THE SWP’s OPEN LETTER TO THE LEFT
by Louis Proyect
http://louisproyect.wordpress.com
In an open letter that appears in the Socialist Workers Party newspaper (the British group, of course, not to be mistaken with the tiny and peculiar American ultraleftist cult), there is a call to unite on the electoral front in response to the election of the fascist BNP’s winning two seats in the European Parliament:
Labour’s vote collapsed to a historic low in last week’s elections as the right made gains. The Tories under David Cameron are now set to win the next general election.
The British National Party (BNP) secured two seats in the European parliament. Never before have fascists achieved such a success in Britain.
The result has sent a shockwave across the labour and anti-fascist movements, and the left.
The meltdown of the Labour vote and the civil war engulfing the party poses a question – where do we go from here?
After discussing the victory of the BNP in terms of the bankruptcy of New Labour, a party that is the class equivalent of the Democratic Party in the U.S. despite its origins in the trade union movement, the SWP issues a challenge to the far left:
Those who campaigned against the BNP in the elections know that when they said to people, “Don’t vote Nazi” they were often then asked who people should vote for.
The fact that there is no single, united left alternative to Labour means there was no clear answer available.
The European election results demonstrate that the left of Labour vote was small, fragmented and dispersed.
The Greens did not make significant gains either. The mass of Labour voters simply did not vote. We cannot afford a repeat of that.
The SWP is all too aware of the differences and difficulties involved in constructing such an alternative.
We do not believe we have all the answers or a perfect prescription for a left wing alternative.
But we do believe we have to urgently start a debate and begin planning to come together to offer such an alternative at the next election, with the awareness that Gordon Brown might not survive his full term.
One simple step would be to convene a conference of all those committed to presenting candidates representing working class interests at the next election.
The SWP is prepared to help initiate such a gathering and to commit its forces to such a project.
We look forward to your response.
Although I am not a British citizen, I would like to offer my response. Far be it from me to issue Leon Trotsky-like pronunciamentos from afar, I have followed the SWP closely enough to offer the comrades some free advice.
To start with, I think it is a step forward to hear things like “We do not believe we have all the answers or a perfect prescription for a left wing alternative.” This is the beginning of wisdom for such groups and bodes well for the future, at least on the verbal level.
In an accompanying article titled “Time to fight back together”, the SWP is even more forthright on the need for unity:
There is a desperate need for an alternative. The absence of a credible left group to vote for means that people remain without a choice when it comes to elections.
Many people wonder why the left can’t unite together to provide a stronger, more credible alternative to the pro-war and neoliberal policies of the major parties.
There is real potential for a united left group to make a real impact—not just by winning votes but also in helping to pull people together to build resistance on the ground.
But here is the problem. The SWP just went through a wrenching experience in building a broad left political party called RESPECT. The resulting split cost it members, influence and the drawing of factional lines in their party. Unless the comrades are willing to reject the methodology that led to this fiasco, I am afraid that they will simply repeat past mistakes.
In order for a united left group party to succeed, it cannot be a “united front” as conceived in the past by party leader Alex Callinicos. I have tried to explain why in articles titled “The SWP, Respect and the united front” and “The Crisis in Respect”.
Just to recapitulate briefly, a united front was conceived by Lenin as a kind of ad hoc agreement between Communists and social democrats to march together against a common foe, particularly the fascists. In fact, there will be more and more of a need to forge such alliances in light of the success of the BNP.
But Lenin never thought of the united front as an electoral mechanism. He did propose votes for social democratic parties, but that was only a way to get a hearing among rank-and-file members. His main hope was to expose the reformist leaders of such parties, including the Labour Party of the 1920s, in order to win the ranks to Communism.
The SWP never really thought through what this tactic meant when it came to working in a common framework with people like George Galloway who they describe as a reformist. It would also pose problems with how to relate to people in RESPECT, who while not having a background in the admittedly reformist Labour Party like Galloway, had not reached revolutionary socialist conclusions about changing British society. How does one describe them? Revolutionary? Reformist? Or does it really matter?
The point is that such terminology means very little in the current stage of British politics because despite the election of BNP’ers the question of power is not being posed. When someone like George Galloway decides to bolt from Labour, it is the equivalent of Ralph Nader breaking with the Democrats. Leaving aside Nader’s ideology, his act in challenging the two-party system is much more objectively revolutionary than a thousand May Day leaflets from the sectarian universe.
I raise these questions because I see clinging to old habits in the Irish SWP, a group that obviously reflects the thinking of its sister party. In hailing the election to the Irish parliament of Socialist Party member Joe Higgins (a part of the Ted Grant-spawned Committee for a Workers International, not to be confused with their bitter rivals in the Grantite International Marxist Tendency), the Irish SWP defined its role in relationship to Higgins and the radical movement in somewhat uninspired terms:
The radical left must now enter discussions to form either an alliance or broad radical left party, where different tendencies can co-exist. Previous arguments that such a development might be ‘premature’ make little sense today.
The Socialist Workers Party is already working productively within the People Before Profit Alliance, promoting its own distinctively revolutionary socialist views while working with others on the 90 percent we also agree on. There is absolutely no reason why an alliance of this sort cannot be expanded.
The Irish SWP cannot break with old habits and states explicitly what I fear looms implicitly in its sister party’s open letter. When you see a reference to a “broad radical left party, where different tendencies can co-exist”, you get the sinking feeling that they hope for a “united front” of left parties that worked so poorly in RESPECT and elsewhere. Perhaps it is high time that this thinking in terms of “tendencies” (an awful word that reminds me of a psychiatrist’s handbook) is relegated to the dustbin of history especially when the comrades follow up with their desire to promote “their own distinctively revolutionary socialist views”. Unfortunately, this desire to promote such views is depressingly reminiscent of the corporate world’s reliance on special ingredients that make one laxative better than another. For in the final analysis, such “distinctively revolutionary socialist views” more often than not boil down to defining when the USSR became state capitalist or remained a workers state. This is not the proper subject for Marxists today and should be relegated to the back pages of a theoretical quarterly.
What the SWP should consider is a total break with their modus operandi and moving toward the approach of the NPA in France. Initiated by the Trotskyist LCR, the New Anticapitalist Party decided to put aside questions of “distinctively revolutionary socialist views” and emphasize the real questions facing the left in 2009. Hopefully, since the SWP seems to have a good grasp on these questions, they can begin to take the next step and evolve toward a more transparent and open political framework that has the possibility of truly uniting the left. In other words, they should return to the road of V.I. Lenin, the 20th century’s greatest exponent of left unity based on the evidence of 1917.
On the other hand though, the Irish example, is surely an example of the way in which a political approach you disagree with did not lead to these disasterous results. Not a vindication of the position but perhaps evidence that its not always the case that those of us with these politics cannot for that reason work with others. For what its worth my feeling is that the letter does signal a break with the past. In particular the emphasis on waiting for co-sponsers and not simply declaring a formation in advance: in the same edition of socialist worker there is a record of the debate over the right to work conference at Party Council. It is recorded that conference voted against setting up a movement at the conference itself without prior consultation with other forces. One might conclude that this vote was connected to a rejection of the ‘top down’ culture referred to in the rest of the post: not simply internally, but in relationship to other movements.
None of this is to say that anyone faces easy decisions after the appalling fracas of the past. But I do think it would be a mistake not to see that this represents a shift in approach. Whatever attitude comrades decide to take to it.
Comment by johng — 11 June, 2009 @ 8:15 pm
I don’t know about anyone else, but I think this analysis is excellent, in that it scratches the surface of well meaning words and begins to look at how left unity must work in practice.
Louis is right in pointing out that words are not enough. There has to be a change in method, and by all avowed vanguard formations, if left unity is to have any chance of being achieved.
Comment by John Wight — 11 June, 2009 @ 8:15 pm
My inner cynic is impressed by just how quickly the Irish SWP has adapted the line from London but that’s another matter. More significant is the suggestion that whatever emerges is a “broad radical left party, where different tendencies can co-exist”. This is a first and welcome acknowledgement of the significance of political pluralism and maybe signifies a change from the previous MO.
Comment by Liam — 11 June, 2009 @ 8:40 pm
IMO it’s high time the unions gave the Labour party the old heave-ho and worked towards forming a party which actually would support the unions and socialist principles.
While the unions still pander to New Labour, unfortunately the Labour party will still be percieved by many to be the ‘official’ party of the left. I believe any effort to form a new party will be wasted unless at the same time we can wrest the unions from their misguided devotion to New Labour.
That’s my not-very-well-informed opinion anyway!
Comment by Jim Avery — 11 June, 2009 @ 8:42 pm
In reply to Sparkie, Lenin’s writings actually spent very little time defining socialism or talking about it for that matter. To start with, he saw the main task as toppling Czarism and creating a kind of neo-Jacobin republic in which workers would have hegemony. Therefore, his emphasis was on how to move the struggle forward against Czarism rather than defining socialist goals. In fact, in the one place that he referred to the tasks of the vanguard, he was more concerned with these sorts of measures:
“Why is there not a single political event in Germany that does not add to the authority and prestige of the Social-Democracy? Because Social-Democracy is always found to be in advance of all the others in furnishing the most revolutionary appraisal of every given event and in championing every protest against tyranny…It intervenes in every sphere and in every question of social and political life; in the matter of Wilhelm’s refusal to endorse a bourgeois progressive as city mayor (our Economists have not managed to educate the Germans to the understanding that such an act is, in fact, a compromise with liberalism!); in the matter of the law against ‘obscene’ publications and pictures; in the matter of governmental influence on the election of professors, etc., etc.”
With respect to believing in revolution, be my guest. I have learned to view such formulations as rank idealism but you of course are entitled to them.
Comment by Louis Proyect — 11 June, 2009 @ 8:43 pm
You fools! The cunning Martin Smith was ready to lead you to victory!
Comment by Ed D — 11 June, 2009 @ 8:44 pm
Sparkie #3 - But surely you can see that the recent history of such an adherence to pure revolutionary ideals, based on a Leninist model, has lain at the root of the problem.
We do not live in anything like Tsarist Russia at the turn of the last century. As a consequence, there is nothing even approaching the objective conditions for revolution which obtained then.
Yet such has been the rigid devotion to Leninism, post 1903, that in this country the only thing the revolutionary left has achieved is the destruction of every left unity project attempted in the past ten years.
Comment by John Wight — 11 June, 2009 @ 8:45 pm
I’m not interested in denying that appalling mistakes have been made. But I think its quite important that in putative talks about unity we don’t start laying down the law on which particular ideological belief particular tendencies have or demanding that they accept every dot and comma of anything. I think there was a bit too much of that the last time round if truth be told.
Comment by johng — 11 June, 2009 @ 8:56 pm
I mean its worth pointing out that whatever mistakes the SWP made, they were in a position to initiate left unity projects. Importantly today we need more then a single organisation to do that, and possibly there is more of an objective basis for that to happen. And its possible that this will mean less chance of messing up.
Comment by johng — 11 June, 2009 @ 8:58 pm
Its also true that I found myself bleakly saying to one contributor who took Louis’ position that it would be nice to have a movement to dissolve into.
Comment by johng — 11 June, 2009 @ 9:02 pm
It’s striking that the SWP has never apologised or acknowlegded any of its mistakes. They just refer blandly to mistakes that were made without actually ever giving even the vagueist of reasons for them. I think they are fundamentally an insincere party who are exploiting the BNP breakthrough to further their own narrow agenda, which they know they can only achieve by highlighting another party again.
The question is, will anybody buy it again?
Comment by Ed D — 11 June, 2009 @ 9:04 pm
Hey Louis: Like much of the rest of the left, you paid a lot of attention to the NPA in France. I agree that it is an exciting development.
But…what about Joe Higgins getting elected to the European Parliament while the NPA remains outside? Just saying, like…
Comment by Moreno Truth Kit — 11 June, 2009 @ 9:09 pm
The question is EdD why are you obsessed with debates on the left when you are on the right?
Comment by johng — 11 June, 2009 @ 9:16 pm
#10 “I’m not interested in denying that appalling mistakes have been made” and #11 “…whatever mistakes the SWP made”, both johng. Without asking for a modern version of The God that Failed, I’d be interested to know what johng thinks were the SWP’s appalling mistakes.
Comment by ross bradshaw — 11 June, 2009 @ 9:21 pm
#14
While you are giving lots of attention to the NPA in France that won no seats, you might like to consider that the PCF increased from 3 to 4 seats.
Comment by Andy Newman — 11 June, 2009 @ 9:26 pm
Sparkie’s contribution no 3 is absolutely right and very “orthodox”. Problem is by No 15 he is arguing revolutionaries and reformists can happily work together in the same organisation/party/alliance. Its not that easy. If one part thinks parliament is a dungheap, only used for “shouting from the window”, while the other thinks that working in parliament can deliver the reforms that workers need, you have a recipe for built in conflict and schism.
The NPA has the advantage of declaring itself anti-capitalist and revolutionary from the start (although clearly Louis would like to interpret that out of its programme).
The SWPs answer to this problem in SA/Respect was to limit its own politics in the alliances to the politics of reformism. (While of course keeping its “principles” in its where we stand column). Problem is by acting like reformists you become reformists.
Maybe its better to work with reformists in united fronts for action - over unemployment, climate change, privatisation – where we can argue our politics in struggle. But in general elections, where the question of power and government is posed, put forward a clear, anti capitalist and socialist perspective.
Probably wouldn’t do worse than the 1% No2EU got!
Comment by Stuart King — 11 June, 2009 @ 9:43 pm
#4:
Liam, for once the Irish SWP is not interpreting marching orders from London. In fact it’s been calling for alliances of various sorts for a decade. Before the Respect experience in Britain it tended to call for a Socialist Alliance or a “Socialist Bloc”. Now it is calling for an alliance along the lines of its People Before Profit Alliance. That is, a more Respect-like affair.
Comment by Irish Mark P — 11 June, 2009 @ 9:52 pm
Just in case anyones interested ther Lindsey construction workers have walked out again http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/jun/11/lindsey-oil-refinery-industrial-action
Comment by paul — 11 June, 2009 @ 9:52 pm
I think Stuart #19 is certainly right ot argue for united fronts for action- over climate change, privatisation, unemployment and many other areas.
Indeed if the left can unite in action and draw in activists, rank and file trade unionists, campaigners etc. this will be crucial.
However, I think there is scope for using elections to build class struggle by standing worker candidates on a struggle platform. Socialists should of course argue for socialism and that parliament is not a route to socialism and that we need a much more thoroughgoing democracy. But if the campaign for worker candidates takes off- and if it does then united action is probably a crucial ingredient- then I think there can be a potential for revolutionaries and reformists working together not just in united front action but in voting for a socialist alternative as part of the struggle to win workers to socialism. Of course revolutionaries and reformists will and should continue to disagree and debate those differences but use elections as a way of winning support for class struggle- such as standing a candidate on an anti-cuts anti-privatisation ticket say against school clsoures. Revolutionaries should argue and may be would even win for a position of schools and other services to be run democratically by the workers, strudents and local community and argue for class struggle tactics- strikes and occupations- but we wouldn’t walk away if we didn’t win the vote.
Comment by Jason — 11 June, 2009 @ 9:55 pm
I am struggling to see how the NPA is inspiring all this eagerness to imitate. Its results this week in the elections were poor. In pretty favourable conditions too - years into a right wing government, recent political strikes, a popular figurehead (his picture was on every poster), an election where votes for small parties are politically easy to cast, plenty of activist impetus after the party’s recent launch.
Despite all this they failed to get a seat. The Euro election was consciously chosen as a yardstick for the wisdom of the initiative. Something towards double figures were expected.
But the NPR polled around 5 per cent of the vote. The same as its predecessor the LCR has been stuck on for years. It failed the first electoral test decisively.
If lessons are sought, then I would suggest *hesitancy* over new parties is the most salient. Particularly in England, where the far left can’t reasonably hope to score anything like here in France.
Comment by Simon Kennedy — 11 June, 2009 @ 9:56 pm
There are lots of things of which one could accuse V I Lenin, but being the 20th century’s greatest exponent of left unity is not one of them. And if the fissiparous history of the far left since then teaches us anything, it is that Leninist groups are incapable of working together honestly for anything other than a brief period. They will all talk of “unity”, but they all envisage it as unity on their particular platform. And of course it never works. There will be no lasting unity until the various groups actually dissolve themselves entirely into a broader organisation, and until the theological points that divide them become merely a matter for theoretical discussion rather than for platform-forming and splits. I don’t expect to see that any time soon.
Comment by Francis King — 11 June, 2009 @ 10:06 pm
Ross,
Well I think my understanding of the mistakes flow out of the initial comment. When it became clear that Respect was not attracting other forces as all had hoped the SWP tended to substitute itself and treat its allies as satelites, re-enforcing a top down approach which was to have disasterous consequences.
Rather then debate differences openly (in some cases I think if this had been done some of these arguments might even have been won), and go into a minority when appropriate attempts were made to force things through in a way which could only be destructive.
It came as a large shock to those of us not directly involved in the areas were Respect was a real force to actually hear about these things (and for a very long time many found it difficult to believe).
Hence the Democracy Commission, hence the shift in emphasis. I would say that some of the structural problems (ironically enough analysed pretty well by George in his initial article on the subject where he pointed to the weaknesses of Respect which had worsened the situation) were real, but they were handled very badly.
In terms of an overall, and I think balenced approach (comrades will probably disagree) the piece written by the Tower Hamlets chair was pretty much on the money. I can remember having a discussion about it with one comrade who thought it good but ‘unpolitical’. In retrospect I can’t work out what this was supposed to mean. And of course the other failing was not to have corrected all this sooner.
Comment by johng — 11 June, 2009 @ 10:21 pm
#24 The Lindsey strike is precisely the sort of dispute we should be agitiating and raising support for.
#27 if the history of humanity teaches us anything it is that even after years of failure success is possible- we can learn form mistakes and evolve!
Comment by Jason — 11 June, 2009 @ 10:24 pm
Not sure what went wrong with my sense of number- sorry
should have been #18 and #21!
Comment by Jason — 11 June, 2009 @ 10:25 pm
The NPA is a very long way from being a revolutionary organisation, even further away from being a working class revolutionary organisation. The LCR had a good number of hard working militants and some very capable leaders but was/is notorously factionalised and often hopelessly incompetent in practical matters.
It badly miscalculated in the Euro election, misled partly by the extensive publicity it got in the media (more even than the Left Bloc in Portugal and Syrizia in Greece) and by the sympa coverage its very personable spokesperson gets. It thought it would outpoll the Front de Gauche and possibly force it below the threshold and thus become the dominant force on the left.
A combination of old fashioned sectarianism and bang up to the minute opportunism came unstuck when its opinion poll supporters found the Greens a more attractive home for their votes. A significiant element in the LCR defected to join the front de Gauche as Gauche Unitaire.
The PCF, even though it is badly divided, is solidly rooted in working class communities, has 20,000 councillors and hosts of union militants at every level and this told in the election campaign as it did in the Lisbon Treaty campaign.
One element would like to merge with left wing social democrats and form something like Die Linke, others flirt with a more permanent relationship with the PS, a substantial number within and as many outside want to return to what might be called ‘leninist norms’ and a good proportion muddle on under Marie George Buffet’s leadership. Its like Britain in the 1980’s all over again but the organisation has very deep roots and very solid local organisations.
