Socialist Party (SPGB) standing against BNP in Islington, North London

[Hit The North]

The SWP has a revolving membership door, joins alliances for elections, and runs on unsocialist populist "transitional demands" like "Fight Tory Cuts!" "Save the NHS" etc etc.

Just to put you straight: not fighting the Tory cuts is just as unsocialists and is a betrayal of the working class to boot. Because, in fact, calling for a fight back is not a "transitional demand" it is a demand for the working class to fight for their interests - surely the only way we will ever get into a position of knocking out capitalism and putting socialism in its place.

The SPGB is not going to achieve anything and is theoretically quite weak. But i'll defend them because for the most part (from members I met) they seem to be a bunch of working class people genuinely committed to a society where the means of production are socialised. I'll take that over a bunch of Swappy students or "national organisers".

Whatever you think of the SWP it has more "working class people genuinely committed to a society where the means of production are socialised" in it than the SPGB by some way. And the way you use the term "national organisers" as an intended insult makes me realise that you probably like the SPGB because they are so small that a national organiser is barely called for .

"Let's keep it small and pure" has been the self-defeating rhetoric of the socialist left in Britain for too long.

I'm glad the SPGB is standing a candidate and I hope they do very well because, firstly, it is important that the SPGB engages in more activity than it tends to and, secondly, it would be a nice morale boost for anyone who considers themself socialist.

[goalkeeper]

So?

Who cares about their history? They are a very small operation and the British public clearly doesn't give a toss, move with the times.

All Marxist organisations are small for which "the British public clearly doesn't give a toss", doesn't mean we should all go join the Labour party.

[LeonJWilliams]

All Marxist organisations are small for which "the British public clearly doesn't give a toss", doesn't mean we should all go join the Labour party.

I'm not suggesting they join Labour but that they join a much bigger party that has elected members at every level (local, European and parlaiment) that actually has Socialist policies (the Green Party of England & Wales).

The party is also small enough for the Socialist/Communist elements to have an effect on the party.

I think it's a good idea anyway!

[GiantMonkeyMan]

The green party doesn't have socialist policies. It's comprised of a bunch of petty-bourgeois scumbags who are putting forwards Tory budgets at a local level. Environmental policies does not make it a socialist party. Tories have environmental policies. If you want SPGB to participate in a broader socialist party then you should be calling for them to join and participate in TUSC (which includes SWP, SPEW and the RMT trade union) but considering how badly TUSC have been doing in elections I wouldn't be surprised if it collapsed just like all the other leftist umbrella parties in the past.

[Aurora]

Will the SPGB be running on the slogan of "Don't vote for us" again this time? It certainly seems to have hit a chord last time..

Also will the SPGB be sharing any platforms with the BNP? i don't know what their stance is on this but i seem to recall the ICC commending the SPGB on their anti-anti-fascism, which probably is not a good sign..

Despite any jab at the SPGB i wish you the best of luck.

It has only been their name for a little over one hundred years. You would think that they would show the CWI a bit of consideration and change it, so that people don't get confused.

Devrim

To be fair to the Militant when they changed their name to the SPEW the internet didn't exist so it seems unlikely that they had ever heard of or met a member of the SPGB.

[Le Socialiste]

Does anyone actually think they can effectively combat fascism with abstentionist cretinism? 1933 anyone?

The primary issue with 1933 was the unwillingness of the left to actually get its shit together and abandon the Comintern's "Third Period/Social Fascism" bullshit (KPD) and work in tandem with the ostensibly 'left' - but ultimately opportunistic - SPD in combatting German fascism. Although I'm curious as to why you're choosing 1933 of all years to make your point. By that time much of the SPD's leadership had fled to Prague and its members were operating underground; the KPD fell victim to the Reichstag Fire Decree and was all but driven out following the arrests of 4,000 of its party leaders and members shortly before the election. Despite these enormous setbacks, both parties took in a combined 30.57% of the vote (KPD: 81 seats; SPD: 120).

Unless you're referring to another event, you're supposed 'point' doesn't hold up...

[goalkeeper]

To be fair to the Militant when they changed their name to the SPEW the internet didn't exist so it seems unlikely that they had ever heard of or met a member of the SPGB.

Well if they hadn't know of the SPGB they knew fuck all about the history of the British left.

This is not true though at all. Ted Grant used to go to speakers corner in Hyde Park sometimes. Speakers corner is also a favourite outlet for the SPGB speakers. I'm sure Militant members and SPGBers must have crossed paths here at least once.

[GiantMonkeyMan]

Well if they hadn't know of the SPGB they knew fuck all about the history of the British left.

This is not true though at all. Ted Grant used to go to speakers corner in Hyde Park sometimes. Speakers corner is also a favourite outlet for the SPGB speakers. I'm sure Militant members and SPGBers must have crossed paths here at least once.

They changed their name around the time 'militant' started to become a byword for 'terrorist' in mainstream news and also as an attempt to revamp the party image. There was already a Scottish Militant Labour party organised around Tommy Sheridan before anything could be established in England or Wales mainly because of the staggered Poll Tax implementation so the two groups separated to some extent. Hence: Socialist Party (England & Wales). Personally I think I prefer the name Militant Labour. Just cooler.

