Involvement In TUSC

[GeordiErnesto]

As someone relatively new to actively engaging in politics I have been getting heavily involved with TUSC, however I don't understand why it is mainly the Socialist Party with a few SWP members helping and the RMT funding leaflets?
Was wondering if any members of other organisations or activists/socialists who aren't affiliated with any party could explain why they have chosen not to get behind the project?
That sounds a bit like Im having a go for not getting involved but I am merely interested in hearing a critical view of TUSC in the hope of raising issues to help further it. I know it's not perfect but in my opinion its better than any current politcial party and could only be made better by people getting on board and sharing skills, ideas and time.

[GiantMonkeyMan]

Some people aren't trots and don't believe in the transitional program that the SWP and the Socialist Party advocate and seek to enact through TUSC. TUSC aims to do things like nationalise (under democratic worker control) the banks, transport, communication and essential services. This is, essentially, a reformist goal (but, for those participating in TUSC, it is an goal made with the aim to galvanise workers into taking active control of their own lives and to reveal the contradictions of parliamentary democracy).

[ed miliband]

do they still exist? i thought the delusional leftists involved decided to jump on the similarly terrible 'left unity' bandwagon.

[GeordiErnesto]

Thanks GMM, that gives me a bit of insight, like I said i don't think TUSC is the ultimate vanguard party but I do think the rise of the right and the labour party probably moving past the centre ground to the "near right" necessitates a left wing alternative to make sure that UKIP don't fully capitalise on the anti-politics sentiments that are a huge part of UK consciousness at the minute.

Perhaps I raised the question wrong in presuming that people would want TUSC to be successful, but this is more what I actually want to know:

Is there a platform on which all left wing parties in the UK would be able to come together, given the varying views expressed? As a socialist I think it is entirely inefficient to have the small number of leftists we have in the UK split into different groups all pursuing different programs. I like the variation in views and think a large party or umbrella group would give the chance to have these debates and better understand where these views come from.

To me the real enemy is far too large to concentrate our efforts on Trotskyist/Impossibilist/CP splits or even infighting between Trotskyist groups. That isn't to say that I wouldnt argue my position against others within a larger group.

Sorry, I know this has probably been discussed a lot but as I say Im relatively new to the left and barely talk with any SPGB/CPGB/Respect?/Green Lefts/RCG etc.etc.

[GiantMonkeyMan]

do they still exist? i thought the delusional leftists involved decided to jump on the similarly terrible 'left unity' bandwagon.

They've got councillers in a couple northern ex-mining villages, a regular (small) percentage of the vote in various places... enough to keep them clawing on. People want an alternative to the mainstream parties and thankfully not everyone is willing to buy into the shit that UKIP are spewing.

Thanks GMM, that gives me a bit of insight, like I said i don't think TUSC is the ultimate vanguard party but I do think the rise of the right and the labour party probably moving past the centre ground to the "near right" necessitates a left wing alternative to make sure that UKIP don't fully capitalise on the anti-politics sentiments that are a huge part of UK consciousness at the minute.

Perhaps I raised the question wrong in presuming that people would want TUSC to be successful, but this is more what I actually want to know:

Is there a platform on which all left wing parties in the UK would be able to come together, given the varying views expressed? As a socialist I think it is entirely inefficient to have the small number of leftists we have in the UK split into different groups all pursuing different programs. I like the variation in views and think a large party or umbrella group would give the chance to have these debates and better understand where these views come from.

To me the real enemy is far too large to concentrate our efforts on Trotskyist/Impossibilist/CP splits or even infighting between Trotskyist groups. That isn't to say that I wouldnt argue my position against others within a larger group.

Sorry, I know this has probably been discussed a lot but as I say Im relatively new to the left and barely talk with any SPGB/CPGB/Respect?/Green Lefts/RCG etc.etc.

I've definitely found a good response to TUSC from ordinary people who are disappointed with Labour but want nothing to do with UKIP. People are clamouring for an alternative to the mainstream parties and TUSC, with some luck, could become that alternative. My worry is that it would turn into a Syriza analogue and essentially turn right the moment they come close to a whisker of power (actually, that's not much of a 'worry' per se but what I'm pretty sure would happen).

As to left unity... I'd warn against fetishising the concept. Work within these umbrella groups to spread the message and gain as many good comrades as you can but there are just too many ultra-lefties basking in their own irrelevance and too many trade unionists willing to compromise with the bourgeoisie that I wouldn't put much hope in these groupings as being a vehicle for revolutionary fervour. Engage with them or within them but be conciouss of what is possible and what is likely.