The NPA, and the various other European ‘anti capitalist’ fronts have been a big disappointment for those who think they represent a new model of political organisation. One of their problems is poor implantation in the working class (they are not alone in this), another is the difficulty in developing collective working among people who share very little in the way of ideology but a lot in small group mentality.But, in my view, the biggest problem is one of socialist vision. There is very little conception of how political power could be won and then exercised in modern societies. Socialism is an abstraction, defined by a rejection of historical experience in building and defending working class power and incresingly is conflated with electoral struggle.
In a weird inversion of the 20th century debates around ‘the parliamentary road to socialism’ there seems to be a fetish of electoral intervention as the main business of the left with even the central role of the ’social movements’ n practice downgraded.
Comment by Nick Wright — 11 June, 2009 @ 10:46 pm
I think there are two responses separated by the Irish Sea.The SWP argument from London is a knee jerk panic to the electoral success of the BNP. Whereas from Dublin the response is what appears to me to be a sharp analysis where the Irish socialist left is at from the POV of harnessing its promise.
Does any perceived difference matter? It does if you ponder the reasons why the separate SWPs may engage with a unity process because that determines, as Louis suggests, how far they are willing to go.
The complication with regroupment processes, in my experience, is that key point: to what ends do you begin?
In this light these two articles by François Sabado which warrant study:
(1)European election: 60% abstain; gains for the right; revolutionary left wins seats in Portugal and Ireland
(2)France’s New Anti-Capitalist Party: An exchange between Alex Callinicos (British SWP) and François Sabado (LCR)
If the SWP/IST genuinely moved in a unity direction and that motion was also embraced and matched by the CWI/Socialist Party the the state of politics on the far left throughout the English speaking world would shift — because let’s not underestimate how much of a sectarian obstacle to integrating the left the stance of these two outfits has been. In part this is why England especially is such a basket case when it comes to the promise of socialist politics.
So I guess we have to wait and see. Is this merely a manoeuvre designed to assuage the chorus of protest that has arisen in response to the EU results in the UK? Or is this a genuine political change by a formation who has a history of so much pillage to its name?
But the SWP isn’t naive. I’m sure the party knows that if you begin via a truly organic ally and with a open agenda it is very hard thereafter to turn off the dynamic unleashed without wearing the consequences.
In the case of the SWP it would amount to a terrible blow to its political integrity and profile.
Ditto for the SP….
Comment by Dave Riley — 11 June, 2009 @ 11:11 pm
Proyect appears to be totally out of touch with the balance of class forces in this country. In fact the state of the working class does not even feature in his article.
The fact of the matter is that he working class in this country has not been waging struggles, either economic or political, as have our sisters and brothers have in France in the last period. It is on those struggles that the lcr has been able to launch the npa and such a launchpad cannot be summoned up out of thin air.
Despite this the Open Letter ought to be welcomed by all socialists and trades unionists with an open minded attitude. However i suspect that serious forces will not be located by this initiative.
That rotten sects like the AWL and Workers Power appear to be the only forces, and they are miniscule, with any kind of positivity says nothing worth listening to.
Comment by mike — 11 June, 2009 @ 11:31 pm
#22 johng makes some very interesting points and admissions. But I don’t understand the reference to the Tower Hamlets chair and their piece. Can you explain and give us a link to this piece?
For the second time in three days I’ve heard Derek Simpson, this time on Newsnight, attacking New Labour and making a lot of good points. Strange. And three cheers for Salman from Birmingham who suggested, to a large round of applause, that we should get a bit French, strike, occupy and kidnap the bosses.
Comment by vladimir antonov-ovseenko — 11 June, 2009 @ 11:32 pm
#28 Sorry. This time it’s Question Time, last time it was Newsnight (on the same evening Martin Smith was on).
Comment by vladimir antonov-ovseenko — 11 June, 2009 @ 11:33 pm
Simpson is a two faced creep given that he is a major paymaster for Labour.
Comment by mike — 11 June, 2009 @ 11:34 pm
#30
i don’t thnk that makes him two faced. there is no problem with UNITE funding the Labour Party.
The problem is funding the labour Party and getting nothing in return for their members. Now if Simpson is prepared to demand value for money, that can only be a good thing, and is an important part of the debate in UNITE about how to weild political inflluence effectively.
I have likewise been struck by how good Simpson has been this week.
Comment by Andy Newman — 11 June, 2009 @ 11:36 pm
#30 That is a remarkably silly remark, Mike. Don’t point out the bleeding obvious. Pay some attention to the reasons why a paymaster of Labour might be saying these things and what the implications are. In other words, try being just a little dialectical.
Comment by vladimir antonov-ovseenko — 11 June, 2009 @ 11:37 pm
http://liammacuaid.wordpress.com/2007/10/25/here-i-stand/
Comment by johng — 11 June, 2009 @ 11:59 pm
“For in the final analysis, such “distinctively revolutionary socialist views” more often than not boil down to defining when the USSR became state capitalist or remained a workers state. This is not the proper subject for Marxists today and should be relegated to the back pages of a theoretical quarterly.”
If you really think that this is the case, that having revolutionary socialist perspectives does not influence the way you are active in strikes, campaigns etc, then I can understand why it seems useless to stress that revolutionary socialists should have their independent organization in electoral alternatives.
But I think it makes a difference and all kind of practical questions are involved.
So how should revolutionary socialists then cooperate with poeple with reformist perspectives in a new politacal party of the left?
May be ‘united front of a special’ kind is not the answer, but neither is dissolution or the NPA type.
With the election victory of Front de Gauche, the NPA is already experiencing that reformism is a real force. If winning elections is the goal, members and supporters of the NPA will be attracted to the FG as already is happening. How are revolutionary socialists in NPA going to argue for an alternative strategy that stresses building the class struggle, if they are not organized, if they do not pose their own arguments and if they don’t organize practically in strikes etc?
What if muslim women are being disciminated because they wear the hijab and from an electoral point of view it seems better to keep silence because ‘the party’ thinks campaigning against islamophobia will cost votes?
Shouldn’t socialists who disagree have the right to organize petitions, demonstrations etc outside ‘the party’?
Comment by Jef — 12 June, 2009 @ 2:12 am
I have only scanned the debate here ( so please shout at me if I am wrong ) but… I’m fairly convinced the green parties of Europe represent the new left.
-
The big problem is that at least the UK green party is very pro-vegan and pro-PETA.
-
PETA…for those of you who don’t know, is anti animal experimentation for new medical treatments. Frankly, I would slash my own throat if it would save the lives of three other people, directly. The idea that giving a sheep or monkey chemicals is in any way directly comparable to doing the same to a human is a major deterrent to voting green.
As is the same as far as direct enforcement of organic diets, to be almost completely plant based. I’m happy to agree ( my housemate won’t, but she hates almost anything that is not dead animal ) that western diets are far too full of meat. That does not mean we should not eat meat at all. Head over to the PETA forums and ask if humans ore omnivores… you SHOULD get a load of abuse, unless they’ve started being nice.
It’s those people that make green as scary as bnp. dispose of the extreme policy support for them, you might have yourself a new socialist movement.
Comment by mudkipz — 12 June, 2009 @ 2:41 am
Yeah the thing I find a bit wierd about Louis’ view is the idea of compulsory dissolution of any differences. Its amusing to compare ‘tendencies’ to psychiatric illnesses etc, and we can all think of stereotypes to fit the bill he presents, on various points. But is he saying that there should be no room for platforms, no room for any dissent but individual members etc? Aside from the fact that not everyone will find this very attractive there is a real problem with a kind of ultimatism here (as well as more concrete problems connected to the fact that as mainstream reformism collapses there is no automatic reason why new movements won’t slip into their shoes, and no automatic reason why political differences might not arise).
Comment by johng — 12 June, 2009 @ 2:56 am
Nick Wright: The PCF, even though it is badly divided, is solidly rooted in working class communities, has 20,000 councillors and hosts of union militants at every level and this told in the election campaign as it did in the Lisbon Treaty campaign.
—
Isn’t this the same party that compromised on Algerian independence and throttled the mass movement in May/June 1968? No thanks.
Comment by Louis Proyect — 12 June, 2009 @ 3:24 am
Bit vanguardist of you Louis :).
Comment by johng — 12 June, 2009 @ 4:32 am
#33 Oh. How disappointing.
Comment by vladimir antonov-ovseenko — 12 June, 2009 @ 6:31 am
The continuing trouble with the SWP position is with their mind-set. Can we trust them after the Socialist Alliance and what happened with Liz Davies? And then Respect and what happened with thneir close allies there. Isn’t it looking like a pathological trait? Would anyone joining in with them again just find themeselves being abused again?
Now they are willing to admit mistakes about Respect because that fits in with the current line. Then they were absolutely convinced they were right about Respect and their opponents in the split were absolute scum. Does Chris Harman’s ISJ article still stand? is there any debate about it that they are willing to publish? Are the people who signed the SWP’s ‘petition of lies’ alleging a McCarthyite witch-hunt against them willing to admit it was a mistake?
The evidence is still that the SWP is focussed on training its membership to accept the party line - after all they don’t want dissent and hesitation when the order goes out to seize the railay stations or whatever in their fondly imagined October. I’m not saying they don’t do good and useful things, they do, but they need to break from their arrogant and theological belief that they are right. Just saying it doesn’t make it so. Until then we need to treat them with caution. Having a debate and a vote with gneuine differences about how to elect their CC is a good sign. Having a debate about their Right to Work strategy is good - but remember that the conference is a front anyway. They’ve got a lot to do before they can be trusted.
Comment by graculus — 12 June, 2009 @ 8:28 am
‘they need to break from their arrogant and theological belief that they are right.’
And the letter says:
‘We do not believe we have all the answers or a perfect prescription for a left wing alternative.
But we do believe we have to urgently start a debate…’
Comment by Noggin the Nog — 12 June, 2009 @ 8:40 am
“Hence the Democracy Commission, hence the shift in emphasis. I would say that some of the structural problems (ironically enough analysed pretty well by George in his initial article on the subject where he pointed to the weaknesses of Respect which had worsened the situation) were real, but they were handled very badly.”
John, you are the first person to publicly make any kind of admission about any of this.
But Jesus Fucking Christ, have you looked ar what you’ve written there?
Ironically enough analysed pretty well by George in his initial article on the subject?
This means George was right, for fuck’s sake. George’s letter was tame, accurate and was the basis for rebuilding respect.
Don’t you think that that it’s not ironic at all that George analysed the situation “pretty well”, but absolutely disgusting that a long-standing SWP member such as you believed him to be right, said absolutely nothing and went along with every single bit of the war that the SWP declared?
There can be no “change of emphasis” in the SWP until all the people who led this come out and publically acknowledge what they did - Martin Smith, leading the expulsion of people and deliberately claiming that people like Mark Steel weren’t members, calling one of the most senior SWP members a “fucking traitor” for speaking up at a Party Council, haranguing a young female colleague like a thug at a party meeting; Alex and John, spreading lies about George, Kevin, Rob, Lindsey German, smearing Kev and Rob as being the source of leaks, even your good friend Lenin, publishing lies about “violent attacks” and “hate emails” that even the police didn’t believe happened, all the organisers who went round lying about who supported the SWP in the hope of getting other SWP members on side - the student member who physically attacked one of our students at the NUS conference, pushing him around, taking his papers, ripping them up and throwing them in the bin; leading Tower Hamlets people actually giving in to the right by out and out lying about Muslims in Tower Hamlets, Chris Harman claiming that the problem was right-wing Islamists in 2005, but never saying anything until 2008, and every single SWP member who went along with the witch-hunt narrative, including most vocally you. Until all of you can stop and say “we really caused a huge crisis on the far left”, your claims of a “change of emphasis” don’t cut it.
You can’t be a reformed citizen until you understand what it is you did wrong in the first place.
John, while I was reading your posting, I developed a lot of respect for you that I lost because of your actions in making the split more unpleasant. But then, when I saw that you basically agreed with Galloway’s letter, that’s all gone again.
Like your other close comrades, who claimed that Galloway was right but the only thing that mattered was the party, you guys have got it so screwed up, “sectarian” doesn’t even begin to explain it.
The other thing John is that you can’t claim not to know about any of this. People like Kevin and Rob were raising the problem of the “top down approach”, as were a lot of other SWP members. It wasn’t John Rees’s fault - it was him, Sean Docherty, John McLaughlin, the other Tower Hamlets , Manchester & Birmingham people, the centre, those who never questioned why Salma wasn’t being put on platforms, those who didn’t question why there seemed to be no communication with Galloway, those who knew, right at the start of the split, that Kevin and Rob were repeatedly writing to the CC asking for their treatment - in lots of different spheres, not least the lies and issues like Lindsey sitting on a bus in east London telling a comrade that Kevin and Rob would be expelled (she said this months before it happened!). But the CC never replied, the DC never investigated and Martin Smith was caught out lying numerous times claiming he’d replied but refusing to resend emails.
You and all the SWP members who read this blog knew this, and you did nothing. You didn’t go to CC members or organisers and say “we’re really fucking up here”. You acted like cult members, putting defence of the leaders above every other consideration. Even Simon Assaf claimed that any attack (criticism) of the leadership was an attack on the whole membership (that was at the conference at which we allowed SWP members to speak, only for them to use their speaking time to claim that SWP members weren’t allowed to come into the conference - lie after lie).
Your side of things deserves no role in a new formation until you understand why you *deliberately* wrecked the last one. It’s fine that the SWP made a lot of mistakes - lots of people, Galloway included, played a part in making those mistakes. The one thing we MUST do is make lots of mistakes and learn and apply the lessons.
What we can’t be allowed to do is lie to our members, whip them up into a state of war and set about wrecking everything that’s been built.
That’s what your entire leadership and national structure did. And, with people like “ll”, what it’s still doing (remember, ll posted some really nasty stuff about Galloway recently, effectively calling for a witch-hunt against him and investigations into his personal life - just as Elaine Graham Leigh wrote to the Electoral Commission demanding an investigation into Galloway’s private finances… bet you didn’t know that, did you).
You sometimes wonder why people don’t just move on. Well, it’s because the left is still recovering from what you people did, knowingly and deliberately. We’re *are* moving on in interesting ways - Galloway and Respect called the first protests over Gaza and led the movement (contrary to claims I’m seeing elsewhere that once again, it was the SWP). We led the first bit of practical political solidarity into Gaza (completely ignored by the rest of the left), we’ve held mass public meetings about solidarity (boycotted by the rest of the left), we’re engaging in really trying to build local initiatives over housing, racism etc. (without making our own recruitment the cornerstone of it). In places like the north west and midlands, Respect has developed deeper roots into the community than any other left force in a long time. All ignored by the rest of the left.
You can’t just sneak out over a year later and say “yeah, that Galloway letter got things about right”, and not stop and say “so why did I act the way I did?”
Comment by external bulletin — 12 June, 2009 @ 9:08 am
The French working class are compelled to make up their minds about contemporary politics without taking into account the advice of M. Proyect (37) and I doubt that either consideration of the Algerian war or of 1968 figured very much in the voting last week.
We 68ers are all getting on a bit now but I can still remember being told at the time that students were the new revolutionary vanguard. The NPA has this idiocy in its political DNA and its current tactics are defined by an approach that has more in common with the 80s eurocommunist fetish with ‘new social forces’ than the working class as it actually exists in its diversity.
Criticism of the PCF often boils down to the accusation that it is a bit too much like the French working class. That we should have such problems.
Incidentally, on the series of Palestine solidarity demonstrations earlier this year in Beziers the only political party visible was the PCF and I bought my copy of l’Humanite from a young woman in a hijab.
Comment by Nick Wright — 12 June, 2009 @ 9:13 am
external bulletin why don’t you post as tonyc anymore?
Some people just don’t want to move on. You and ll are both the same in this respect at least on this blog.
I hope you both aren’t like that in real life.
Outside a tube depot at 5 am:
ll: Hi, want to sign up to the SWP letter?
eb: Only if you admit the mistakes of the SWP over Respect.
ll: What mistakes? It was Galloway’s fault.
eb: No it wasn’t it was the whole SWP CC
ll: No it wasn’t
eb: Yes it was
ll: No it wasn’t
eb: Yes it was
ll: No it wasn’t
eb: Yes it was
ll: No it wasn’t
Meanwhile the astonished tube workers walk into work and one quips:
“Good job they both believe in unity”
Comment by anticapitalista — 12 June, 2009 @ 9:20 am
#44 Is that the best you can do? I seem to recall that anticapitalista was one of the cheerleaders for the debacle so accurately described by external bulletin. But that’s OK. We can all move on because the SWP CC believes it’s useful internally to launch a “unity offensive”. That really is offensive because it says that the SWP can do exactly the same thing all over again, should the circumstances suit.
Comment by vladimir antonov-ovseenko — 12 June, 2009 @ 9:34 am
#45 Quite right
Comment by rachel trickett — 12 June, 2009 @ 9:38 am
anticapitalista
you think you know so much but you just cannot admit that you are just another one of them pawn’s in the SWP silly game.
Your constant irritating little digs as always comes back to one thing its that you are sorry that you never kept to supporting GG and the Respect party, shame on you and shame on all the others that had there pound of flesh.
Now what we will see next election is the Respect party with MP’s all with no thanks to the supposed other left the SWP who just plant seeds and constantly drip feed them with twisted lies.
Comment by ironit — 12 June, 2009 @ 9:45 am
Fascinating as it is to hear, once again, the detailed who-said-what-to-whom stuff about the 2007 Respect debacle, to outsiders such a myself and others it’s as depressing as hearing a blow-by-blow account of how and why two friends divorced.
Comrades, what we need now and going forward is a unified working-class political party.
To me, it seems the SWP letter adresses this, while there are confused and mixed messages coming from different members of Respect.
You Respecters need to work out where you stand politically in the here and now.
Comment by Karl Stewart — 12 June, 2009 @ 9:58 am
#46, 46, 47
I would welcome such an initiative from anyone on the left that has real forces however much I disagree with them on certain issues. I’m sure there are thousands of activists outside SU that would agree.
They are the ones we should be addressing.
Comment by anticapitalista — 12 June, 2009 @ 10:05 am
The ‘we’ being ‘the Left’ in general.
Comment by anticapitalista — 12 June, 2009 @ 10:07 am
#31 “i don’t thnk that makes him two faced. there is no problem with UNITE funding the Labour Party.”
None at all but there is when Simpson distances develops a self denying law by which he refuses to use those funds to influence Labour in the interests of his members. And then criticizes ‘politicians’ for not acting in the interests of his members and of the working class.
That he brings forth such criticisms under pressure of the membership only makes it worse given his lack of activity within Labour. And a man on £200k is in no position to slag off the greed of MPs.
Comment by mike — 12 June, 2009 @ 12:14 pm
#48 `Comrades, what we need now and going forward is a unified working-class political party. To me, it seems the SWP letter adresses this . . ‘
That is because you are politically naive Karl. You will never build a workers party out of the petty-bourgeois propaganda sects because they are self-serving and interested only in their own puffed up self-importance. There is space for an electoral and class struggle alliance of left forces that could possibly lead to something else and there are at least two alliances already trying to fill this gap: the people behind No2EU and Respect. Why are the SWP trying to launch yet another instead of involving themselves in what already exists?
Comment by David Ellis — 12 June, 2009 @ 12:35 pm
“The French working class are compelled to make up their minds about contemporary politics without taking into account the advice of M. Proyect (37) and I doubt that either consideration of the Algerian war or of 1968 figured very much in the voting last week.”