[Yuppie Grinder]

Squabbles between irrelevant sects are boring. Conflicts between ultra-nationalist and socialist organizations in the west seem to have more to do with preserving a certain political culture that is no longer relevant in the mainstream of politics than actually fighting a meaningful threat.

[Le Socialiste]

Squabbles between irrelevant sects are boring. Conflicts between ultra-nationalist and socialist organizations in the west seem to have more to do with preserving a certain political culture that is no longer relevant in the mainstream of politics than actually fighting a meaningful threat.

I'll let you tell that to the left in Greece, Hungary, Ukraine, and Russia. After all, the rise of the far right in these countries has little relevancy in the mainstream of politics - right?

[Yuppie Grinder]

I'll let you tell that to the left in Greece, Hungary, Ukraine, and Russia. After all, the rise of the far right in these countries has little relevancy in the mainstream of politics - right?

That's not what I'm talking about at all. The situation in Britain is quite different than in any of those places. The traditional left culture in those places fucking blows too, though.

[Le Socialiste]

That's not what I'm talking about at all. The situation in Britain is quite different than in any of those places. The traditional left culture in those places fucking blows too, though.

Yes, but these are ongoing phenomenons occurring in 'the west'. That's what you said, isn't it? And Greece - and, more recently, Russia - have seen the emergence of relatively stronger left movements in recent years. I don't know as much about Ukraine and Hungary.

[Drosophila]

I'll let you tell that to the left in Greece, Hungary, Ukraine, and Russia. After all, the rise of the far right in these countries has little relevancy in the mainstream of politics - right?

Let's not play into this moralistic game of "left vs. right." It can only result in class-collaborationism and watering down of political positions down to mere liberalism. The "right" in those places very well may be influential, but they aren't going to be defeated by supporting anyone waving a red flag. Leftists seem to forget that they aren't the force for revolution.

[Le Socialiste]

Let's not play into this moralistic game of "left vs. right." It can only result in class-collaborationism and watering down of political positions down to mere liberalism. The "right" in those places very well may be influential, but they aren't going to be defeated by supporting anyone waving a red flag.

Why are you putting quotation marks around the 'right'? Parties like Golden Dawn and Jobbik are far-right/fascist organizations. Socialists have a vested interest in combatting the influence of these groups over sections of the working and middle-classes. And I'm certainly not advocating supporting anyone who happens to wave a 'red flag'; support ought to be assessed on a case by case basis.

Leftists seem to forget that they aren't the force for revolution.

No, they're not. That task has its origins in the ranks of labor. The importance of the Left lies in its instrumental - and dialectical - role in refining the organic emergences of struggle against private capital. It's a relationship of theory and praxis.

[LeonJWilliams]

The green party doesn't have socialist policies. It's comprised of a bunch of petty-bourgeois scumbags who are putting forwards Tory budgets at a local level. Environmental policies does not make it a socialist party. Tories have environmental policies. If you want SPGB to participate in a broader socialist party then you should be calling for them to join and participate in TUSC (which includes SWP, SPEW and the RMT trade union) but considering how badly TUSC have been doing in elections I wouldn't be surprised if it collapsed just like all the other leftist umbrella parties in the past.

Personally environmental issues are not on the top of my priorities.

Have you read their policies?
They have a big nationalisation agenda, they want transport, health and education permanently under state control. They are also vehemently against 'the city' bankers, bonuses etc the want to provide a greater welfare state.

[GiantMonkeyMan]

Personally environmental issues are not on the top of my priorities.

Have you read their policies?
They have a big nationalisation agenda, they want transport, health and education permanently under state control. They are also vehemently against 'the city' bankers, bonuses etc the want to provide a greater welfare state.

Nationalisation doesn't equal socialism. Neither is state control for that matter. "The working class cannot simply lay hold on the ready-made state machinery and wield it for its own purpose. The political instrument of their enslavement cannot serve as the political instrument of their emancipation." - Marx. Besides, the Greens seem awful keen on local levels to completely ignore their stated agenda and maintain tory policies and budgets.

[LeonJWilliams]

Isn't localisation a good thing?

Of course nationalisation doesn't equal socialism but surely its a more progressive set of policies than than the current main 4 UK political parties?

[Aurora]

Well if they hadn't know of the SPGB they knew fuck all about the history of the British left.

This is not true though at all. Ted Grant used to go to speakers corner in Hyde Park sometimes. Speakers corner is also a favourite outlet for the SPGB speakers. I'm sure Militant members and SPGBers must have crossed paths here at least once.

I know man, it was just a jab at the SPGB.

[GiantMonkeyMan]

Isn't localisation a good thing?

Of course nationalisation doesn't equal socialism but surely its a more progressive set of policies than than the current main 4 UK political parties?

Of course localisation is a good thing, you're missing the point. At a local level they're completely ignoring what they said they were going to do and voting for the opposite.

[LeonJWilliams]

The Greens only have 1 person who can vote on national things (Caroline Lucas) and she votes for all the right things.

Assuming that the local level greens do vote locally for things that are contrary to the national/official policy (I haven't seen this) again is this necessarily a bad thing? Parties are criticised for ignoring what the local voters for MP's do or promised because they are whipped into blindly following the party line despite local factors which might not make sense when trying to apply the official line.

(Hope that makes sense)