministry of Justice in respect of the compensation culture as prisoners sue the Prison Service in an aim to gain compensation at the expense of the taxpayer". This is particularly repulsive and ironic when we consider that the POA retains the services of a specialist solicitors’ firm for the sole purpose of getting "compensation" for its members, and in 2006 over £1 million was paid to six Cardiff prison officers for trauma caused by finding the mutilated body of a prisoner murdered by his cell-mate, while prisoners who have witnessed suicides and murders rarely receive any counselling, let alone compensation for the trauma.
He is also a man who has repeatedly criticized the Human Rights Act (HRA) for being too lenient when it comes to prisoners' rights. Now, as socialists we reject the idea that meaningful freedom can ever be obtained under capitalism or that we should look to the bourgeois state for answers (well, this is true of most socialists anyway - not true of the SP, given their support for an enabling act when they were part of the Labour Party, and what they did in Liverpool) but this should not stop us from recognizing that the HRA is a concession that needs to be defended and that we should not consider anyone who calls for it to be withdrawn as one of our comrades, especially when that individual is the leader of one of the most repressive and racist institutions in Britain, an institution whose members play a repressive role and are complicit in racism regardless of their personal intentions. The HRA allowed Robert Napier amongst other prisoners to take successful action against the Scottish prison system’s continued use of ‘slopping out’ (being locked in a cell with no toilet facilities except a bucket) and new mothers who had given birth in prison used the HRA to extend their rights to keep their children with them. Caton and his fellow prison officers want to destroy these gain so that they are better able to abuse and oppress one of the most vulnerable and neglected groups in capitalist society.
What is the "S"PEW doing getting friendly with these people, and on what grounds are they "left-wing"? The video of Caton speaking is particularly repulsive as he goes on a long rant about how we will always have crime and that he and his mates therefore play a necessary role.
Also, Caton is a member of the SPEW, and has been for some time I believe.
Well, this week's Weekly Worker devoted its "undivided" attention to the SPEW. In none of the *four* articles criticizing the SPEW (since when did SWP controversies garner that many articles?) was there any mention at all of the Prison Officers Association beyond its general secretary:
http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?...cussionid=2822
"A new centrist project does not have to repeat these mistakes. Nobody in this topic is advocating a carbon copy of the Second International (which again was only partly centrist)." (Tjis, class-struggle anarchist)
"A centrist strategy is based on patience, and building a movement or party or party-movement through deploying various instruments, which I think should include: workplace organising, housing struggles [...] and social services [...] and a range of other activities such as sports and culture. These are recruitment and retention tools that allow for a platform for political education." (Tim Cornelis, left-communist)
Other than, sort of, playing out the interests of prison officers against those of prisoners, I don't see anything disagreeable. After all these settlements are merely a result of a prison system clearly in crisis. I also have to doubt the sincerity of your criticism as this more seems to be inclined to score cheap points against the Socialist Party.
"I want to say sweet, silly things." - V.I Lenin
And some people claim all the Weekly Worker does is try and stir up sectarianism!
Ivan "Bonebreaker" Khutorskoy16.11.2009"We won't forget, we won't forgive"
Must have been a slow news day for the Weekly Worker.
There's only so much you can talk about the non-organised working class and their daily work struggles eh?
Am I the only one who prefered open letter ping pong to this?
Ivan "Bonebreaker" Khutorskoy16.11.2009"We won't forget, we won't forgive"
Sorry Pogue, but I don't think you understand the purpose and objective of the Weekly Worker at all. It is by intent a newspaper that addresses the existing left. We had two separate threads about the Weekly Worker on revleft, and both times I asked several posters to back up their claims that it was sectarian - they failed to do so, but were still happy to continue parroting the same phrases. I won't go into details again but am happy to link back to the respective threads if required.
Well thats interesting, that it would officially state its intention is merely to present on the left, I didn't know that, thanks.
So here we have an organisation making a newspaper which has as its sole aim criticising the left, well, I think thats even worse, I'll repeat ym own phrase, wallowing in their own insignificance methinks.
Ivan "Bonebreaker" Khutorskoy16.11.2009"We won't forget, we won't forgive"
It is only 'worse' if you think that the existing left is beyond criticism. And what the WW really does is offering criticism precisely to end the existing confessional sects of the left's wallowing in their own insignificance.
This is because the SPEW held their annual school in London two weeks ago. Several CPGB members were present and contributed to the debate. Though their opinions were often diametrically opposed to those of the SPEW, exchange between the groups was very comradely and debate was constructive.
I was impressed with the SPEW's friendliness and their openness to discuss dissenting points of view when arguing with comrades of the CPGB as well as the International Bolshevik Tendency. It was the opposite of what one is used form certain other large groups on the left.
Which is let's face it, a catch 22.
Yeah the WW spends all it's time attacking the existing left and yes much of the existing left is a roadblock to revolution. But when CPGB offer an alternative to the existing state of the left, their politics manifest themselves in pure kautskyism, wrapped in shit anti-fascism and little regard for liberation campaigns.
What's that phrase "people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones"?
I haven't read enough of the early Kautsky's writings (which I suppose is what some CPBGers are so fond of) to form an opinion - have you? All I know is that Lenin regarded the early Kautsky as the ultimate authority on Marxism - I'm sure there were reasons for this.
How do you think do their politics manifest themselves in pure Kautskyism? Could you elaborate on this as I'm not sure what it's supposed to mean.
I think it's wrong to assume that everybody in the CPGB is a 'Kautskyite' of some sort. My impression is that there is no such 'line' in the CPGB.
But this is not true at all. Shit, bourgeois anti-fascism has in fact frequently been a target of criticism in the WW.