Setting aside the historical record of the PCF, its recent behaviour is what leads a lot of people to distrust the party - as you know, the French Communists were part of two Socialist-led coalitions in the 1980s and 1990s that buried any idea of radical reform (the Jospin government privatised more industries than its predecessors). Activists from the NPA and others on the French left are right to wonder if the PCF will do the same again, joining up with the useless French Socialists in exchange for a few ministerial positions.
The NPA didn’t do as well as some polls were suggesting in the run up to the election, but it still got a healthy 5% nationally. The Left Front got a little more, bringing a total left-of-the-left vote of about 12% - since the main component of the Left Front is the PCF, which has been an established electoral force for decades all over France, it’s hardly surprising that they were able to shade it past the NPA. There was also a spectacular performance by the Green list headed by Cohn-Bendit, which probably took quite a few votes from both radical-left forces.
The real test of the NPA and the Left Front will be over the next three years - whichever force can play a better role in organising social resistance to the Sarko government will end up setting the agenda. The NPA may have its weaknesses, but it is a lot fresher, a lot more innovative and a lot more democratic than the PCF - those qualities should help it to grow over the next few years.
Comment by Ed W — 12 June, 2009 @ 12:55 pm
Ed W makes some compelling points about the effects (dangers) of participating in PS led government’s on their terms, some are held even more strongly by people inside the PCF, but he doesn’t deal with the issue at stake here – which is the trajectory of the NPA.
Life is more complicated than theory, down in beziers the LCR are in alliance with the PCF (on the PCF’s terms) against a right wing PCF breakaway tied up with the PS….
Comment by Nick Wright — 12 June, 2009 @ 1:10 pm
Nick: Criticism of the PCF often boils down to the accusation that it is a bit too much like the French working class.
—
Not from me. My criticism is that the CP’s are basically social democratic. I really don’t pay much attention to what’s going on in France, but the CPUSA functions as Obama’s unpaid press secretary. It is enough to make you puke.
Comment by Louis Proyect — 12 June, 2009 @ 1:46 pm
I think this is a good move from the SWP (not an organisation I have had much time for). A coalition which includes the SWP in time for a serious approach toward the next election would be good. The trick will be to aim for lose enough structures that people suspicious of the SWP (or other participating groups and campaigns) don’t feel locked in and vunerable to stitch-ups. As long as the SWP are keen to participate not dominate, we should all welcome this move rather than keep fighting old battles - battles which only involved fairly small numbers of activists directly in any case.
Comment by Jota — 12 June, 2009 @ 1:50 pm
The SWP approach to united left organisation is that of a small boy who packs up his toys and runs home when the game isn’t going his way. Recent experiences with the SA, the SSP and Respect prove that beyond any shadow of a doubt. They are a toxic sect whose ‘my party right or wrong’ cadre are a block to the development of any serious left formation. Why bother taking their latest ‘unity offensive’ seriously? It’s no different from what went before. The sole objective of the SWP is to build the SWP.
Comment by Martin Smith's Mum — 12 June, 2009 @ 2:10 pm
Any move of this type by the SWP should be welcomed, despite the cynicism and weariness that understandably exists. It is a positive shift away from the bizarre claim that there is no space for a left electoral alternative that they were expressing in 2008. I won’t hold my breath, but some explanation of what they did in the SA, Respect would be important in respect of the cynics and those who distrust the SWP.
Have any groups responded the this other than Workers Power and Workers Libery? Would be interested in the response from the SP, CPB and those around No2EU and Respect.
Comment by Steve — 12 June, 2009 @ 2:42 pm
#58 “Any move of this type by the SWP should be welcomed”
Why? Same old leadership, same old organisation, same old disingenuous unity appeal, and - not too far down the line - same old wrecking tactics. How many times do we have to repeat past mistakes by taking them at their word?
Comment by Martin Smith's Mum — 12 June, 2009 @ 2:56 pm
#48 karl stewart - I think it may be somewhat inevitable that if members of Respect(George Galloway) will respond with panic when they consider the possibility of others joining the SWP around a clear class platform, and have no other means of attack than to rehash their version of the split. Partly their argument has always seemed to be that they have an appeal that goes beyond the left particularly in the Muslim community, and so if others think that the working class and socialism should be the basis for long overdue unity, they are left with warning that the SWP are very bad people.
Incidentally I know you’ve expressed dislike of debating with people with silly screennames of which I would imagine you count mine, find some way of getting your contact details to me and I’d be peased to tell you who I am or even meet you for a drink.
Comment by skidmarx — 12 June, 2009 @ 3:13 pm
Johng: But is he saying that there should be no room for platforms, no room for any dissent but individual members etc?
—
I am absolutely for dissent and debate. I just believe that it should be carried out publicly. The Bolsheviks used Iskra to this end and in the 21st century Marxism should utilize the Internet for the same purpose. Lenin would have been totally behind the idea of public debate on the Internet. What I am opposed to is the idea of “democratic centralism” where groups like the SWP have their “internal discussion” during preconvention period and then enforced discipline on their members to defend the line adopted at the convention. This leads to groupthink and sectarianism. The discipline we need must be based on *action*, not thought.
Comment by Louis Proyect — 12 June, 2009 @ 3:34 pm
I can’t believe the suckers on this thread falling for the SWP guff. They’re only trying this ploy out of weakness and isolation. Surely, no-one seriously thinks that the SWP as organisation are going to be involved in any moves to create a new Left organisation, do they? Really?! Not going to happen.
Comment by Doug — 12 June, 2009 @ 3:56 pm
#58 - it is to be welcomed simply for the fact that they are the largest socialist group in the country. Any serious attempt at building a new party/formation must include them. Believe me, I share the cynicism and distrust of the SWP and am not their biggest fan by a long shot, however they cannot simply be dismissed and should be engaged with.
Hopefully they will take some responsibility for their previous action and realise that they need to rebuild their credibility among the wider movement and workers. The conference they suggest should be participatecd in by those who want to build something, however the Labour left seem to have been missed here. Whatever people think of New Labour, the Labour left should not be ignored in this.
Comment by Steve — 12 June, 2009 @ 4:05 pm
Skidmarx (60) “silly screen-names”? no, surely not! Thanks for the invite, drink sounds good - I’ll be in touch.
As to your points, fair comment on most of it, but some of the Respecters are pro-working class - they’re not all oddbods like Newman and his various “virtual friends.”
(By the way, who the f*** is this Louis Proyect character?)
Comment by Karl Stewart — 12 June, 2009 @ 5:02 pm
#62 no-one seriously thinks that the SWP as organisation are going to be involved in any moves to create a new Left organisation, do they?
They’re gonna git you sucka! Your grammar is a bit inadequate. Clearly the SWP as organisation is involved in moves towards a new left organisation,it is just that you think that such moves aredoomed to fail/not worth considering.
karl stewart - What Louis Proyect says about himself is here:
http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/about-louis-proyect/
though I seem to remember Karl Marx says somewhere not to accept what people say about themselves(I thought it was in the 18th Brumaire but couldn’t find it. I also thought he’d said something like “Noone minds living in a mud hut when everyone has a mud hut, but when someone builds a palce next door…” but maybe it was Engels or Tony Cliff).
Clearly they joined Respect out of a desire to do good in the world rather than evil,but often people’s politics get defined by what they are fighting against or to differntiate themselves from. As their unique selling point was the idea that they could reach electorally places the SWP could not, they have been defined by a cross-class electoralism rather than a focus on class struggle, and by an unjustified expectation of future electoral success which would give their project meaning. Certainly there are good socialists within it, though they now seem to be stuck between the Scylla of wanting to take forward the implantation in Muslim communities Respect has achieved, and the Charybdis of an unabashed left organisation being what they really want to be about.
Comment by skidmarx — 12 June, 2009 @ 5:48 pm
external bulletin at #42 says it all, really.
We saw the same arguments used as to why we should form the SA followed by a wave of wilful gratuitous destruction of their own side. Then the same thing happened with Respect. And now they want a third chance to do exactly the same (fourth if you count their hand in Scotland).
Even the begrudging acknowledgments of what is plainly obvious to everyone is like getting blood out of a stone.
I’m not saying a united front is impossible, but that without an honest fessing up, an analysis and an awareness of the part played by the various individuals in stalling any growth, nuthin’s changed. If you fucked over your comrades and destroyed our advance, an apology, an honest analysis and a reconcilation is vital if you are to do any meaningful work and pull yourselves out of this Groundhog Day. The open letter doesn’t even begin to address this.
To put it simply, don’t screw over your own side as we are the most important resource in any socialist movement. “Solidarity” has a meaning and a purpose.
Comment by Madam Miaow — 12 June, 2009 @ 5:54 pm
Madam Miaow - I think it’s clear now that the SWP is never going to agree with you on the facts of the split, and think the fucking over was done by the other side and so where any apolgies should come from. Clearly this means that many on the Galloway side of the split aren’t going to come to any reconciliation with the SWP any time soon. Though that faction was numerically small,shrinking, and those who aren’t die-hards are looking on the proposal with far more enthusiasm than you.
I think the name “external bulletin” says it all, parasitic as it is on the discussions of actual socialists.
Comment by skidmarx — 12 June, 2009 @ 6:19 pm
Skidmarx’s post shows the bonhommie and humility that we’ve come to expect from the self-proclaimed leadership of the class. Yet another SWP front organisation/fishing expedition? Count me in!!!
Comment by Martin Smith's Mum — 12 June, 2009 @ 6:44 pm
Well I got to know a few Respecters when I was helping out with the No2EU campaigning in south London and they seemed a decent bunch - class politics, socialism etc - nothing like the strange characters one encounters here.
But from outside it’s very difficult to tell which is the real Respect and what does it collectively stand for.
There’s neo-eurocomm Andy Newman, Salma Yaqoob who appears to want to be a green really, and George “Tory government now” Galloway.
Then there’s “David Ellis” whose postings just get more and more bizarre - and then there are the decent, socialist and pro-working class bunch in south London that I referred to earlier. (Kind of not really a party is it guys?)
Comment by Karl Stewart — 12 June, 2009 @ 6:47 pm
“ I think it’s clear now that the SWP is never going to agree with you on the facts of the split …”
Which is why many of us on the Left who saw various events in close-up remain sceptical.
I don’t know about the origins of “external bulletin” but the name is no more remarkable that many others on here, skidmarx. It’s the substance of what he/she has written that interests me and needs to be addressed. (BTW, it’s not just the SWP that I think should take a long hard look at itself. I think this is a problem in the movement as a whole.)
I wouldn’t knock anyone for trying yet again but my heart will be in my mouth waiting for the same thing to happen to them as I can’t see any indications that any fundamental change has occurred.
Comment by Madam Miaow — 12 June, 2009 @ 6:49 pm
This statement was agreed by Respect’s Southwark branch on Thursday 11 June
Southwark Respect welcomes the appeals of the last few days for action to be taken to pose a united socialist alternative at the next general election.
In the face of the recession and the growing assault on working class living standards the left needs to unite in defence of our class.
The recession is also being accompanied by its ugly outrider the rise of the fascists as a force in politics.
The BNP represent a real danger. The anger at the corruption of the mainstream politics linked into the worsening recession means that the BNP now have the opportunity to establish themselves as a permanent fixture on the political landscape, and to solidify a still soft voting base into a harder, more racist and more openly fascist one.
This has happened in theses elections not through a spectacular growth of the BNP vote, but by the collapse of the labour vote.
A strategy that merely relies on stacking up as many votes as possible against the Nazis cannot succeed.
Support for the BNP is growing out of the lack of hope and the fear which is now stalking working class communities.
An real alternative has to be posed.
That is why we in Southwark Respect supported NO2EU in this election. It was a temporary platform formed shortly before the election and though it had imperfections, it was a real attempt to grapple with this question.
Though it might not have staged a dramatic breakthrough, NO2EU together with the SLP got 326,000 votes, more than Respect (standing as the sole national left force) got in the 2004 European elections in aftermath of the Iraq War. It also did better than Respect did in some important working class areas such as Wales and the North East.
The vote was not as large as we would have liked, but it proved that there is still, despite the difficulties that the project of a new political force to the left of labour has experienced, the basis for such a party.
The experience of constructing a political alternative to Labour has proved to be a difficult and bruising one for the left.
The project has suffered a number of setbacks and the left is now hampered by the fact that after twelve years of Labour government it has not managed to build a political force that can seriously challenge the mainstream parties or the fascists, across the country.
The need for unity however presses heavy on all now. We cannot let previous strife prevent us uniting again. We should not allow past differences to blind us to the importance of the task in hand.
We notice that there is a growing realisation in the trade union movement that there is a need to pose a political alternative to Labour and stand candidates against in the general election. No2Eu is the most concrete example of this, but the PCS is also talking about standing candidates, the FBU remains disaffiliated and relations between Labour and the CWU have been stretched to breaking point.
We welcome the appeals put out by Bob Crow, the CPB and the SP following their joint work in NO2EU. We also we welcome the moves by the SWP and others to seek unity again with the rest of the le ft.
These moves will not immediately result in the kind of party that we believe is necessary, but they could be steps towards it.
We in Southwark Respect have long maintained that what the working class needs a new party, rooted in the labour movement, to represent its interests.
We welcome every step taken by the working class to find its own political voice again.
Comment by ID — 12 June, 2009 @ 8:15 pm
Hi ID, looking forward to meeting up next week mate.
Excellent post at (71), so that’s the SP, SWP and some of Respect up for building a unified working-class political force.
This, together with Bob Crow’s statement on the matter, certainly represents a growing realisation that working-class political unity has got to be the way forward.
I’m not sure of the CP’s current position tho, my understanding is that the Communist Party plans to hold detailed discussions on this next week.
Comment by Karl Stewart — 12 June, 2009 @ 8:32 pm
#71 Excellent statement from Southwark Respect.
Comment by anticapitalista — 12 June, 2009 @ 8:34 pm
ID post 71: I’am pleased that the Southwark motion has been posted and has my full support. Its important that all points of view within Respect are heard loud and clear and that we should not be afraid of debate both within and outside of Respect. The issues before us currently, that of Left Unity, are far too important for there not too be a debate within all progressive/socialist organisations at this time. Lets hope something very postive comes out of these discussions as i for one dont want another election like we had last week with its disasterous outcome for all on the Left.
Comment by Neil Williams — 12 June, 2009 @ 9:53 pm
Have to agree with Madam Miaow - what do you do if you want left unity but have been fecked over by the CWI/SP and SWP?
What hapens if there is still hurt and pain? What happens if you just can’t trust them? How does left unity happen?
Answers on a postcard please
Comment by cat — 12 June, 2009 @ 10:44 pm
“external bulletin why don’t you post as tonyc anymore?”
That’s one of those great questions that you can’t answer by saying “I’m not who you think I am”, because the accuser will think you’re a liar, or if you don’t answer it at all, you’re accused of confirmation by silence. In fact, the only answer to such a clever question to the satisfaction of the accuser is to say “drat, you’ve found me out”. But I wouldn’t want to give you the pleasure of thinking you are clever enough to work out who’s who from their pseudonym. You’ve shown as much knowledge about people on here as you have about the actual behaviour of the UK SWP. As in, “almost none”.
To soothe your nerves, let me put it to you this way: I’ve been accused of being a few different people, and a few different people have been accused of being tonyc. The most joined-up response to it all is to point out that both tonyc and external bulletin share the ignominious pleasure of having been accused of, in fact, being Kumar Murshid by terryfitz.
Comment by external bulletin — 12 June, 2009 @ 10:50 pm
#76 so you are tonyc then…
and I am Spartacus.
https://www.mepis.org/node/13830
Comment by anticapitalista — 12 June, 2009 @ 11:11 pm
#76 Damn it, I am Kumar Murshid. And Helal Abbas (Uddin). And I feel I am becoming Terry Fitzpatrick. It feels really weird and quite unpleasant.
#71 Glad to know how well No2EU did. Seems they almost got a seat, if you add in the SLP and multiply by three. I have to confess I think the statement from Southwark Respect, whoever they are, is rather absurd. Are there many of them? I think we should be told.
Comment by rachel trickett — 12 June, 2009 @ 11:24 pm
What’s your take on the Greek election results, anticapitalista?
Comment by ferrier — 12 June, 2009 @ 11:33 pm
#79 No sooner do I put my little post up than I get a phone call to inform me that the Southwark Respect statement was endorsed at a “well-attended” meeting of eleven people, ten of whom supported the statement. This gives a wholly new meaning to “well-attended”. I have just had a very well-attended evening in front of the telly, for those interested in this information.
But I also note that No2EU got about 600 votes in Tower Hamlets where I and my TV reside. This must be less than the Left List last year, although I can’t say I’ve got the figures in my head. I can’t imagine things were much better in Southwark, but someone will no doubt enlighten us.
It seems to me here lies the problem. In the abstract 150,000 votes can sound good, especially if you are ten or eleven people in a room in Southwark. But, under the electoral systems we are likely to have for the foreseeable future, you need to pile up your votes in particular areas or you are going to lose.
Now if your objective is to recruit a couple of people to a far left organisation in the hope that one day things might turn revolutionary and your lot has enough folk to have some sort of influence on the outcome of events, then maybe your heart will be warmed by the vote.
For the rest of us, slightly more closely connected to the real world, 150,000 votes, or even 300,000, scattered hither and thither does not amount to much to hope for, in the near term at any rate. And that is where Respect surely has the advantage over all the other organisations seemingly preferred by the good folk of Southwark.
Comment by rachel trickett — 12 June, 2009 @ 11:43 pm
#80 Sorry. I got my numbering wrong. It must have been all those big numbers I was struggling with. I was of course referring to #78 and then #71.
Comment by rachel trickett — 12 June, 2009 @ 11:46 pm
The Southwark statement says “It [No2EU] also did better than Respect did in some important working class areas such as Wales and the North East.
Yet a quick look at the figures for the North East suggests otherwise.
2004 - Respect - 8,633
2009 - NO2U - 8,066
Yet funnily for a London based branch they neglect to mention that working class bastion of … er …well … er London where the results are as follows
2004 - Respect - 91,175
2009 - No2EU - 17,758
but if you add in the SLP you get 33,064. That’s better isn’t it?
Comment by oops there goes the maths — 12 June, 2009 @ 11:56 pm
#79 Well the ruling conservatives of New Democracy lost about 10% (fantastic) and PASOK increased its % vote, though not by much.
The 2 left of PASOK parties didn’t increase their % either.
The KKE (Greek CP) did better than expected (though they lost votes) and continues to be the biggest left party in electoral terms at 8.3%. SYRIZA had hoped to get at least 2 MEPs, possibly 3 and ended up with 1 at 4.7%.
The Greens got 3.5%, a huge increase from a previous 1% , but they were hyped in the opinion polls to get around 6-8%.
The real winners were the fascist LAOS (7.1%) and abstention. (almost 50% usually it is around 25% max)
So quite a contradictary picture really. The ruling party, the social democratic oppostion, the ‘traditional’ left - in numerical terms lost votes and they went either to the far right or people didn’t bother voting (more the case IMO)
Comment by anticapitalista — 12 June, 2009 @ 11:59 pm
Thanks, anticapitalista. That’s helpful information. How did the revolutionary left that’s not part of the Syriza coalition fare?
Pakistani friends in Athens say there is a sharp increase in racist rhetoric from the conservative government and physical attacks from thugs who are strutting around as unreconstructed fascists - ie not the besuited variety at the top of Laos, which, as far as I understand it, also includes right wing populists.