Unfortunately, comrade, the material situation and the huge culture industry of the ruling classes have shunted the organised left into the shadows in Britain. Hopefully in the future the general strike, the People's Assembly, the disappointment in the Greens and LibDems as an alternative etc. will spur on the building of a mass workers party.

[Bibelot]

I've been "within" the SPGB (without actually joining) on-and-off for a couple of years now, and just yesterday I was canvassing with a friend who is standing under TUSC for the upcoming elections on Thursday.

I think the first thing you notice is just how many people appear sympathetic to their "no cuts" platform, and how many more people are entirely disgusted with the entire system. One could argue that the failure of TUSC is their inability to attract these people, who will instead vote Labour out of habit, UKIP to make a statement, or not vote at all. Although on the other hand some will say opening TUSC up in such a way will dilute their mission statement before it's reached anywhere near being implemented.

Ultimately, I agree that the British left desperately needs to unite, and in my opinion it would be humiliating for any Briton prescribing to socialistic ideals if we fail to provide an alternative when the working-classes here need it more than ever. Even if this comes at a cost of taming certain policies. I accept reformism is a bit of a dirty word but anything that sees a return of genuine left-wing politics to the mainstream is a positive for now, because it has been all but eradicated everywhere else.

[ed miliband]

I've been "within" the SPGB (without actually joining) on-and-off for a couple of years now, and just yesterday I was canvassing with a friend who is standing under TUSC for the upcoming elections on Thursday.

I think the first thing you notice is just how many people appear sympathetic to their "no cuts" platform, and how many more people are entirely disgusted with the entire system. One could argue that the failure of TUSC is their inability to attract these people, who will instead vote Labour out of habit, UKIP to make a statement, or not vote at all. Although on the other hand some will say opening TUSC up in such a way will dilute their mission statement before it's reached anywhere near being implemented.

Ultimately, I agree that the British left desperately needs to unite, and in my opinion it would be humiliating for any Briton prescribing to socialistic ideals if we fail to provide an alternative when the working-classes here need it more than ever. Even if this comes at a cost of taming certain policies. I accept reformism is a bit of a dirty word but anything that sees a return of genuine left-wing politics to the mainstream is a positive for now, because it has been all but eradicated everywhere else.

with politics like this, what are you doing "within" the spgb? for all their poor positions, they aren't this bad. do you mean the spew?

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Whilst reformism is a dirty word and there is literally nothing supportable in the TUSC coalition, and the left unity calls aren't too much better, there is something to be said for undermining the mainstream austerity arguments. Not necessarily with 'anti-austerity' arguments blanketing the policies of any opposition, but we have to face the fact that if we don't grapple with capitalism's current form - some sort of weird post neo-liberal/austerity hybrid - then we're going to totally fail to undermine capitalism at all.

Really, however, this isn't a job that the 'left' has shown itself capable of doing. The 'left's' performance over the past 5 years since the economic shit hit the fan so to speak, has been pitiful. Really, it would be best if the established left died out and was replaced by new methods of working class organisation. The organised left just seems to kill any movement - of students, workers or unemployed - that has any potential, merely because apparently new movements aren't doing it the 'right' way, whatever that is.

[Fionnagáin]

I'd venture that the "left" died a long time ago. What we're seeing now is just a corpse that kept walking.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Some people aren't trots and don't believe in the transitional program that the SWP and the Socialist Party advocate and seek to enact through TUSC. TUSC aims to do things like nationalise (under democratic worker control) the banks, transport, communication and essential services. This is, essentially, a reformist goal (but, for those participating in TUSC, it is an goal made with the aim to galvanise workers into taking active control of their own lives and to reveal the contradictions of parliamentary democracy).

I don't understand how putting the banks, transport, communications industry (-telecom, TV, radio, newspapers) and essential services under democratic worker's control is reformist.It seems obvious that it cannot and will not happen under capitalism. In and of themselves theyt are a big step to a society beyond the rule of capital.

[Fionnagáin]

I don't understand how putting the banks, transport, communications industry (-telecom, TV, radio, newspapers) and essential services under democratic worker's control is reformist.It seems obvious that it cannot and will not happen under capitalism. In and of themselves theyt are a big step to a society beyond the rule of capital.

If democratically-managed capitalism is impossible, that makes it a stupid goal, not a revolutionary one.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I don't understand how putting the banks, transport, communications industry (-telecom, TV, radio, newspapers) and essential services under democratic worker's control is reformist.It seems obvious that it cannot and will not happen under capitalism. In and of themselves theyt are a big step to a society beyond the rule of capital.