Do you mean national liberation?
I have indeed
yes. That Lenin was dumb-struck by the German Social Democrats.
Defence of Kautskyite positions, from maintaining that the split in the SPD was unjust to going with the line "forceful is we must, peaceful if we can" regarding revolution - fostering illusions of pascifism in the class. Which came from Kautsky originally who of course opposed the idea of a violent revolution.
There is no such line, but there are several leading theorticians. And there is little contention on matters such as publicising propaganda in the name of the orginisation claiming to be in the tradition of Kautsky.
I don't think it has been. All's I ever read is that the EDL and BNP aren't worthy fights and that no-platform is a shit tactic. In fact in a debate on this issue last year they referred, lovingly, to fighting the BNP as "fighting ghosts". What's their alternative?
No sorry i mean't liberations as in disabled, LGBTQ, women's, etc.
I think no platform is indeed a shit tactic that has proved to be counterproductive. But this is a different discussion, so within the framework of this thread we'll just have to agree to disagree.
Fight capitalism, which provides fertile ground for national chauvinism and racism, of which the BNP are only a particularly obvious manifestation. Look at the bigger picture instead of concentrating all energy on fighting the wicked fash.
Oppose nationalism in all its various manifestations, including the respectable nationalism of mainstream parties and left nationalism of the No2EU variety.
I don't imagine they have disregard for liberation of these groups (they mention that "communists are champions of the oppressed" in their "What We Fight For" blurb), but like most Marxists, they will have a disregard for single-issue struggles and liberal ID politics that are disconnected from the broader class struggle.
I find your mention of Kautsky regarding 'peaceful revolution' and the CPGB's slightly vague wording interesting. I might get in touch with the CPGB and ask them about it.
Um, maybe because the slogan "Educate, Agitate, Organize" was more effective than "Agitate, Agitate, Agitate"?
Sorry, but I think you're slandering the CPGB here. Read the material in the Revolutionary Strategy group, and you'll see that the split between those loyal to the bourgeois state, such as tred-iunionisty, and those opposed to it should and will never be reconciled.
Also, you've confused the SPD with the USPD. The split in the latter may have been justifiable in the revolutionary period of Germany, but not beyond that. After that, the German communists should have "humbled" themselves by becoming the majority tendency of the USPD and kicking out the renegades. On a related note:
My suggestion above was the only way for a united front in Germany to ever work.
As for today, anti-fascism tends to be a diversion from building class solidarity. All that wasted time could have been better spent on building an alternative culture for workers in Britain. This isn't Weimar Germany, where the renegade Kautsky exhibited weakness re. the Nazis.
The slogan, which harks back to Marx, could have been more accurate: illegal if we must, legal where we can. While that statement is more dodgy on the question of pacifism, it also opens a third road between violent urges and legalistic submission: civil disobedience.
Actually, Kautsky before the war did resign himself to the idea of "violent revolution," precisely because the bourgeoisie would ban elections before the SPD gained majority support. Besides, the Bolsheviks themselves didn't take power in the typical storm-the-barricades romanticism, but because the state collapsed right before them: power was on the streets for them to pick up.
You confuse the two scenarios (romanticism and state collapse).
Well, Die Neue Zeit was the best theoretical newspaper in the entire Second International.
Well, a return to orthodox Marxism means the downplaying of New Left identity politics and an emphasis on class politics. I don't see a problem there.No sorry i mean't liberations as in disabled, LGBTQ, women's, etc.
"A new centrist project does not have to repeat these mistakes. Nobody in this topic is advocating a carbon copy of the Second International (which again was only partly centrist)." (Tjis, class-struggle anarchist)
"A centrist strategy is based on patience, and building a movement or party or party-movement through deploying various instruments, which I think should include: workplace organising, housing struggles [...] and social services [...] and a range of other activities such as sports and culture. These are recruitment and retention tools that allow for a platform for political education." (Tim Cornelis, left-communist)
Totally agree. Comrades should remember Trotsky on this, same goes for screws:
‘The fact that the police was originally recruited in large numbers from among Social Democratic workers is absolutely meaningless. Consciousness is determined by environment even in this instance. The worker who becomes a policeman in the service of the capitalist state, is a bourgeois cop, not a worker.’ Leon Trotsky
Addressing only the "existing left" and not looking outward is pretty much to expect that only the currently existing militants and the groups they are in will form the revolutionary vanguard. It just makes them a kinder, gentler version of the Spartacist League.
I'd just see it as sectarianism really. I mean, they hardly offer a valid alternative, do they?
Ivan "Bonebreaker" Khutorskoy16.11.2009"We won't forget, we won't forgive"
To add to what RP said, the CPGB's approach also seems to be based on the assumption that it's possible to develop correct strategy and analysis simply by sitting back and pointing out things that other left-wing groups have done wrong (or rather, what the CPGB says they have done wrong) and coming up with your own ideas in complete isolation from real-life activity, simply by introspection, so to speak. Marxists, on the other hand, recognize that there is a unity between theory and practice, so that the only way we can hope to develop correct strategies and theories is by involving ourselves in the struggles of working people, which we recognize as our own, and evaluating strategies on the basis of the results they provide when we apply them. The CPGB does not do this - in fact, despite describing Oxford as one of their "centers", not one of their members (which, to be fair, only extends to one student and one of their national leaders, who is a university lecturer - hardly a "center") bothered to even contribute to the collection, let alone come down to the pickets when the postal strikes were taking place
Anyway, I'd be interested in what CWI members have to say about their largest party not only showing an extraordinary amount of faith in a trade-union bureaucrat but also siding with a union which represents part of the capitalist state and maintains bourgeois class rule. This is not me being a sectarian, it's an important political issue.