It strikes my friends as a dangerous situation. Not that the far right will soar upwards, but that they feel emboldened, leading to an attack on the civil position of immigrants and to their blood being spilt.
Comment by ferrier — 13 June, 2009 @ 12:06 am
#82
I think Southwarks contention is that there is eveidence of a growth in the left of labour vote (excluding the greens)
This doesn’t stack up, look at the combined far left voting results for Scotland and Wales:
2004
Scotland 61356
Wales 17280 + 5427 = 22707
2009
Scotland 22135 + 9693 + 10404 = 42232
Wales 8600 + 12402 = 21002
Comment by Andy Newman — 13 June, 2009 @ 12:12 am
That’s interesting, Andy. I think the issue for too many people is too narrow a definition of the left. It excludes the Greens and important developments on the broader left in the Labour Party.
I also think a very different set of election results in France reinforces the point that the “revolutionary left” should be seeking to embrace those of the “left reformists” who are engaging in constructing something outside of social democracy.
The NPA result was not an improvement on what the LCR got. Crucially, it failed to overtake the Communist Party in alliance with a breakaway figure from the PS. This is a setback for the LCR/NPA compared with previous elections and, imho, suggests that they ought to have sought a much more positive and collaborative engagement with the Left bloc than they did. A unit project which stays in the ghetto of the far left, even where that ghetto has been quite sizeable as in France over the years, doesn’t really respond to the particular political crisis we are facing.
Comment by ferrier — 13 June, 2009 @ 12:20 am
#84 ANTARSYA got 0.43%, not a surprise, but at least it was higher than the previous election.
Even before the elections there were racist attacks on immigrants in Athens and particularly on Muslims. The open fascists of Chysi Avgi (LAOS, unfortunately are considered mainstream far right) had set fire to a mosque and have been organising demos to kick out the foreigners. There were large counter demos, by locals, orgaised mainly by the Pakistani and Afghan community with ANTARSYA (unfortunately KKE and SYRIZA didn’t take the demos as seriously as they should have done, in fact KKE did nothing and SYRIZA only sent the usual rev.left inside).
During the election campaign Chysi Avgi set fire to the central stall of ANTARSYA in Athens, trashed the one here in Thessaloniki and did the same elsewhere.
A united anti-fascist campaign is needed.
Comment by anticapitalista — 13 June, 2009 @ 12:29 am
Post 85:
I think what it shows Andy is that there is room for a Left of Labour alliance (the exact nature of which needs discussion between the parties/groups concerned) that with more time, more resouces and more inclusive in its makeup could do well in the general election and more importantly begin to give working people some hope and some possiblity of a fightback in their work place and during elections. It will only be a beggining but better a beggining than no hope at all - do we really want to see another week like last week?
I remember when Respect was first formed and the feeling of hope, excitement and expectation all of which was missing last week. Poor election results did not stop Respect from trying to move on from its early days (to its high point of winning in Tower Hamlets)and nor should last weeks results (including the Greens who got no where near their previous high of 15% of the Euro vote) stop the left from trying to work together. The stakes are very high as failure now by the Left/Progressive parties/groups will set us back decades for sure.
Comment by Neil Williams — 13 June, 2009 @ 12:31 am
Thanks, anticapitalista. Good luck in constructing such an anti-fascist and anti-racist counterblast. If it was possible to lever in Synaspismos and sections of Pasok it may even prove difficult for the KKE, or at least its youth, to stay out of it. Though I know it is extremely difficult to get initiatives that such a broad section of the left will all support.
I heard about the principled defence of the Muslim immigrants by your party and its collaborators. I think it was very well done and has certainly done you a lot of credit, in addition to previous stances, in the eyes of those who are on the receiving end of this burst of support for racist parties.
Comment by ferrier — 13 June, 2009 @ 12:36 am
#89 I agree with you that the key is to get SYN, PASOK and KKE (as well as the anti-capitalist left) involved in the anti-fascist and anti-racist struggle as a genuine united front. It isn’t easy, not because members/supporters of the above mentioned parties don’t want it, but because of the history of ‘bad blood’ over the years.
Our class deperately needs unity against the bosses offensive and the threat of the far-Right whether that be in Greece or the UK.
Comment by anticapitalista — 13 June, 2009 @ 12:45 am
The Southwark statement is poor for a number of reasons, including the shaky grasp on math. It smacks of a somewhat desperate attempt to bump up the No2eu results, which were poor, especially in London, where they remarkably did even worse than Lindsey German when she stood for the Left Alternative in the Mayoral elections. But at least her vote was a conscious left wing vote, just as the Respect vote in the Euro’s in 2004 was certainly a very conscious anti-imperialist and anti-racist vote. Neither of these facts apply to the No2eu result which, to a greater or lesser degree, will have soaked up a confused right-wing anti-EU vote by default.
Comment by Ger Francis — 13 June, 2009 @ 12:49 am
Good to read the statement from Southwark Respect.
Comment by KrisS — 13 June, 2009 @ 12:57 am
#91 “… the No2eu result which, to a greater or lesser degree, will have soaked up a confused right-wing anti-EU vote by default.”
I’m not in the UK, but is this really true?
Comment by anticapitalista — 13 June, 2009 @ 1:00 am
#93 to continue (sorry I hit enter too soon)
Here, the Greek Communist Party (KKE) had their main emphasis in this euro-election a no2eu platform. Noone here thinks they got ‘a confused right-wing anti-EU vote by default.’
Comment by anticapitalista — 13 June, 2009 @ 1:04 am
But anticapitalista. The KKE stands as the Greek COMMUNIST PARTY; party symbol, a hammer and sickle!, current publishing project: the works of Stalin that the Russians overlooked in the collected works. Of course it’s a left vote.
What was on the face of this temporary formation in Britain, constructed seven weeks before the election, however, was No2EU. That was its name on the ballot paper and the front page of it’s leaflet. There was nothing in its projected name, which is all that most voters ever see of a party during an election barring any news coverage they get, to suggest it was left wing.
In addition, the anti-EU position in the UK has always been much more associated with the right than the left. So it is unreasonable for people to assume that the No2EU vote was unambiguously left wing. How much of it was left and how much from the right is, of course, moot in the absence of further evidence.
Comment by ferrier — 13 June, 2009 @ 1:37 am
The problem is that Ger is right about the NO2EU result with his qualification: ‘to a greater or lesser degree’. But tying down the truth of what their vote represented more precisely is impossible imo. (However i am convinced by anecdotal evidence that they could have pulled at least some potentail BNP support, which dovetails with Ger’s arguement, but ironically not with Salma’s at all).
Comment by swp member — 13 June, 2009 @ 6:42 am
Reflecting on the No2EU experience, I think that the biggest plus was that the No2EU initiative introduced comrades from different working-class organisations to one another - hopefully breaking down some traditional mutual suspicions.
It was particularly positive that the Communist Party and the Socialist Party worked together - I think this was for the first time - and also that in Scotland, the Communist Party and Solidarity movement worked together.
And joint work with some members of Respect also helped to break down other sectarian barriers.
(Another positive was that lazy gits like me and others who don’t belong to regular parties actually did a bit of campaigning work for a change!)
On the negative side, while it’s quite fair enough for an EU election platform to have its main focus on the EU, our name didn’t give any indication of a pro-worker or left-wing orientation.
For example, when I was out campaigning in south London, people I spoke to first of all got the impression that we were something to do with UKIP.
And, although the policies themselves were, on the whole, perfectly sound, in some respects No2EU seemed to imply - wrongly - that the EU was either wholly or mostly responsible for privatisation here in the UK.
As to the formation of the platform, I agree with critics who point to the failure to engage with the SWP that this was an error.
And of course, we need to recognise that the results themselves were very poor - any positive “spin” on this is just daft.
Post-election, it’s extremely positive that the SP, SWP and RMT leader Bob Crow have each indicated the need for serious talks about building a meaningful working-class electoral challenge at the next election.
While the Communist Party’s post-election position is not entirely clear at the time of writing, my understanding is that the CP leadership plans to hold its own comprehensive discussions on this within the next week or so and at the pre-election No2EU rally in London, CP gensec Rob Griffiths gave every indication that the CP was in favour of taking this idea forward in some form.
Amid the growing talk of a new working-class/united left formation, we do need clarity over what we actually want - our aims - and how politically “broad” and of what type the proposed new organisation should be.
My own view - an entirely personal opinion which does not represent the view of anyone else - is that I believe that the stated aim should be the replacement of the rule of the capitalist class with the collective rule of the working class.
As to how politically “broad” such an organisation should be, my personal view is that membership should be open to all who self-define as socialists or communists and agree the essential aim that the working class should become the ruling class.
And the name, in my opinion, should be “Workers Party.”
Structure should, ideally, be federal, with constituent organisations keeping their rights, provided they adhere - and practice a reasonable level of collective responsibility - to the essential aims and objects.
The above suggestion is fundamentally different from others’ views - it differs fundamentally from the “broad/progressive alliance” perspective and from the “Labour Party MkII” model.
Comment by Karl Stewart — 13 June, 2009 @ 8:08 am
Thanks Karl for your honesty. Your point that when out campaigning in south London the ‘people I spoke to first of all got the impression that we were something to do with UKIP’ stands in marked contrast to the denial at the heart of the Southwark statement and represents a more sober assessment of problems with the No2Eu initiative.
Re 96: The substantive point is this: if NO2EU or the SLP hadn’t stood would their votes have automatically transferred to the Greens? No. Not automatically. Human agency was required. But there is every reason to assume that if more had been applied, if the left united to ensure that the left vote was not split, and instead directed it towards the candidate best placed to win, then in the NW at least we could have taken the last seat and stopped the BNP. Hence Respect’s decision to actively campaign for the Greens who came very close to so doing. If others had adopted the same attitude, the BNP could have been denied victory.
We know from the polling returns in inner city Birmingham that the Greens made significant gains. Among them coming third in Bordesley Green and Sparkbrook and second in Moseley. Salma’s endorsement will have been be a significant contributing factor although if we had cooperated earlier the potential to exploit that endorsement would have been much much greater. No matter. What has happened in the WM and NW is an important milestone. It represents exactly the kind of coalition thinking that was always at the core of Respect’s foundation, if not always its practice. That’s changed now and we are all more the better for it. The potential is there for the future. In particular if the left and progressive vote could unite in Moseley Birmingham it could well make a council seat winnable in the 2010 local elections, and more besides.
Comment by Ger Francis — 13 June, 2009 @ 8:38 am
I must say I never regarded Forward Wales as a left vote, particularly. And since this was the name, not of a temporary platform, but a carefully chosen name for a party, I guess they didn’t see it that way either. Was Ron Davies being caught with his trousers down on Clapham Common an act of left-wing rebellion? I somehow don’t think so. FW was crap, and its insulting to bracket it with Respect, No2EU or even the SLP or SSP as in some way part of a principled left.
Comment by ID — 13 June, 2009 @ 9:08 am
Thanks Ger. This is absolutely spot on.
The vast majority of the outside Left are not members of any party. We are a floating constituency who might vote Green in Brighton Pavillion, Respect in Hall Green or East London, in Scotland and Wales most likely SNP or Plaid and where there’s a decent Labour MP, Labour, or if a decent Lib-Dem candidate and a useless Labour MP, we’ll vote Lib-Dem. If none of the above, abstain out of anger and disappointment.
Respect is now gravitating towards a coalition, plural, politocs that fits precisely with this mood and audience. It won’t stop Labour losing the General Election but it will become the basis of any future progressive revival, initially at the local elections, potentially around Livingsone in London in 2012.
Meanwhile those who have scaled the achievement of 1% in the Euro Elections want to get together in unity talks, the SWP suggest something similar. Fine, best of luck to ‘em but as I am sure they will be the first to agree this is nothing to do with the coalition politics of a plural left.
It is excellent news that those who have achieved so much electorally for Respect in Birmingham, an unprecedented 3 councillors and at least the prospect of an MP want nothing to do with the No2EU and SWP initiatives. In the NW Respect have already laid the basis for coaliton politics with their electoral agreement with the Greens. George Galloway’s support for Livingstone in the LOndon Mayoral election similarly fits with this mood.
Small as Respect remains its electoral achievement remains significant. With that experience it looks set to play a role in this emergent politics of coalition, rather than confine itself to the exhausted and declining forces of the hard left who have only themselves remaining to unite with themselves to scale once more the heights of 1%.
Mark P
Comment by Mark P — 13 June, 2009 @ 9:09 am
“Thanks Karl for your honesty. Your point that when out campaigning in south London the ‘people I spoke to first of all got the impression that we were something to do with UKIP’ stands in marked contrast to the denial at the heart of the Southwark statement and represents a more sober assessment of problems with the No2Eu initiative.”
Denial of what? That the name caused some confusion for people particularly when they first saw it? Of course it did! That’s rather different from saying that No2EU’s vote was not a left vote - people who see the headline on a leaflet don’t automatically go and and vote for it based on first impressions. They read, consider what is being said, and make their minds up accordingly. No one who was minded to vote for UKIP because of right-wing politics would have voted for No2EU based on its political attack on neo-liberalism and any UKIP supporter who didn’t know the name of his/her own party must simply be an idiot. You can’t legislate against the odd idiot becoming confused, of course, but most people - including most UKIP people - are not in that category.
Comment by ID — 13 June, 2009 @ 9:18 am
#99
ID
Forward Wales explicitly saw themselves as a sister party to the Scottish Socialist party, i discussed this personlly with Ron Davies; who of course had pedigree as a left wing council leader, before he became an MP. the RMT backed FW, I have a photo somewhere of Bob Crow holding a FW banner.
Their policies were explicitly socialist, and they campaigned as a Welsh socialist party.
Your London-centic ignorance of Welsh politics is the pnly reasn you don’t consider them left wing.
Comment by Andy Newman — 13 June, 2009 @ 9:28 am
#99
Interview with Ron Davies here:
http://www.socialistunity.com/?page_id=851
Comment by Andy Newman — 13 June, 2009 @ 9:32 am
I don’t know what’s to be gained by imagining oneself inside the head of a no2eu voter. As Karl says, the votes were poor - it’s not necessary to pretend the votes the platform did get were accidental.
Comment by KrisS — 13 June, 2009 @ 9:45 am
And he’s right also, as far as I can see, to say that the important thing about the platform was learning about working together.
Comment by KrisS — 13 June, 2009 @ 9:52 am
…But is he right about the need for a workers party?
Comment by Karl Stewart — 13 June, 2009 @ 10:24 am
I think he might be wanting to jump a bit further in one go than can be achieved right away. I’m not sure, at the moment.
Comment by KrisS — 13 June, 2009 @ 10:26 am
“Your London-centic ignorance of Welsh politics is the pnly reasn you don’t consider them left wing.”
Hm, if they had any staying power, I might be more inclined to take this seriously. But this outfit seems to have collapsed rather quickly without leaving much of a trace. Ron Davies may have had a left-wing past prior to being in Blair’s government - but there are quite a few New Labour ministers who did, aren’t there? He showed no sign of left-wing opposition to Blair prior to the personal misfortune that led him to resign. And I don’t find it surprising that this attempt to save his career didn’t last long - he wasn’t driven by socialist convictions but by other motives. The RMT are to be congraluated for seeking out new political representation, but that doesn’t mean everyone they ever tried to work with proved to be any good. Only time, consistency and persistence could prove that.
Comment by ID — 13 June, 2009 @ 10:35 am
SSP and Solidarity members already work together in a number of unions / workplaces across Scotland. Not all doom and gloom. A United Left candidate in the by-election for Michael Martin’s seat will be a welcome step forward.
Comment by Solidarity — 13 June, 2009 @ 11:23 am
ID says: ‘But this outfit seems to have collapsed rather quickly without leaving much of a trace…’
Be very careful about throwing stones when you’re in a glass outshed, ID.
Comment by ferrier — 13 June, 2009 @ 6:42 pm
ID says: ‘They read, consider what is being said, and make their minds up accordingly.’
Where is the research to back up this assertion of how votes are formed? This is a view of how mass politics worked projected from the narrow world of those who hand out leaflets. Mass politics doesn’t work like that.
Comment by ferrier — 13 June, 2009 @ 6:56 pm
#80 rachel trickett derides the idea that Southwark Respect’s meeting was ‘well attended’, but it actually was well-attended for a local Respect *decision-making* meeting.
We can have big rallies if e.g. George Galloway is speaking, which is all well and good, but I don’t know if there have ever been large Respect meetings since the split at which political decisions have been taken. I hear that there was no democratic meeting of Birmingham Respect which voted to support the Greens, for example - or is that wrong?
Building a functioning branch like Southwark Respect is certainly unglamorous and low-key, but the alternative seems to be to call out the troops for a big rally and then send them away while a few accountability-resistant individuals take the decisions for us.
Comment by steph — 13 June, 2009 @ 8:59 pm
#112 Perhaps Steph would like to tell us what representative body decided that No2EU should stand in the North West region, despite the fact it was already known that the Greens would push the BNP very close and No2EU definitely would not. And perhaps she could also tell us just how successful Southwark Respect has been at doing anything other than getting ten, or was it eleven, people in a room to pass yet another resolution.
Comment by rachel trickett — 14 June, 2009 @ 12:19 am
Going back to Nick Wright’s reply about the NPA’s trajectory (a long way up the thread already) - I think it’s early days yet, the NPA has only been up and running for a few months. It already has a much bigger membership than the old LCR so we can’t assume that it’s just going to follow the same path as the LCR over the last few years.
From my observations of the LCR when I lived in Paris, its main weakness seemed to be its shallow roots in the blue-collar and immigrant sections of the working class, its main strength seemed to be its genuine internal democracy. Another weakness that was pointed out to me by an ex-pat Brit who was a member for several years - the LCR’s intellectuals tend to be very, well, French, without much talent for expressing complex ideas in plain language (I find Daniel Bensaid heavy going in English or in French).
I agree that the NPA can’t afford to just ignore the PCF or the Left Front, writing them off as a hostile competitor - you’re right, for all its faults the PCF still has a solid activist base in communities and workplaces that the radical left needs to be organising in France. If there are people in the PCF who want to turn away from alliances with the Socialists, that’s good news, and the NPA should try to engage with them. Hopefully now there will be a turn to social resistance which will have a postive effect on the development of the NPA. The LCR may have bent the stick a bit too hard (to borrow an old Cliffite cliche) in their attitude to the PCF, and that attitude may still be strong in the NPA. But in fairness, after the experience of the Italian Left and the collapse of Rifondazione, it’s not surprising if they were very keen to draw a line between themselves and any project that involved unity with the goddawful French Socialist Party.
Comment by Ed W — 14 June, 2009 @ 1:43 am
What frustrates is the lack of humility. Ideas writ large, our defining feature.
and until then…
comrades.
Comment by adam — 14 June, 2009 @ 2:55 am
rachel and steph.like two ferrets in a sack…no meeting was held in Birmingham to decide policy towards the euro election. But then are you really surprised, it has become a vehicle for a few stars. All the talk about the openess and accountability in Respect has I am afraid been found a bit wanting. It is a shame that even inside Respect now there is infighting and the decision making is left to a handful of well knowns. But then Galloway did BB and that disaster was a choice all of his own, Salma and others argued to really go for him, perhaps in those days she was right?
Comment by newt — 14 June, 2009 @ 5:29 am
@97
“And the name, in my opinion, should be “Workers Party.””
As long as the already registered Workers Revolutionary Party don’t object
Comment by Liam — 14 June, 2009 @ 8:45 am
#113 `Perhaps Steph would like to tell us what representative body decided that No2EU should stand in the North West region, despite the fact it was already known that the Greens would push the BNP very close and No2EU definitely would not.’