If they didn't want to do it under the 'nationalisation' auspice of managing capital, then why would they just want to socialise the commanding heights of the economy? After all, in a socialist society there will be no private sector involving markets, so really it's contradictory to call this kind of left-reformist demand 'revolutionary'. Not that it wouldn't be some sort of improvement on what currently exists, but let's just call a spade a spade.

[GiantMonkeyMan]

I don't understand how putting the banks, transport, communications industry (-telecom, TV, radio, newspapers) and essential services under democratic worker's control is reformist.It seems obvious that it cannot and will not happen under capitalism. In and of themselves theyt are a big step to a society beyond the rule of capital.

It's certainly a transitionary step but it's clearly utilising the bourgeois parliament to achieve these goals. Don't get me wrong, it's far better than basking in the irrelevance of left communism in my opinion.

"Whilst you lack the strength to do away with bourgeois parliaments and every other type of reactionary institution, you must work within them because it is there that you will still find workers who are duped by the priests and stultified by the conditions of rural life; otherwise you risk turning into nothing but windbags." - Lenin... The 'priests' have turned into the culture industry and the 'rural life' has turned into the welfare state but the message is the same.

[Fionnagáin]

When in doubt, quote a dead Russian.

[The Idler]

Some TUSC policies from http://www.tusc.org.uk/policy.php

Public ownership, not private profit
No cuts – for quality public services
Jobs, not handouts to the bankers and billionaires
Employment and trade union rights
Protect our environment – stop global warming
Decent pensions and benefits
Democracy, diversity and justice
Solidarity not war
Socialism

● For a democratic socialist society run in the interests of people not millionaires. For bringing into democratic public ownership the major companies and banks that dominate the economy, so that production and services can be planned to meet the needs of all and to protect the environment.

[FONT=&quot][FONT=Verdana]Clear implication that money will mediate transactions in society. There will still be rich and powerful individuals. There will still be employment and work. There will still be banks. There will still be prisons, police, armies. There will still be border controls.[/FONT]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][FONT=Verdana]The IMF and World Bank might shudder at the prospects of a TUSC government but I'm sure could eventually come to terms with it. Revolutionaries, however, cannot.

Why go for the crumbs, when we have the power to go for the bakery.[/FONT]
[/FONT]

[GeordiErnesto]

So are you saying that any party with a transitional programme is anti-revolution?, my opinion of this is that it is a necessity in order to allow class consciousness to develop but i do have some scepticism about how to ensure that corruption doesn't flourish and progress stagnate.

It might be my inexperienced naivety speaking but would having lots of small groups involved mean they would create accountability to the other parties?

[The Idler]

What's transitional? Why would these demands be transitional, or foster class consciousness? Many of these policies could be used by all sorts of political perspectives under the auspices of workerism.

In theory, lots of small groups might ensure each group is accountable. In practice, each groups leaders will enforce bloc voting along party lines, backroom stitch-up deals with other groups, and create artificial divisions or better still members will just caucus to agree the party line before proper meetings. To state the obvious the biggest group will win the votes. The smaller groups will split or be carrying out policy in some cases - contrary to what they support.

[Le Socialiste]

When in doubt, quote a dead Russian.

Please don't post one-liners like this, we consider it spam.

[l'Enfermé]

When in doubt, quote a dead Russian.

Enough with the spammy and flame-baity one-liners. Consider this a verbal warning.

[Geiseric]

Some TUSC policies from http://www.tusc.org.uk/policy.php
[FONT=&quot][FONT=Verdana]Clear implication that money will mediate transactions in society. There will still be rich and powerful individuals. There will still be employment and work. There will still be banks. There will still be prisons, police, armies. There will still be border controls.[/FONT]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][FONT=Verdana]The IMF and World Bank might shudder at the prospects of a TUSC government but I'm sure could eventually come to terms with it. Revolutionaries, however, cannot.

Why go for the crumbs, when we have the power to go for the bakery.[/FONT]
[/FONT]

You left coms are so full of it! Holy shit. No we don't have the power to go for the bakery. "We" as in the working class aren't organized enough for the breadcrums! The working class thinks that the breadcrums as they are is unobtainable. I don't even know much about TUSC but I know I would support them and work with them more likely than you bunch who are all more or less taking sectarian jabs, which you apply to any group other than yourselves. Windbags! Just like Lenin said!