I would say that instead of having a go at No2EU as the reason that the BNP gained two seats or at least the seat in the North West you should place the blame where it really belongs. The economic collapse and political crisis caused by expenses overseen by New Labour and more immediately Hazel Blears, Purnell and co’s walking out of government on the eve of the poll. Then perhaps you should look at those who called on workers to vote New Labour when huge swathes of them clearly see them as not representing but actually opposing their own interests. Millions abstained and those who failed to persudade them to vote New Labour to stop the BNP should look to themselves for a possible reason for the BNP victory. Alternatively what about those who called for a Green vote? Does their strategy not stand exposed as a miserable failure? The aspirational politics of the greens are of no use to workers losing jobs, houses, local services. A little more humility from those trying to shift the blame from New Labour and themselves I think is necessary on this point. In fact, the votes that No2EU did get may well otherwise have been amongst the hundreds of thousands of working class abstentions or simply gone to the ultra-third periodist SLP and who knows maybe you added to the abstentions.
The strategy of not atriculating working class interests will only lead to more political absentionism and cynicism, just as those unions who have become little more than insurance salesmen have lost members hand over fist, and most definitely to more success for the BNP. Remember, you blame No2EU for the BNP victory in the North West whilst in Humberside they slipped in unnoticed. I urge you not to let New Labour and its Blairite discontents off the hook for the gains of the BNP.
Comment by Calm Down — 14 June, 2009 @ 9:04 am
‘I would say that instead of having a go at No2EU as the reason that the BNP gained two seats or at least the seat in the North West you should place the blame where it really belongs.’
Obviously not read Salma’s post election analysis, then? I suggest you do. Might ease the strain of carrying all that sense of victimhood around.
Anybody who has read it, or heard Salma’s speech at the Compass conference yesterday, will be in no doubt that the responsibility for the BNP victory lies full square with New Labour’s betrayal. But knowing that did not absolve the left of acting tactically in the best way to minimize the chance of the BNP winning in the NW at least, where the threat appeared greatest and left unity could have stopped them. Respect can hold its head high about its role to that end.
Comment by Ger Francis — 14 June, 2009 @ 10:11 am
No sense of victimhood Ger Francis. Those calling for a New Labour vote to stop the BNP and those calling for a Green vote to stop the BNP failed but for some reason they don’t want to blame themselves.
Besides, I was answering a point made at #113 not having a go at Salma or Respect in which all three positions were represented I believe so take a chill pill.
Comment by Calm Down — 14 June, 2009 @ 10:41 am
I think this blaming the BNP vote on anything other than straightforward racism is nonsense quite frankly.
An analysis that argues that working-class voters are poor naiive innocents who are being basically forced to vote this way is both patronising and opportunist.
Patronising because it implies that people will be incapable of thinking and deciding for themselves.
And opportunist, because people using this argument are manipulating the racist vote for their own narrow party advantage.
But worst of all, this analysis risks providing excuses for these racists, which is what ALL BNP voters are.
Would you make similar excuses for self-confessed paedophiles?
Comment by Karl Stewart — 14 June, 2009 @ 10:48 am
Karl’s Stewart did admit, to his credit, what Ian Donovan and co want to deny, that NO2EU could have been be mistaken in public perception for being a version of UKIP, that is, anti-foreigner, little Englander bigots. Perhaps next time, if there is a next time, take up on some variant of Gregor Gall’s suggestion on a name that is somewhat less open to misinterpretation like ”No to a Bosses’ EU - Yes to a Workers’ EU” to get the basic class message across”:
http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/index.php/features/no2eu_s_wrong_turning_on_the_election_path
As for those crying crocodile tears about a very minor division in RESPECT, get some perspective. Compared to the SWP factionalism we had to deal with, this is childs play. The Southwark people are on their way out of Respect because fundamentally they have a perspective completely at odds with ours. Theirs is with a vision of left unity, held by only a handful inside RESPECT, that excludes the Green left and the centre left in the Labour party, and confines itself instead solely to fragments of the hard left, while harboring some fantasy about a new political entity of like minded souls. And in the tradition of a certain sectarian mindset they are intent on seeing who they can take with them. Good luck to them. The best place for them would be in the Campaign for a New Workers Party, which is where I would go if I shared their analysis. Irrespective, it is inconceivable to me that RESPECT will abandon its perspective of working together with the broad left, which the revolutionary left is one part of, especially now that we are seeing concrete evidence in the Euro polling returns of how this strategy could really upset the political applecart. This is definitely the case in Birmingham, and no doubt elsewhere as well.
Comment by Ger Francis — 14 June, 2009 @ 10:51 am
#121 `I think this blaming the BNP vote on anything other than straightforward racism is nonsense quite frankly.’
If you could read Karl Stewart you would be dangerous. Do you think this racism arose over night? The blame is on New Labour because they have alienated their core vote to no longer vote which has given the racists a way in.
#122 Ger Francis, suggesting that being against the EU is a fascist position is basically bonkers (BNP are set to pick up £22 mmillion from it) and you shouldn’t do it and I certainly wasn’t having a go about minor differences in Respect. I thought that was one of its strengths, its ability to encompass debate, but you are sounding very authoritarian telling people where to go. Personally I am all for putting the Labour left under pressure to do something but I’m willing to try and win the arguement rather than force people out.
Comment by Calm Down — 14 June, 2009 @ 11:08 am
Spot on once more Ger.
Yesterday’s session at The Compass Conference with Salm Yaqoob, Caroline Lucas, Jon Cruddas and Plaid Cymru MP Adam Price has all the potential for a process of unprecedented coaliotion building. It won;t be easy, it won’t be instant but it will prove invaluable in the hard times after a still likely 2010 General Election victory. Elsewhee at the same conference I chaired a session bring together SNP, Plaid and Sinn Fein, another contribution toward plural colation-building which across Britain post 2010 will be shaped by the enduring and developing devolution settlement.
In the short term the campaign to push Labour towards a referendum question on the General Election is absolutely crucial.
Meanwhile those whose vision of Left unity which reaches out to the SWP, RMT leadership, SP and CPB but cannot countenance anything beyond are welcome to their own project, a new Workers Party? Best of luck.
Mark P
Comment by Mark P — 14 June, 2009 @ 11:17 am
Rachel 113 - pointing out that the hastily put-together No2EU slate wasn’t formed of ‘representative bodies’ doesn’t answer the question about the lack of democracy in Respect as a national entity, which has had a year and half to get organised since the split.
I think getting a dozen local people keen enough to attend meetings, voting on policies and then implementing them as a Respect branch, would at least have been ’successful’ in making a living organisation out of Respect if it had been done across the board, provided of course that the branches and individual members then came together for a democratic annual conference to decide national policy - which of course is another sore point.
Do you believe that this sort of democracy is incompatible with getting George and Salma (along now with others) elected?
Comment by steph — 14 June, 2009 @ 11:18 am
’suggesting that being against the EU is a fascist position is basically bonkers’
Of course, I never suggested any such thing. But then you now that already.
Comment by Ger Francis — 14 June, 2009 @ 11:20 am
No CD, I don’t think racism “arose overnight” and that isn’t what I argued.
I argued that, whatever problems they may have in various aspects of their lives, BNP voters are primarily motivated by racism.
Attempts by the Greens to blame No2EU for this are an example - not the only example - of the unpricipled opportunism that manipulates the racist vote for narrow party advantage.
Comment by Karl Stewart — 14 June, 2009 @ 11:25 am
This is quite a surprise - a thread that is ostensibly about the SWP, turning into a thread where different parts of Respect have a go at each other. It’s like the usual SU thread turned upside down.
Anyway, Karl, I think you’re wrong here. I don’t think people do claim that BNP voters are poor naiive innocents who are being basically forced to vote this way. Or if they do, they can safely be ignored. But that doesn’t leave us with a complete understanding of why people might vote a particular way at a particular time. And I think we need some better understanding of that than “they’re all racists, screw ‘em”.
Comment by KrisS — 14 June, 2009 @ 11:26 am
KriS,
They are all racists - that’s a fact - but I didn’t say “screw ‘em,” I’ d agree with those who say “challenge ‘em, argue with ‘em and try to change their minds.”
But any analysis that starts out by ignoring the fact that these people are fundamentally motivated by racism is starting from the wrong point.
I think the non-party anti-racist campaigning work plays a valuble role in combatting and arguing against racism and racist ideas and I’ve got nothing but admiration for the work they do.
What infuriates me is when one party - in this case the Greens and their supporters in the Respect Party - seek to manipulate the racist thread for their own narrow advantage.
Comment by Karl Stewart — 14 June, 2009 @ 11:35 am
Mark P Post 124
“Salma Yaqoob, Caroline Lucas, Jon Cruddas and Plaid Cymru MP Adam Price has all the potential for a process of unprecedented coaliotion building.”
So nothing with the word “Socialist” then Mark and others may also say “Meanwhile those whose vision of Left unity which reaches out to Compass,The Green Party,Plaid Cymru and Salma Yaqoob but cannot countenance anything beyond are welcome to their own project”
Comment by Get real — 14 June, 2009 @ 11:44 am
Karl
I’m not sure it’s a fact of any import, or one that helps us at all. I think it is worth labelling those who organise themselves on racist issues, but I think labelling anyone with any shade of view we might understand as racist as “a racist” is at least unhelpful. I also think it’s worth calling the BNP what they are, rather than just racists.
There are various ways people have of working to combat the threat of the fascists. I agree that it’s tedious to listen to the moralising of those who claim a broad-based approach but insist the only legitimate way to fight fascism is by supporting them.
Comment by KrisS — 14 June, 2009 @ 11:55 am
Re 130 Actually the title of the session was ‘A New Socialism’ and there was no shortage of the word’s usage from the platform. But that’s not really the point, is it? I suspect you believe the Compass people are a fake left in contrast to the ‘real socialists’ i.e. people like yourself, and therefore should not be engaged with in any positive way.
Karl, I think you have been somewhat hoisted by your own petard.
Steph, in my experience arguments about democracy are normally a cover for something else (it is odd you did not formally raise them with Nick Wrack, who was National Secretary up until only a few months ago, or write to the National Council with your concerns). In Respect’s case this fluff is coming from a handful of deeply disgruntled individuals on their way out of RESPECT to occupy some ubre left ghetto.
Comment by Ger Francis — 14 June, 2009 @ 12:03 pm
in my experience arguments about democracy are normally a cover for something else
Agreed.
Comment by KrisS — 14 June, 2009 @ 12:08 pm
If your political aim is to “upset the applecart”, then an opportunist electoral alliance of Respect, the Compass Group, the Greens, Plaid, SNP and the crackpot chauvinists of the English Democrats may be one way to do it.
As it would amount to less than the sum of its parts, such an alliance would malleable enough to be driven to the right. But Francis and Perryman only view socialism as an optional add-on anyway.
Comment by prianikoff — 14 June, 2009 @ 12:53 pm
Even if we were so minded, RESPECT is not in a position where we can forge national electoral alliances with ‘the Compass Group, the Greens, Plaid, SNP’. We simply do not have that weight. We are in a position where we can act to to progress the totality of the left in a meaningful way in a number of areas. I would like to know what part of the UK you live in that you can so easily dismiss such a concept of left unity.
My political aims are shaped by some harsh facts of life in Birmingham about how completely marginal the left is from mainstream political life. You are welcome to come sit with me in the public gallery at next full council meeting if you have any illusions otherwise. If the broad left in this city could unite around getting even one more councilor elected who was committed to an anti-war, anti-neoliberal and anti-racism agenda, from whatever party, and who could punch above their weight like Salma, it would be a big step forward for everyone on the left in the city.
Comment by Ger Francis — 14 June, 2009 @ 1:43 pm
Ger,
I’m a bit puzzled by this from you at (132):
“Karl, I think you have been somewhat hoisted by your own petard.”
I’ve been arguing - ironically in agreement with the main thrust of the article posted by Salma Yaqoob on the subject a couple of days ago - that BNP voters are primarily motivated by racism and that the effects on people of the current economic crisis, the longer term decline of traditional industries and reduction in council housing stock etc, that are usually put forward as reasons for the rise in BNP support are insufficient as explanations on their own.
My further point is that the struggle against the BNP should, therefore, primarily be one which focusses on anti-racism and that the anti-racism struggle is to some extent separate from the general political struggle to create either a new working-class political party or your preferred option of building a broad progressive alliance.
My main point in this is that our fundamental disagreement over which way forward we should take politically - new workers party or progressive alliance - need not mean that we automatically need to be on different sides over anti-racist strategy.
It is important that racism is consistently challenged, and consistently challenged by all anti-racists - in this way, open racist parties like the BNP can be isolated from the political mainstream - but this should not mean that political debate and political difference among anti-racists should be closed down or stifled.
No-one on the working-class left is asking you progressives to stop arguing for progressivism in light of the BNP situation, because, the minute that the rest of us limit our political discourse as a result of the BNP, then fascism has won a small victory - it has begun to close down political debate.
Can’t you see that your calls for the working-class left to stand down for the Greens - a call that you justified by pointing to the BNP - was, as well as being unprincipled and opportunist, also an unwitting concession to fascism.
Why can’t we have unity of anti-racists in the struggle against racism AND continuing differences betwen us on other political questions?
Comment by Karl Stewart — 14 June, 2009 @ 3:06 pm
“No-one on the working-class left is asking you progressives”…
And there he goes again.
Comment by external bulletin — 14 June, 2009 @ 4:40 pm
“So nothing with the word “Socialist” then Mark and others may also say “Meanwhile those whose vision of Left unity which reaches out to Compass,The Green Party,Plaid Cymru and Salma Yaqoob but cannot countenance anything beyond are welcome to their own project”
Er, as Ger pointed out the discusion at the Compass conference was actually about socialism but hey don’t let your pre-judgement get in the way of the facts.
As for ‘countencing anything beyond’ the ‘beyond’ are welcome to join in but given the weight of other forces don’t expect to be the tail wagging the dog. If its a new workers party you’re looking for, good luck but look elsewhere.
As for an ‘electoral alliance’ opportunist or otherwise, with socialism as an optional add-on, drop the puerile rhetoric and get real. Theres no immediate electoral prospect of an electoral alliance between these forces but there is the beginnings of a conversation, out of which some local electoral agreements might emerge, but most importantly the practice of coalition building. And all those involves see this as connected to the emergence of a new socialism.
They also see the campaign to put a referendum question on the General Election ballot paper for PR as a crucial demand which all in the here and now can work towards. Something George Galloway also highlights as a key issue in this week’s New Statesman. George’s statement on PR, Respect’s support for Livingstone in the London Mayoral election, the work with the Greens in the NW and W Midlands, Salma’s participation in the Compass conference. This is a very clear, and correct trajectory towards a plural left.
None of this will be of interest who desire a new workers party out of talks initiated by the leadership of the RMT, parts of the CPB, SP and Respect-in-Exile, the Southwark Branch. I would suggest those interested in such a project get on with it, you’re welcome to it, while others will coalition build between Respect, the Greens, Compass, Plaid and others . Bye, bye.
Mark P
Comment by Mark P — 14 June, 2009 @ 4:41 pm
#138 Mark - when was all this decided and by whom? It has not been discussed in Tower Hamlets Respect and unless my chums in Birmingham are telling porkies it has not been discussed there either.
The obvious place to have this conversation is at a national conference or, at the very least, at the National Council. At last year’s conference members endorsed an orientation to unions which had broken with Labour and the CP was invited. That policy has not been overturned or have we all missed something?
Comment by Liam Mac — 14 June, 2009 @ 5:04 pm
Another point is that the Green Party has always been unwilling to stand down in favour of other progressive or socialist candidates, even when local organisations have seen the benefit. Moreover can anyone seriously believe that Compass is going to be able to persuade the Labour Party not to oppose Respect candidates?
Comment by Liam mac — 14 June, 2009 @ 6:14 pm
Electoral agreements are an important product of any progress towards a plural left but it is unhelpful to pose them as the sole starting point. The prospects for such agreements have however never been better. As for Labour not opposing Respect candidates that is clearly the most unlikely outcome and nobody is seriously expecting that but after a 2010 wipeout the fluidity of politics could prove quite surprising and the fact that a conversation is beginning now which Respect is part of is incredibly encouraging.
As for the democratic process, let me get this right. So Salma is invited to speak at a Compass conference on a platform with Jon Cruddas, Caroline Lucas, Adam Price, she should have turned this down? No headway should be made with alliances developed as a result of supporting the Greens in the NW and West MIds Euro Elections? George, and Salma, should have refused to support the campaign for a referendum on PR to coincide with the 2010 General Election?
Get real, it was absolutely correct to proceed with each and every one of those initiatives and nothing was counter to Respect’s project. As for chumming up with part of the CPB, SP, SWP and the RMT leadership towards a new Workers Party speaking personally I hope Respect has nothing whatsoever to do with such a narrow and doomed version of the Left though best of luck to those who wish to commit themselves to it.
Mark P
Comment by Mark P — 14 June, 2009 @ 6:47 pm
Liam’s point is a diversion, guaranteed to take people off on futile journeys. We do not have anything like the social weight to be talking about national electoral pacts with anyone that matters, even assuming they wanted to talk to us. In some local areas however, there is much more scope, and it is right to try explore it.
The bigger issue is this: there are two directions open to RESPECT. One entails a broad left orientation, which includes the revolutionary left, but with accordance to its real weight. The other confines itself to the hard left, is hostile to the Green left, and the centre-left in the Labour party. One is in accordance with the original thinking behind RESPECT. (There was a conscious effort to engage with the Green left, for example, right from our preliminary stages via George Monbiot. Unfortunately nothing came of it, and we were the worse off for it.) The other, has more in common with the politics of the Socialist Party, and is completely at odds with our entire history. No disrespect to the SP, but theirs is a direction we always politely declined to follow. There is not a single shred of evidence our attitude is about to change, no matter how many statements are issued from a very small group in Southwark. Quite the opposite, in fact.
Comment by Ger Francis — 14 June, 2009 @ 7:05 pm
Mark P Post141
“So Salma is invited to speak at a Compass conference on a platform with Jon Cruddas, Caroline Lucas, Adam Price, she should have turned this down?”
Ofcourse not, no one suggested she should but will Salma Yaqoob and Goerge Galloway also offer/be invited to speak at:
1. Morning Star Conference on Saturday 20t June at which Jeremy Corbyn MP and John McDonnell MP are speaking.
2. The Labour Respresentation Conference in November (if the same month as last year)
3. Marxism 2009 6th July at which Tony Ben, Mark Serwotka, Tariq Ali, Bernadette McAliskey, Sheila Rowbotham and Gary Younge are speaking.
and many campaigns conferences such as the Anti Academy Alliance and Defend Council Housing etc.
Its not just the conferences/meetings that you attend that says so much but also the ones you decide not to attend that says just as much (you can always offer to speak rather than waiting for an invitation cant you?).
Its good to see Ger Francis at least accepts that the revoultinary Left may be part any new Left alliance (”One entails a broad left orientation, which includes the revolutionary left”)even if Mark P does not. Ger is so wrong to suggest that those on the Left and many in Respect who want to build a new socialist coalition wish to exclude the Greens and others, we dont - the problem is they exclude themslves by being unwilling to enter into any agreement with other Left/progressive groups seeing themsleves as the only way forward (if I am wrong then the Greens will show us in the general election by not contesting any seats contested by Respect especiely East London, South Birmingham or any seat with an anti war, anti privatisation sitting Left Labour MP). If they were to enter into talks at national level it would enable the Left to support them in Brighton and Norwich but I just dont see this happening, but perhaps some of the Green posters who have gone so quite now votes are not at stake could let us know.
Comment by Red — 14 June, 2009 @ 7:48 pm
And the centre “left” of the Labour Party according to Ger Francis includes the Compass Group. If the test is being to the Left of Gordon Brown even Ger Francis fits the bill.
Comment by bill j — 14 June, 2009 @ 7:52 pm
If the so-called revolutionary left want to take part in coalition building with the social-democratic left, the Green Party and nationalist parties it would be a welcome change but all the current evidence suggests they are more interested in their pipe dream of a new workers party and the very best of luck with that chore.
Should they decide to participate they perhaps will have the good sense to realise they’re not running the show, something on all past evidence they are not very good at countenancing.
Personally speaking I very much hope Salma and George cannot find time in their diaries for the SWP, CPB and LRC shindigs they will be too busy coalition building with social forces that actually amount to something in the real world but that is of course entirely up to them.
Mark P
Comment by Mark P — 14 June, 2009 @ 8:06 pm
Red: Salma’s spoken at previous Morning Star conferences; Galloway writes a monthly column for the paper; Respect was represented by Galloway’s office at the Socialist Party’s conference. Neither Galloway nor Yaqoob have, to my knowledge, ever been invited to the LRC, but I’m sure would be there if asked. Marxism 2009 presents a problem - Salma and George, if invited, would want to bring their closest comrades with them to participate in the debate (I’m sure you’d expect that in the interests of balance). But they have all been banned for life from every SWP organised event. So it’s the SWP that’s put a block on participation in conferences - no one else. Please bear that in mind when you hear the cry for unity. Don’t blame the people who have been maligned and who are proscribed from even attending a meeting.
Comment by Nas — 14 June, 2009 @ 8:11 pm
Substantial sections of the Labour left and the Plaid left in Wales spent Saturday in a very well-attended, very positive Morning Star conference with the CPB.
I doubt if the anti-class, anti-Communist politics of Mark P would have been very welcome there, though.
Who is it he’s building alliances with, again? Perhaps he can tell us how his self-proclaimed broad pluralistic project is proceeding in Wales? And how well it’s doing in contrast with, say, the ‘narrow’ and ’sectarian’ approach of the CPB and Morning Star?
‘Narrow’ and ’sectarian’ … Ah, how those charges bring back memories of the witchunters including Mark P who did their best to destroy the Communist Party in Britain in the 1980s and 1990s!
Comment by Party hack — 14 June, 2009 @ 8:11 pm
Which particular point is the diversion? The one about where this new direction was agreed?
A problem with the old Respect was the closed nature of its decision making processes and this is hardly a custom worth maintaining. As for speaking at Compass organised events there’s no problem with that at all but to see a group which explicitly wants to return to the glory days of Blairism as anything but a right wing sideshow is peculiar logic.
Comment by Liam Mac — 14 June, 2009 @ 8:15 pm
and Red: as for DCH and the Academies campaign, and others where the SWP is in the bureaucracy - there have been no invites to Respect over the last two years. Why do you think that might be?
Comment by Nas — 14 June, 2009 @ 8:18 pm
The Scottish comrades get hammered (probably correctly) for being fractious and divided but it’s nothing compared to the utterly absurd casting up of what happened in the Communist movement in the 80’s.
Every time Mark P says something he his heckled over events of 20 - 30 years ago, as in #147 and numerous other posts over the past weeks.
Give it a fuckin rest.
Comment by Eddie Truman — 14 June, 2009 @ 8:38 pm
It would be good to see some of th emuch heralded left unity in action in support of the SOAS cleaners and the campaign there, good letter submitted by some union activists etc availbale here http://www.solomonsmindfield.net/2009/06/tony-benn-jeremy-corbyn-others-letter.html
Not to take away from the discussion and enthusiasm of everyone falling over themselvdsx to say how much they want to unite with the rest of the left (at least I presume that’s the gist of last 150 posts- haven’t sone more than scan them) but let’s also keep an ear and eye to class struggle- whether the battle in lewisham against school closures, the lindsey strikes against job cuts and equal treatment for all workers or the SOAS demands for all workers on union rates and against deportations as a political weapon to attack workers organising.
Comment by Jason — 14 June, 2009 @ 8:55 pm
Thanks Party Hack for that measured contribution.
Adam Price, Plaid Cymru MP spoke in the same session as Salma at the Compass conference to rapturous applause. He also attended the session I organised where leading Plaid Cymru thinker John Osmond spoke. Next weekend Leanne Wood, Plaid Cymru AM Leanne Wood follows up her appearance at last year’s Compass conference speaking at the annual Soundings summer seminar, Soundings is a journal with considerable influence in Compass.
So no problem there engaging with Plaid. Freed of the malign Euro influence I trust the CPB is thriving, what are those membership figures again? You’re probably too busy celebrating the incredible achievements of No2EU to bother counting all the new recruits I guess.
And Liam, you really do need to catch up. Have you actually read anything published by Compass in the last 5 years, you might not like their politics and prefer a new workers party but to suggest they want a return to Blairism is a spectacularly ill-informed comment revealing an ingrained sectarianism.
Eddie, ta. Yes I was party to the debates and divisions in the CPGB, you’re making me feel a tad old but you’re right they’re the best part of 25 years ago now. It is mildly amusing that ‘party hack’ and his group of comrades in the CPB are still blaming us for their failings today. To the best of my knowlefge no cell of Euro deep entryists thought it was worth wrecking the CPB, they were more than capable of ensuring it went nowhere, fast, without us.
Mark P
Comment by Mark P — 14 June, 2009 @ 9:03 pm
Nas post 149
“as for DCH and the Academies campaign, and others where the SWP is in the bureaucracy - there have been no invites to Respect over the last two years. Why do you think that might be?”
Well we could always show that Respect is not sectarian by offering by letter/phone to speak. Salma Yaqoob or George Galloway could aways attend as rank and file supporters and speak from the floor (now that would be noval would it not?). These two campaigns and others are very important and I do not accept that the SWP own them or even controls them as you suggest (George showed little interest in the “unofficial” parliamentry working party into academies in which many Respect members were involved). Salma and George do not always have to be on the platform as “keynote speakers”. Its just as important for progressive people and socialists, whatever the offical elected position may have been obtained, to show support by attending and speaking as srank and file suporters - its what the rest of us have to do.
Comment by Red — 14 June, 2009 @ 9:34 pm
One of the interesting things in this thread is that it is quite clear from the lack of an answer and ger’s grumblings about people having another agenda when they raise democracy, is that Salma obviously didn’t bother to win a position of backing the Greens in a meeting of Birmingham Respect. It’s clear that she could have done, she could easily convince her supporters of the position, but she just didn’t bother to go through the formality of consulting the membership. And I believe 40,000 leaflets got printed, costing a fair few quid I’m sure.
It speaks volumes about how this new coalitional, ‘only real social forces need apply’ conception of radicalism is really gonna work. Top down all the way.
Comment by swp member — 14 June, 2009 @ 10:02 pm
Ger 132 - You’re avoiding the issue again - what is wrong with having a democratic debate inside the organisation about which direction Respect should be heading in? Why shouldn’t there be votes on it? At the very least it could be debated at the National Council, as the No2EU resolution was. It seems to me like you believe that the issues are too important to be left to the membership, but haven’t quite got the courage to say it - although of course Mark P comes pretty close.
And while it’s good that the SWP are turning outwards with the open letter, let’s not forget, SWP member (#154), that it was they who introduced the ‘top-down’ method into Respect, a tradition that has unfortunately persisted. If the SWP are now converted to the idea of inner-party democracy they ought to admit they were wrong about the split.
Comment by steph — 14 June, 2009 @ 10:10 pm
it is a bit rich Salma getting a lecture on ‘top-down’ democracy from any SWP member. Never mind one from Birmingham better placed than most to see through JR’s bullshit but too spineless to challenge it. I don’t give advice to the SWP on how they run their internal affairs. I suggest you do likewise in regard to RESPECT.
Steph, what are you talking about?? To suggest I am ‘lacking courage’ in debating RESPECT’s future, inside or outside the organisation, is simply daft. I have been pretty explicit in outlining my thoughts on the topic.
Comment by Ger Francis — 14 June, 2009 @ 10:51 pm
Red: pull the other one. Galloway asked to speak at the DCH conference and was turned down. He has showed every support for the Academies campaign and works extremely closely with the NUT in East London, where there are no academies. Not a dickie bird from the SWP member who is organiser of the campaign. He’s central along with Jeremy Corbyn to the campaign against cuts at London Met uni, which is beyond the ambit of sectarians. He is a powerful asset to the anti-racist movement but was spurned by Martin Smith from speaking at a major protest in Oxford. He led the anti-war march in January that was attacked by the police in the underpass, but has received no invite to have anything to do with the SWP’s latest campaign over police violence. Most SWP members in east London, and I suspect elsewhere, have drunk the Kool-aid and are following the line laid out by the leadership in 2007-8 that he is right wing and intent on destroying ‘Trotskyism’ through witch-hunts. And perhaps you can explain why, given protestations of unity, the SWP bans people who are clearly active in the movement for life from its events. While you’re at it, is the Socialist Party speaking at Marxism 2009? Martin Smith spoke at their event.Or what about Bob Crow, Rob Griffiths, Caroline Lucas? Exactly how significant do you think the SWP is in the debates, even on the hard left, about how the left can advance?
Comment by Nas — 14 June, 2009 @ 10:53 pm
The political trajectory of Ger Francis and the majority of Respect is pretty astonishing to behold. From wanting to “break the mould on the left” they are now rushing rightwards into the arms of the Greens and Labour Party Compass.
Compass we should remember, played an important role in ensuring no left candidate stood against their favoured candidate Gordon Brown. Ger Francis and Mark P no doubt think John McDonnell is a hopeless ultra left, they much prefer expenses-scandal ridden Cruddas.
This rightward shift is all dressed up as “coalitional politics”. In fact it is just a re-run of the euro-communist project of the 80s – perhaps they should get Eric Hobsbawm on board. But I think he would recognize a second time farce when he saw it. The idea that this minnow will play marriage broker to two irreconcilable political forces is indeed laughable – some will join the Greens, some no doubt find their place as future witch-hunters of the left in the LP.
But most socialists find the No2EU bunch equally distasteful with its little-Englander nationalism proudly on show in the Euro elections. Maybe the SWP/PCS could offer a useful “third force” initiative. It is not a question of having to apologise, but what lessons the SWP members and leaders have learned in the last period and above all what politics they bring to the table
Comment by Stuart King — 14 June, 2009 @ 11:43 pm
Stuart what SWP/PCS initiative?
The motion on discusing supporting political candidates in the PCS came from Socialist Party members in Left Unity and through a motion put down by an SP member in a PCS branch was passed at conference.
Unfortunately for you the PCS initiative is as much a product of those hated ‘little englanders’ (what a silly term for a group of people who have far more real international links than gentlemen such as Brother King!) the Socialist Party, as NO2EU.
Comment by Neil — 15 June, 2009 @ 12:55 am
Would that be ‘played a role’ as in not backing McDonnell? That’s the point, Stuart, the hard left of the Labour Party couldn’t muster a leadership challenge. I’m sorry about that, but it’s a fact you have to deal with.
Anyway, there’s nothing stopping you from building a third force on impeccably Marxist grounds. (But it was rather ill-considered of you, given your grouping disparaging others as minnows.)
Comment by ferrier — 15 June, 2009 @ 12:57 am
I’s strongly suggest that those actually interested in building unity on the left leave this place alone and get on with things out there. It’s pretty clear that this is not a place that’s conducive to constructive discussion of the practicalities of organising our response to the current economic and political crises.
Comment by KrisS — 15 June, 2009 @ 5:59 am
In this debate, the Progressives have used words such as “narrow,” “sectarian” and “ubre-left ghetto” to describe the new workers party idea.
How can an idea that bases itself on the notion that the overwhelming majority of the population - we, the Uk working class who number tens of millions - should collectively exercise state power possibly be a “narrow” idea?
How can such a notion be described as a “ghetto” mentality?
How can it be described as “sectarian” to urge all individuals and organisations who agree with this idea to unite into a single party around this essential aim?
On the other hand, the Progressive perspective is elitist - it seeks to gather together the forces of the middle-class left and our class is reduced to a passive supporting role.
The Progressives do not see class rule as central to their aims.
They seek cosmetic change to the current system - PR voting, an English parliament.
But on the key questions, the Progressives broadly support the propping up of the capitalist system - they approved last autumn’s bailing out of the banks for example.
Comment by Karl Stewart — 15 June, 2009 @ 6:41 am
Kris. This is an excellent suggestion, yes please do your level best to encourage all those who agree with your version of left unity to vacate this site so the rest of us can get on with a constructive discussion on coalition-building free of your contributions. Good luck with the new Workers Party.
Karl. Best of luck too with the new Workers Party, No2EU’s 1% is clearly an auspicious start towards securing majority working class support numbering tens of millions. Can’t wait to hear reports on securing more than cosmetic changes to the system too. But can I suggest you follow Kris’s advice and post this elsewhere?
Mark P
Comment by Mark P — 15 June, 2009 @ 7:49 am
Mark may be right that “a constructive discussion on coalition-building” is necessary but a casual observer stumbling onto this discussion far from concluding it is destructive would conclude that the elft is full of bitter twisted individuals more interested in attacking one another than uniting against the class enemy.
I’m sure Mark can come up with a suitably rude and dismissive quip involving a slur on PR (a small group I happen to be a meber of), but the wider point is that to really get out of the ghetoo the left has to change its culture, engage with working class communities in struggle, not just unfurl banners and say come to us but go to where the fight is and show through practical engagement that we have got beyond sectarian infighting and petty group building to start the long hard process of rebuilding the workers’ movement.
Comment by Jason — 15 June, 2009 @ 8:10 am
A suitably rude and dismissive quip? Why doesn’t Permanent Revolution get on with rebuilding the workers movement, I am sure working class communities will flock to a group with such a catchy name that millions readily identify with.
Report back on your incredible breakthroughs in due course, preferably on another site, and put the social-democratic coalition builders to shame. Can’t wait.
Mark P
Comment by Mark P — 15 June, 2009 @ 8:18 am
re: Ger’s post 156 keep your hair on, and less of the abuse please.. The bottom line on Birmingham Respect is that if Salma is to take Hall Green, she is gonna need a lot of people to work extremely hard to do this, as everyone knows. Now I reckon people work harder when they feel they have ownership of a project, not when they are just given instructions (and yes some of us have learnt this the hard way in our own party..). So imo Salma would have been well advised to talk thru the Euro-election leaflet line with Respect members, the SR lot would have made a pitch for NO2EU. they would have lost, and that would have been that. Maybe there wasn’t time, whatever, but if you don’t think that was even desirable think again.
Looking at the way the comments above gone, there should be a thread about ‘the way forward for Respect. Noone’s talking about the swp open letter on here. Mark P in one corner, Nick Wrack in the other..
Comment by swp member — 15 June, 2009 @ 11:44 am
Re 166. You are not involved in Respect, you have no idea who Salma does or does not speak to, you did not exactly cover yourself in glory during the split, but yet you have the arrogance to lecture her on what she should do! What kind of reaction did you expect?
Again, I don’t tell the SWP how they should run their internal affairs. That is up to them. And I certainly don’t take kindly when their members try tell us. If you want to have a constructive dialogue, stay off that terrain would be my advice.
Comment by Ger Francis — 15 June, 2009 @ 12:47 pm
# 156 – Ger I wasn’t suggesting that you lack courage to put your views generally, but that you won’t say why you don’t seem to want to debate the issues either at the NC or at Respect conference. Personally I think the only time I get to hear of your views is on this blog.
However if it was only your views on here, as Mark P at #163 proposes, then SU would become very dull, since the reason it’s the best site is because of the debate and argument on it (as above!).
Comment by steph — 15 June, 2009 @ 1:06 pm
#167 Ger Francis - perhaps you should admire the selflessness of “swp member”, who only appears to be interested in giving advice to members of your party and discussing their prospects, and never the views of the SWP. Or perhaps you should point out to him that misreprenting himself is not conducive to any sort of debate and may be an embarrassment to your party.
Comment by skidmarx — 15 June, 2009 @ 1:57 pm
If opportunism is the price we pay for dogmatism then Mark P is the price we pay for Karl Stewart
Comment by Feliks Dzerzhinsky — 15 June, 2009 @ 2:14 pm
If you reject dogmatism don’t you get a cataclysm? Here all week.
Comment by skidmarx — 15 June, 2009 @ 2:18 pm
# 156 – Ger I wasn’t suggesting that you lack courage to put your views generally, but that you won’t say why you don’t seem to want to debate the issues either at the NC or at Respect conference. Personally I think the only time I get to hear of your views is on this blog.
That’s strange Steph beacuse I’m told that Respect has lots of debates on the NC. At the NC before last there was a motion from nick Wrack which would have ensured Respect backed No2EU and there was a motion from Kevin Ovenden which gave regions, branches and idividuals the right to choose whom to support. There was a debate, and I’m informed by an NC member that Ger expressed his opinions quite forcefully.
Comment by TLC — 15 June, 2009 @ 3:00 pm
when was the meeting in birmingham respect to vote on backing the greens or not?
Comment by ll — 15 June, 2009 @ 4:57 pm
Of course Mark P and Ger Francis are right. Let’s all give up and join the “left of centre” in the Labour Party. I’m sure they’re waiting breathless for you support it’ll make all the difference next May.
Comment by bill j — 15 June, 2009 @ 5:28 pm
Oh no Bill we’d much prefer you didn’t give up on your Permanent Revolution, please stick with it and don’t plague us with your presence as we coalition build around common social-democratic values; Compass Labour,Greens, Respect, left nationalists . Bye bye
Matk P
Comment by Mark P — 15 June, 2009 @ 5:43 pm
It struck that there’s another great advantage to our name….you don’t like it!!!
How much more recommendation is required? As for your coalition…I’ll laugh when I see the day….cough, cough, choke, choke…
Comment by bill j — 15 June, 2009 @ 5:50 pm
What Mark P is proposing for Respect is not that it become part of a coalition but a subordinate appendage of Compass, Plaid, The Greens, etc. This would be a coalition against the working class not for it. The lesson of the Euro elections was surely that the working class, with nobody articulating its interests clearly, abstained. They declined to vote New Labour or the Greens and in Wales in the South they did not vote Plaid. If Plaid articulated the interests of the workers in the form of a socialist programme it would split and if the socialists were able to get the Greens to adopt its programme 90 per cent of its members would be off. Neither outcome would be a good thing. So yes, coalitions with these forces if possible but for the left to have a coalition with these people it must come to the table with something.
No2EU was a useful opener and these people should be getting it on with Respect to articulate a socialist, anti-imperialist programme in opposition to New Labour’s manifesto. Where it can make agreements with the Labour left including Compass it should, where it can make deals with Plaid or the Greens then of course but where it cannot it should not just forge ahead like a blunder bus. It needs to develop an intelligent electoral strategy to go along with its class struggle programme that is realistic but is more adventurous than that being proposed by Respect on its own. One thing is for sure, if Respect gets too close to the pro-war, Islamaphobic bureaucracy its base will quickly disappear and be rendered voiceless as huge swathes of the working class have been rendered voiceless by New Labour. If Salma relies on assistance from other parts of any coalition to get elected rather than the foot soldiers of her base support she will be rudely awakened.
An electoral and class struggle alliance of left forces needs to be build urgently as the most necessary step forward. Not an off the shelf workers party but an alliance. Self-interested sects need not apply but then neither should those who would subordinate workers interests to a coalition of opportunists.
Respect needs a full and open debate. The left in Respect need to continue to act in exemplary fashion but the right needs to pull back from its over the top inflamatory language.
Comment by David Ellis — 15 June, 2009 @ 6:00 pm
What’s the point in being in the same organisation as someone who wants to lash up with Compass? Splits aren’t all bad you know.
Comment by bill j — 15 June, 2009 @ 6:12 pm
How exactly was the NO2EU campaign, that subordinated itself to British chauvanism and failed to win any significant support, a useful opener in building an articulate, anti-imperialist opposition to New Labour?
Comment by Gav — 15 June, 2009 @ 6:15 pm
178 `What’s the point in being in the same organisation as someone who wants to lash up with Compass? Splits aren’t all bad you know.’
Lash ups of course no but carefully crafted coalitions for practical ends that force people to move left or expose themselves in front of the class, these are the stock in trade of socialists who are more than just propagandists.
179 `How exactly was the NO2EU campaign, that subordinated itself to British chauvanism and failed to win any significant support, a useful opener in building an articulate, anti-imperialist opposition to New Labour?’
If you don’t know I can’t help you. Yes it’s programme was silly in parts but if you don’t think this grouping is to the left of New Labour you’re not a serious commentator.
Comment by David Ellis — 15 June, 2009 @ 6:26 pm
It depends what your priorities are for the here and now. For me its rebuilding the unions and building on existing campaigns in the communities, climate change etc. Will the politics of Compass help us do that? To ask the question is to answer it. They want a polite version of New Labour and are solely interested in elections.
Socialists on the other hand, have to show why class politics can actually help the working class win in struggle, that means first of all starting from the bottom up.
It means any “coalition” with our enemies - i.e. those who want to subordinate us to a polite version of New Labour Mark P, Ger F etc. - actually makes us weaker.
Hence let them lash up with New Labour, there’s no shortage of careerists there who can advise them on their careers, let the rest of us get on with rebuilding the working class movement.
Comment by bill j — 15 June, 2009 @ 6:36 pm
Bill. Don’t delude yourself, I love the name of your grouplet, ‘Permanent Revolution’ funniest things I’ve come across in years, please stick with it.
David. Get your head out of the clouds. Wy are you to judge what’s pro or anti working class having cheered on the mighty No2EU’s scaling of the 1% barrier. And who are you to decide whats right or left wing in Respect? There is no coalition but there is a process towards coalition building. You clearly prefer the prospects of a new Workers Party built around the geniuses behind No2EU with the SWP desperate to jump aboard the bandwagon too. Should be a fun ride, get on it and best of luck.
Bill. A lash up is what No2EU was, we can agree on that. Speaking for myself only I have no interest in such politics but I am absolutely committed to a plural left built around common social-democratic values, any such coalition will be deeply unatrractive to the so-called revolutionary left, good, best of luck battling over the leadership of the new workers party mind.
Mark P
Comment by Mark P — 15 June, 2009 @ 6:39 pm
If alliance politics is all about finding the optimum level of unity without compromising core principles then there us nothing wrong with the Greens, Respect and Compass finding some common ground and agreeing whatever is possible in the way of action consistent with those aims.
Where Mark Perryman and his analogues on the sectarian left converge is in dismissing the possibility that precisely the same logic functions in relation to forces further to the left, not just for whatever ‘left unity’ project is possible but also for any tacit or explicit agreement between the left and the ‘revived ‘social democratic’ tendency that Compass seems best to represent.
Compass is a wide coalition but one point of agreement that only a hopeless sectarian would dissent from is the desirability of preventing a Tory government. If in creating the forces to prevent this the Mandelson tendency is isolated and Labour is forced to articulate policies that undermine itss big business, pro-monopoly, pro-Nato wing so much the better. If in this process the main Labour-affliated unions can be persuaded to embark on the Morning Star’s famous ‘five man march on Downing Street’ even better.
No one’s freedom of action is constrained by this.
Of course, anyone in Respect and the Greens who might agree to an unprincipled compromise simply to gain office or get elected can only succeed if the left spins off into the sectarian ghetto that Mark P so clearly wants.
The factors limiting an unprincipled rapprochement between the Greens and Respect are to be found both within their ranks but also in their limited purchase in the trade union movement. It is in the organized labour movement and the potential for mass action that the labour movement, the anti racist movement and the anti war movement together possess that a challenge to the big business policies of New Labour can be found. It is there that the left derives its legitimacy and the potential for its entry into national politics as a more decisive factor.
Comment by Nick Wright — 15 June, 2009 @ 6:47 pm
`David. Get your head out of the clouds. Wy are you to judge what’s pro or anti working class having cheered on the mighty No2EU’s scaling of the 1% barrier. And who are you to decide whats right or left wing in Respect?’
I haven’t exactly cheered it on but nevertheless it is to be welcomed if the left is to lose its sectarianism towards the electoral process instead of making use of it. As for the rest of it, I don’t judge I just argue. As Marx said: it is not for us to laugh or cry but to understand. I really don’t get why you are so down on the No2EU people. As least they had a go at getting the working class vote out however last minute and possibly ham-fisted some of their efforts were. There is no way they were responsible for the BNP victories that accolade belongs to the Blairites (their policies and their damaging pre-election walk out) but I do believe they should take cognisance of the debate for future reference without being paralysed by it.
Comment by David Ellis — 15 June, 2009 @ 6:55 pm
Nick. It is pretty rich being warned of the dangers of a ’sectarian ghetto’ by the geniuses behind No2EU having scaled the heights of the 1% barrier. But best of luck getting on with the SP, the RMT leadership and the SWP desperately trying to jump aboard, with those three alongside you the CPB are clearly destined for anywhere but the ghetto.
Mark P
Comment by Mark P — 15 June, 2009 @ 7:01 pm
I wan’t deluding myself. I’m glad you like our name. Like I said that’s one very positive thing in its favour.
The misconception on here, and you indulge in it yourself periodically, is your politics have anything with socialism or progress. They don’t. You don’t you abandoned all that a long time ago, as did the likes of Ger F and all the rest of your crew, no problem, sail away, find your compass.
What socialists need to get their heads around is, that there will be no progress towards a socialist goal - one which you of course do not share - if it is predicated on your involvement or that of your co-thinkers. That’s why a broad alliance which includes you lot is a non-starter.
OK so your tone is impossibly pompous, some people find that irritating. But that’s a different story and frankly by the by.
Comment by bill j — 15 June, 2009 @ 7:18 pm
Pomposity? Your miniscule group trademarked that tendency long ago, I couldnt hope to come close to you I’m afraid.
Excellent news though you won;t be joining in though no doubt you’ll find time to tell us here we went wrong. And do please provide regular updates on your group’s growth so we are suitably impressed. Now leave us along and get back to the student union politics you’re clearly well-trained in. Whoops, sorry, was trying to match you for pomposity there.
Mark P
Comment by Mark P — 15 June, 2009 @ 7:49 pm
OK I’ve had enough of this, Mark P, Billj you are BOTH to go and sit outside my office. This constant bickering is disrupting the entire lesson. And once I decide to allow you abck into the class I strongly suggest that you both get on with building your Left formations SEPARATELY, and we’ll see what the examiner thinks of them.
Comment by Mrs McLuskey — 15 June, 2009 @ 7:59 pm
There are some real flights of fantasy taking place on this tread. I’ll repeat what I said earlier: ‘Even if we were so minded, RESPECT is not in a position where we can forge national electoral alliances with ‘the Compass Group, the Greens, Plaid’. We simply do not have that weight. We are in a position where we can act to progress the totality of the left in a meaningful way in a number of areas.’
What would that entail? Generally, making the propaganda pitch for the left to work in a collaborative way, which George and Salma in particular do very well and in so doing help us to punch way above our weight. Specifically, in our localities, acting to ensure the left does not undercut each other, trying to support the candidate best placed to progress the whole of the left, irrespective of party political identity. Anybody who is anti-war, anti-privitisation and anti-racist fits my criteria of such a left. Anyone who has good local roots and profile and is capable of mounting a credible electoral challenge at either national or local elections deserves to be taken seriously. It might be possible for candidates of different parties to sign up to some charter or other that could be punted generally around the movement. I can see how such an initiative could be useful on conditional it is broad in its pitch.
And it does not matter how good someone is on bashing the rich if they are not unequivocal on anti-racism. Especially now after the BNP breakthrough. If I was in the Greens I would be proud of the fact that in the NW and WM they appeared on the ballot paper as: “The Green Party - No to racism’. Good for them. Some our wannabe proletarian ultra’s could take a leaf out of their book.
Comment by Ger Francis — 15 June, 2009 @ 8:03 pm
‘It might be possible for candidates of different parties to sign up to some charter or other that could be punted generally around the movement. I can see how such an initiative could be useful on conditional it is broad in its pitch.’
Fair enough, but what will you do if Godsiff signs it? (I’m not being facetious, what’s to stop him if its too broad?)
Comment by swp member — 15 June, 2009 @ 8:28 pm
Mark P thinks (hopes) that the only game in town for the left is what he, and other sectarians, insist on calling a ‘lash up’ between the RMT, the Communist Party, the Socialist Workers Party and the Socialist Party. No matter how mildly I frame my criticism of his dogmatic assertions he seems convinced that by repeating this mantra that our discussion on the real problems of achieving the widest possible unity to defeat the Tories can be contained within these hopelessly narrow parameters and his pessimistic and narrow conceptions.
The point I made earlier stands unrefuted. Achieving the best result for the working class, not only in relation to the next election, but over the longer term is for there to be the widest unity around clear policy objectives.
The People’s Charter is the best and current expression of the policies around which the organized working class movement, including decisive sections of the Labour Party, are already agreed. It is a good basis on which to rally many people well beyond the ranks of the organized working class. By making support for these policies, already common ground for most trade unionists, the basis for political and electoral support it should be possible to construct a new context in which the Tories could be defeated.
Only in Mark P’s mind, still clearly conditioned by the factional infighting of the CPGB 25 years ago, can unity on the left be counterposed to a strategy that presents the fight for unity as something for the whole movement.
I would have thought that achieving the narrower goal of long standing political unity between the disparate forces of the ‘far left’ is only possible when decisive sections of the working class are prepared to break with capitalism. And when the leaders of the main organizations of the working class, the trade unions, are pressured by their members to break with social democracy. I think we are some way from this.
Nevertheless back to the core of this thread, based on my knowledge of the SWP grounded in a lifetime of active criticism of their ideology and practice – and some appreciation of Chris Bambery’s personal political style and history – I would say it is an honest attempt to grapple in a constructive way with the new realities and should be treated seriously.
Comment by Nick Wright — 15 June, 2009 @ 8:29 pm
The SWP they split the left
dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb
They did it in Scotland first
dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb
that was the most united left in modern times
dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb
then they helped found and split Respect
dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb
and then the left got really pissed off with them
dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb
cos this wasn’t even supposed to be revolutionary
dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb
but they thought it should be Leninist
dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb
and then no politicians united communities
dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb
and then the BNP got 2 MEPs and three councillors because the left was so fractuuuuuuuured
dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb
DUMB DUMB!
Comment by Weirdo — 15 June, 2009 @ 8:37 pm
That told me… ouch! Next time I’ll remember to do the washing up.
Comment by bill j — 15 June, 2009 @ 8:44 pm
Nick - please accept this as a genuine question. How is the People’s Charter going? How many have signed up - though numbers aren’t everything, they’re quite important for something like this. I’m trying to figure out whether this might be the vehicle you suggest for wider unity.
Comment by ferrier — 15 June, 2009 @ 8:52 pm
194 How is the People’s Charter going.
I am not the person to ask as I am working in France at the moment! My direct experience, at PCS conference and during the election in SE was that it is well recieved but yet to get enough name recognition.
The best measure of its potency is the way in which some prominent trade union leaders seem to fear its mobilising potential. One problem is that, despite its solid support from Labour Party and trade union left wingers, some sectarians and the labour right try to present it as an attempt to split the Labour party rather than a measure to mobilise a wide range of opinion around already agreed policies.
John McDonlell wrote a good piece in the Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/mar/09/protest-recession
http://www.thepeoplescharter.com/
Comment by Nick Wright — 15 June, 2009 @ 9:19 pm
People’s Charter, aka a petition. That will have the ruling class quaking in their shiny shoes eh Nick? Good luck with it, and extricating the CPB from that hopeless lash up (whoops, sorry, principled electoral coalition) with the SP and part of the RMT leadership .
Mark P
Comment by Mark P — 15 June, 2009 @ 9:21 pm
Is Mark P ghosting for the Weekly Wanker? He shares the same style and language.
Comment by Feliks Dzerzhinsky — 15 June, 2009 @ 9:26 pm
Re 190. Godsiff supported the war in Afghanistan and voted for the war in Iraq (well, he actually voted both ways to cover his ass, but that’s another story). It should not be too much of a challenge to construct something that is not so loose as to be meaningless or so narrow to be restrictive. But one immediate problem is that no Labour MP will sign up to anything calling for a vote for non-Labour candidates because it will bring them into disrepute with their own party. And nobody else either from any party that has not national policy otherwise. Which excludes practically everyone of weight. So, while I can see some limited scope for a general statement, there are real restrictions with it as well.
There is an opening, but to realize it would require something different than a bog standard style ‘Open Letter’. I have not given this a whole amount of thought but if pressed the kind of initative I would be interested in exploring is one that calls for tactical voting to best advance the progressive vote at the next election, and identifies a charter of candidates to support. But in order for it to be successful it would have to have a very broad appeal that could reach to human rights activists, environmentalists, those calling for electoral & parliamentary reform and trade unionists, anti-war activists, ant-racists etc.
I nominate Mark P for the job. I am sure he could draft something that would hit the spot.
Comment by Ger Francis — 15 June, 2009 @ 9:32 pm
Yes Mark, its a petition. Just the like the original Peoples Charter in 1848. No problem for the ruling class if masses of people are agreed on a set of policies, are organised by their unions to demonstrate and gather to present their petition.
The whole point about the Peoples Charter is that it comprises policies that are already agreed (and thus will probably not need Mark P’s undoubted skills in drafting prose that appeals to the very widest masses) by very wide sections of the movement and chime with public opinion.
It is what we make of it.
Comment by Nick Wright — 15 June, 2009 @ 9:46 pm
Good old 1848 eh?
That’s the spirit. don’t worry about that chip in your passport we have a petition to sign about it.
And the schools closing. Don’t worry we have a petition about those schools…and theres a strike..
oh yes people power it works really..i mean look where the BNP were 10 years ago..
Comment by Weirdo — 15 June, 2009 @ 9:50 pm
I have been repeatedly read on this blog & elsewhere that Birmingham Respect supported the Greens in the European elections in the West Midlands. Just so that no misleading understandings are allowed to spread abroad, individual members may have supported the Greens but the Birmingham group did not. In the only currently active branch of Respect in the Birmingham area, Moseley & Kings Heath, the decision was made for individuals to follow their own preference in line with the national decision. The only preferences discussed were No2Eu and the Greens. And this is regardless of any later misleading impression that may have been conveyed on any Respect leaflets.
Comment by Mike Tucker — 15 June, 2009 @ 9:51 pm
The first thing the left has to do is get in on the game or it will influence nobody. Respect needs to win its target seats, the No2EU people need to stand in seats where uber-New Labourites and corrupt MPs who haven’t been deselected or challenged by local labour parties and are likely to lose their seats to Tories or Lib Dems to see if they can mobilise the absenting working classes to come out and vote. It should not stand against Left Labour MPs (a list should be drawn up) and candidates and should give Plaid and the Greens a free ride in their strongholds. Ideally the left would share an electoral umbrella. Call it what you will, Respect is as good a name as any. The NC needs to be organised correctly with affiliated organisations getting say 40 per cent of the positions with the other 60 per cent elected at annual conference. Branches should select candidates as far as possible.
Comment by David Ellis — 15 June, 2009 @ 10:25 pm
The first thing the left needs to do is to get over its obsession with elections. Lets leave that to Ger Francis and Mark P.
The working class movement will not be re-built at the ballot box.
Comment by bill j — 15 June, 2009 @ 10:57 pm
`The working class movement will not be re-built at the ballot box.’
Nothing gets past you does it bill j?
I always call for an electoral and class struggle alliance which you may have noticed if you were actually participating in debate.
Comment by David Ellis — 15 June, 2009 @ 11:06 pm
#165 “A suitably rude and dismissive quip? Why doesn’t Permanent Revolution get on with rebuilding the workers movement, I am sure working class communities will flock to a group with such a catchy name that millions readily identify with.
Report back on your incredible breakthroughs in due course, preferably on another site, and put the social-democratic coalition builders to shame. Can’t wait.
Mark P”
A whole 8 minutes later after my post- I knew you wouldn’t let me down, Mark. Sorry it’s taken me 15 hours to respond but I went to work in the meantime.
Your mistake though is to think that rebuilding the workers movement wil be done by a group- no. It will be done by workers- having union meetings, organising in the workplaces, organising strikes, demos, occupations and more mundane things like meetings, leaflets, even fighting elections on the back of vibrant local campaigns.
For some people the idea that ordinary working class people can change the world is too fantastic to imagine. For socialists it is the only way to change the world.
Comment by Jason — 15 June, 2009 @ 11:16 pm
Mike tucker#201
are u saying Birmingham Respect did not have a policy of support for the greens as an organisation? who got the thousands of leaflets sent out and paid for then? Is it true from what I hear that Salma acted on her own without mandate. If so what has happend to take RESPECT to this sorry state of affairs.
Comment by ll — 16 June, 2009 @ 12:00 am
there never are any votes on anything in respect the so-called stars want to do, they do whatever they like and everyone else has to like it or lump it, thats why people are leaving just like this site when markp expels anyone whio disagrees with him.
Comment by Anonymous — 16 June, 2009 @ 1:47 pm
‘Ideally the left would share an electoral umbrella. Call it what you will, Respect is as good a name as any.’
You couldn’t make it up..
Comment by swp member — 16 June, 2009 @ 2:24 pm
There is a rather pathetic attempt to stir things up by the more lunatic wing of the SWP. Don’t fall for it Mike. We remember II well from his belly dancing to JR’s tune a while back. Salma endorsed the Greens as is her choice. We are not, thankfully, a democratic centralist organisation. The leaflet is even on this site but I can’t be arsed to put the link.
If this is the best II can come up with on what is supposed to be a thread on left unity, and on an initiative from the SWP to boot, it is pretty revealing. Devoid of ideas and most comfortable playing sectarian games, nothing to say and boring with it.
Comment by Ger Francis — 16 June, 2009 @ 2:50 pm
#209 I think you slipped in an unnecessary “centralist” in your contribution there.
Comment by M — 16 June, 2009 @ 3:23 pm
Dearie me. Is this really the best you can do? Haven’t you got anything constructive to say about your own initiative??
Comment by Ger Francis — 16 June, 2009 @ 3:45 pm
ger
how were 40,000 leaflets paid for if it was just a view of salma? how were they given out? surely not just Salma. What Ger means is, Salma can decide anything she wants and no vote/meeting needs to take place. Just think if people Ger disagreed with acted like this!!!
Comment by ll — 16 June, 2009 @ 3:47 pm
Thanks Ger, dismiss them. You are speaking on behalf of all Resprect members and the rest of the sane left. Fucking delusional wannabes. Away and throw eggs at yourselves.
Comment by sychohohohophantic larry — 16 June, 2009 @ 4:06 pm
#211 I don’t have an initiative. But I can’t for the life of me see where yours is going if Respect policy is made on the hoof by those members who are more equal than others.
#213 Contributions on this and other threads show he clearly isn’t speaking on behalf of all Respect members is he? Unless his definition of a real Respect member is one that agrees with himself.
Comment by M — 16 June, 2009 @ 4:25 pm
Grow up, its all about iniative and less about the democcratic centralist position of the far away sect, the SWP.We will not belly dance to their tune
Comment by sychohohohophantic larry — 16 June, 2009 @ 4:35 pm
Reply to the SWP from the commune: http://thecommune.wordpress.com/2009/06/16/reply-to-socialist-workers-partys-open-letter-to-the-left/
Comment by communard — 16 June, 2009 @ 11:59 pm
Who is “external bulletin” and where did he/she get this piece of nonsense from?
“Even Simon Assaf claimed that any attack (criticism) of the leadership was an attack on the whole membership (that was at the conference at which we allowed SWP members to speak, only for them to use their speaking time to claim that SWP members weren’t allowed to come into the conference - lie after lie)”
Comment by simon assaf — 27 June, 2009 @ 9:27 am
hey did anyone see the specials at glasto? the trumpeter guy at the back i swear was the spitting image of john rees, i shit u not. is that whats hes up to these days, cool lol
Comment by graham — 27 June, 2009 @ 11:22 am
Simon, you said it, please don’t deny it. You had a conversation with a long-standing former SWP member in front of a few people, outside the main hall in the Bishopsgate Institute, during the Respect Renewal conference. You said that an attack on the leadership (you used that phrase) was an attack on the whole membership (you used that phrase).
People were quite gobsmacked at it, and will confirm that you did indeed say it. If you’re embarrassed about it and have rewritten your memory, that’s down to you - but you said it, and you said it in front of numerous people. It was taken as a sign of just how bad things had got that someone as intelligent as you could come out with shit like that.
The other comment was made by an SWP CC member who was given the floor to speak at the Renewal conference. People loved the irony of an SWP member claiming that SWP members basically had to tear up their membership cards in order to come to the Renewal conference - particularly funny, given the expulsion (or “permanent suspension”, because it was never ratified as a formal expulsion) of a female SWP member for siding with Renewal.
Simon, what you need to remember is that because leading figures in the SWP were going round doing and saying the most obnoxious things in the name of a “witch-hunt”, a lot of people made sure to note carefully what people were saying.
Comment by external bulletin — 27 June, 2009 @ 11:36 am
I would say, despite having reconsidered quite a lot about these events, that external bulletin’s position on what Simon said is false. There is a distinction between suggesting that individuals are welcome to work with your organisation and saying that you are willing to continue working with that organisation of which they are members.
I think its disengenuous in the middle of a split to say to individuals, ‘you are welcome to come so its not the case that we’re anti-SWP’. That avoids the question of whether real political unity at that juncture was possible. This isn’t about the rightness or wrongness of the positions of those involved in the split. Its just to say that External Bulletin’s argument about Simon’s statement misses something of the reality of the situation.
Comment by johng — 27 June, 2009 @ 12:36 pm
Simon was not the only one to say that. In fact is was said from the conference floor by a CC member when he took the mike.
Johng - remember that the SWP were calling for unity and releasing unity statements and appeals while at the same time demanding that Rob H and Kevin O resigned from their positions with Galloway or be expelled. That is a clear message saying ‘we can’t and don’t want to work with you’
We’ve been over this so many times and the SWP won’t admit to their mistakes which make their current unity appeal worrying.
Comment by Steve — 27 June, 2009 @ 1:25 pm
Andy Newman - Skidmarx continually uses peronalised abuse agianst named indivicuals, while hiding behind a pseudonym. Personally I find that despicable, beacsue those named individuals are being held accountable, while skidmarx is not.
I am astonished that Andy Newman doesn’t apply the same standard to “external bulletin”’s attack on Simon Assaf. anticapitalista suggested a couple of weeks back that external bulletin used to post as tonyc, but as Joe Biden would say, I met the real tonyc, I was a comrade of tonyc’s, he’s no tonyc.
#221 while at the same time demanding that Rob H and Kevin O resigned from their positions with Galloway or be expelled.
while at the same time Rob H and Kevin O were claiming to be loyal party members while being central to Galloway’s attempts to undermine the SWP’s position in Respect. If they had had any honesty they would have left of their own accord or openly admitted they had gone over to Galloway’s side and appealed for SWP members to jion them. Instead they opted to sow as much confusion as possible. We’ve been over this so many times and they won’t admit to their mistakes which make any appeals they make to unity or democracy a little lacking in foundation.
Comment by skidmarx — 27 June, 2009 @ 3:31 pm
skidmarx: you had absolutely no experience of any of the discussions or debates in Respect. You prefer instead to get all worked up about something you know nothing about. A lot of other people did that at the time. Johng repeated one story after another about events in East London, which a lot of people there no longer abide by - now Rees is gone and a limited glasnost has opened up. Though I see he is not prepared to accept just how bad it all got at that time.
And please stop behaving like someone with an intellectual inferiority complex. Your attempts at bons mots are getting more and more embarrassing: it was Lloyd Bentsen, you clot.
Comment by Nas — 27 June, 2009 @ 4:21 pm
skidmarx - youe line of argument goes to show why the rest of the left won’t touch the SWP with a bargepole. It is apparent, if you are typical of the SWP clique, that no lessons have been learned whatsoever. Any attempt at unity by the SWP is underlined by failure to grasp this.
Comment by Steve — 27 June, 2009 @ 4:30 pm
Steve: I don’t think skidmarx is typical of an SWP clique, thankfully.
Comment by Nas — 27 June, 2009 @ 4:40 pm
‘and George “Tory government now” Galloway’
I’ve just seen this from Karl Stewart. Is this really how you plan to go about building a workers party embracing a range of socialists in Britain? If so, this just isn’t serious politics.
Comment by Nas — 27 June, 2009 @ 4:45 pm
I hope not, but the CC hardliners where I live certainly behave in such a manner. They have managed to alienate most of the local left, are unpopular in their own branch, yet are rewarded by the CC with places on the NC and talks at Marxism.
They would certainly follow the kind of lines that skidmarx does and makes the calls for unity seem somewhat hollow. I would really like to believe and trust them, but something tells me that history is doomed to repeat itself. I just can’t see how they will change unless their are some major changes to the CC and full-timer machine.
Comment by Steve — 27 June, 2009 @ 4:46 pm
Steve: I think that’s broadly true. It’s just that skidmarx is apparently not a member of the SWP and a lot of SWP members in Hackney and east London are very embarrassed about him. The SWP open letter will probably be enough to get them through Marxism 2009, though a significant number of people are now questioning the wisdom of launching it rather than engaging in serious discussions with people. The SP’s completely OTT response was made easier for them by the publication of an open letter without any preparation.
The somersaults are getting more and more frequent - it was only a couple of months ago that Smith and Callinicos were both saying that moves towards a unified left electoral initiative would not happen until after the general election. Now we’re told it’s very important that it happens before, following the outcome of the European elections, the broad outlines of which were entirely predictable in January.
The preparedness of the membership to lap up this stuff and similar volte-faces such as over the Lindsey dispute shows no sign of diminishing. My assessment is that the open letter and the democracy commission will buy some more time and convince some more people in good paying jobs to cough up their subs, thus enabling the full-time apparatus to stagger on. Meanwhile there’s the routine of propaganda and workplace sales. It can carry on like that for quite some time.
Comment by Nas — 27 June, 2009 @ 4:57 pm
Mark Hoskisson “After the Euro Elections - Left Unity?”
“There is an outside possibility that the SWP has learnt the error of its ways and is genuinely concerned to promote unity. It is highly unlikely, however.”
Comment by bill j — 27 June, 2009 @ 4:58 pm
#227 Yes, I share a similar view of leading SWP members in south London. Basically, I will never be able to trust them again - and I know other local comrades take the same view. There are only so many times that you can get shafted by the same people in one lifetime and the wrecking of the Socialist Alliance
was probably the last straw for me.
In terms of the SWP as an organisation, I think Nas’s term “limited glasnost” is quite appropriate. Any changes will be largely controlled by the likes of Harman and Callinicos and I don’t really expect that their basic method of bureaucratic centralism will change. What would make me more hopeful is if there was a generalised working class offensive over a number of years that saw new layers of workers going into struggle and new layers of militants joining left-wing organisations. Then you might see some fireworks and a “new organising culture” emerging on the left.
This might be beginning to happen now, or it might not - but I do believe that it will happen at some point in the future.
Comment by Stockwell Pete — 27 June, 2009 @ 5:05 pm
I have to correct Nas’ asertion (in #227) that a lot of SWP members in Hackney and east London are very embarassed about skidmarx. Very few SWP members in Hackney read this blog (I suspect the same’s true of east London); I’m probably the only one who knows who skidmarx is. Given that he’s not an SWP member, what’s to be embarassed about? I don’t always agree with him, but at least he puts arguments that others can engage with. I can’t say the same for every Respect supporter who posts here.
Comment by chjh — 27 June, 2009 @ 5:19 pm
As I said Steve my point wasn’t about the politics of the split, or those who should be held responsible for it. Just about the interpretation just put foward of Simon’s remarks.
Comment by johng — 27 June, 2009 @ 5:34 pm
Nas - I agree that the SP’s response was OTT. I didn’t find anything surprising in the substance of what was written to be honest. I can’t see the 2 organisations in any left unity projext together. It seems to me that they are both jockeying for position as to who is the leading left group at present. The SP may have some justification in claiming this title with their recent activity over Lindsey, although the No2EU campaign has inflicted some damage.
The letter, although posed as to the left, seems primarily to be addressed to their own membership. It will lead to frenzied activity to keep members busy getting people to sign up to it, however left unity is welcomed, their has to be room for critical reflection of the destructive role the SWP has played in past attempts. Many people will have suffered at the hands of the SWP tactics and will not be quick to jump back in with them. They need to be aware of this and prepared to take on board criticism if left unity is to be achieved and taken seriously.
Without wholesale change in the SWP regime, from the CC to the network of full-timers, I can’t see how this will work. Going from the condemnation of the Lindsey strikes and the belief that there is no space to an electoral alternative to the opposite view with no acknowledgement of the changes of analysis it leaves me wondering where they will turn next.
Comment by Steve — 27 June, 2009 @ 5:45 pm
#231 I agree with chjh - except I don’t know, and I’m not particularly interested in, who skidmarx is.
Comment by PW — 27 June, 2009 @ 5:46 pm
#223 Thanks for the correction about Lloyd Bentsen. Though Joe Biden wasn’t shy about taking other people’s lines:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Biden_presidential_campaign,_1988
How right you are to say I must be suffering from an intellectually inferiority complex, as I am blown away by the command of oratory and rhetoric shown by you and your remaining couple of comrades. One thing though, when you claim that a lot of people (presumably in the SWP) no longer abide by what was said about the split in Respect, have you got any actual quotes on this or are you just making it up as you go along?
Comment by skidmarx — 29 June, 2009 @ 3:41 pm
#231 There is a least one other, who thinks I’m wasting my time posting on the website of such an obnoxious man. She has a story to tell about Kevin Ovenden before he left the SWP, but I don’t mean to repeat it, or the many exciting stories from days in Oxford SWP, because I don’t have any personal animus against him or Rob, would rather discuss politics than gossip and perhaps would rather hold in reserve truly incendiary material for when Newman and the goblins really get personal as they cast around for someone to blame for the collapse of their cult.
My sympathies to the Epic Gnomes of the Snow White Party though.
#223 skidmarx: you had absolutely no experience of any of the discussions or debates in Respect. You prefer instead to get all worked up about something you know nothing about
Reading Kevin’s letter appealing against his expulsion from the SWP is some experience and something I know something about. I don’t think I’d want to know much about discussions in your split from Respect and doubt whether there is any actual debate given the abuse handed out to SR or Southwark Respect when they dare to differ.
Comment by skidmarx — 29 June, 2009 @ 3:57 pm
Yes, at least skidmarx questions things which is more than can be said of some of those who’ve blindly followed the twists and turns of the Galloway Party in the name of so-called “pluralism”.
Concerning the SWP’s behaviour in SA and Respect, there is never going to be an honest accounting of what happened in these formations until those who we’re antagonistic towards the SWP own up to their part in the failure of these organisations. It’s so very easy to blame the SWP because they are a relatively large target on the left but without acknowledging the tactics of others on the left it doesn’t matter what the SWP does, the same old individuals and organisations with the same old sectarian attitudes will be hovering in the background.
Comment by Ray — 29 June, 2009 @ 4:48 pm
On the thread on Ger’s report on Salma’s debate on confronting the BNP, all and sundry try to rip each other to shreds over totally marginal and unimportant differences, before a gloating BNPer comes in with his racist filth. I think this is increasingly a perposterous situation. The whole factional atmosphere generated on the left over the last couple of years is not something that any SWP comrade should continue with. I direct this at SWP members mainly because if you can’t control what others say, you can control what you say yourself.
Comment by johng — 29 June, 2009 @ 5:41 pm
“The whole factional atmosphere generated on the left over the last couple of years is not something that any SWP comrade should continue with. I direct this at SWP members mainly because if you can’t control what others say, you can control what you say yourself.”
Unless it’s you who’s doing it, it seems. Sigh! I agree with the sentiment but perhaps you should take your own advice in these matters before you cast aspersions on other comrades.
Comment by Ray — 29 June, 2009 @ 6:06 pm
Well I wasn’t pointing the finger at you personally. I think there is a difference between having an argument about an actual issue (for instance Iran) which is one which the whole left (not just in this part of the world either) is debating, and continuing with the 08 split re-union event. By a factional argument I mean an argument where every single move is organised around attempting to prove the rightness of a position completely unrelated to the actual issue being discussed. We’re talking about an objective need for the actually existing left, whatever its differences, to find some way of collaberating. I don’t think referring to Respect as ‘the Galloway’ party helps really. That was why I flew off the handle. Tit for Tat is not a sensible method in these discussions.
Comment by johng — 29 June, 2009 @ 7:51 pm
I don’t have a problem with tough polemic as long as its political, but too often otherwise informative discussions get sidetracked by personal enmities, grudges, trolling and abuse. (Just check out the latest from terryfitz which I hope Andy has deleted by the time I post this).
Johng’s call for self-restraint is noble but I don’t have much confidence in things changing without editorial assistance. I believe the editorial policy on Liam’s site works well. He is firm but consistent in its implementation which encourages a self-restraint and caution from those posting that invariably keeps the discussion on thread and prevents the kind of degeneration we sometimes see on this site. I have suggested a similar adoption to Andy but he seems generally reluctant with the odd exception, for good, instinctive anti-censorship impulses I think. Fair enough, but this site, which is important, is suffering for it.
Better fewer but better I would suggest.
Comment by Ger Francis — 29 June, 2009 @ 8:42 pm
#241
Ger
It is largely a question of volume and frequency of comments, Liam’s site has perhaps ten comments a day, and posts maybe 4 articles per week.
We post perhaps 25 articles per week, and have 500 comments per day.
but added to that, Liam seeks to have a much more narrowly defined range of debate. i am not criticisnfg him for it, but he seeks to sit in more of a niche.
It is also my experience that banning people or deleting their comments can cause more problems than it is worth as they then often become even more dertermined to cause trouble.
I am not wedded to the loose moderation model only out of ideological preference, but also due to practical necessity.
i just wish that people wouold exercise more self-restraint.
Comment by Andy Newman — 29 June, 2009 @ 9:31 pm
Thank for that Andy. Just going to have to work on being nice. Could be a challenge….
Comment by Ger Francis — 29 June, 2009 @ 10:07 pm
Ger, we wouldn’t want you any other way.
Comment by Clive — 29 June, 2009 @ 11:07 pm
“I don’t think referring to Respect as ‘the Galloway’ party helps really. That was why I flew off the handle. Tit for Tat is not a sensible method in these discussions.”
But that’s par for the course here. If there was serious and fraternal debate then perhaps it wouldn’t descend into a slanging match on this issue among others.
I’m not interested in proving the rightness of the SWP as if this could be possible amongst the bias that exists on SU. I resent you playing the role of arbiter of comrades behaviour when you flout your own rules. The implication that if only we behaved there would be a balanced assessment here has been proved false time and time again. Nothing in this thread refutes that assessment and if I saw that changing then that would involve those who sided with Galloway having their own democracy commission or even some acknowledgement that they played a part in the split. I won’t hold my breath.
Comment by Ray — 29 June, 2009 @ 11:26 pm
Ray who cares who acknowledges their role in the ’split’. Its a dead issue.
Comment by johng — 29 June, 2009 @ 11:56 pm
Actually Ray on reflection apologies.
Comment by johng — 30 June, 2009 @ 1:59 am
#222 My attention has been drawn to some comments by skidmarx concerning Kevin Ovenden and myself, to wit “Rob H and Kevin O were claiming to be loyal party members while being central to Galloway’s attempts to undermine the SWP’s position in Respect”. This is utter nonsense and ’skidmarx’ has absolutely no evidence to support this slur as there is none.
Kevin and I were expelled in a four minute meeting with Martin Smith and Chris Bambery for refusing an instruction to stop working for George Galloway. At no point was any evidence of wrong-doing presented to us. Had any, we would have had an opportunity to refute it. Just days before our expulsion, I was offered a full-time job with the SWP. It was only when I turned this down that the expulsions went ahead. If I had been “central” to attempts to undermine the SWP, I hardly think it likely that the job offer would have been made.
Immediately following our expulsion, Martin Smith put in SWP party notes that we had been denouncing the SWP to outside organisations. I wrote to Smith asking for the evidence for this bizarre contention and for him to withdraw it if he had no evidence. I did not get a reply.
I have no doubt that justice sometimes has to be a little rough if you consider yourself to be a Bolsdhevik organisation seeking to surmount huge obstacles put in your way by a ruthless enemy. However the process which saw us expelled does not conform to any norm of proletarian justice I am aware of. If people have reason to believe comrades, especially in leading positions, are not abiding by a necessary discipline, the first thing that ought to happen is that a meeting should be organised to discuss through the supposed problems to see if they can be sorted out. No such meeting was ever convened. If people are to be expelled, the very least that should happen is that the grounds for expulsion should be laid out properly so that there is an opportunity for the targets of the expulsion to respond and correct the allegations where they are incorrect. This did not happen.
Instead a decision was taken in secret to expel us. This was probably preceded by the usual denigration through gossip and it clearly was succeeded by this process of denigration, as we see from the untruths that were circulated in party notes and the gossip ’skidmarx’ has picked up from somewhere.
All of this might seem like raking over dying coals to some of the SWP contributors on this website, but I don’t see why Kevin or I should allow to go uncontested lies repeated as fact by those who have no first-hand knowledge of what happened. More importantly, I don’t see how the SWP can improve on its recent track record unless it honestly accounts for the thoroughly bad process involved in our expulsion. Nothing I have heard about the ‘Democracy Commission’ suggests the most important lessons of this woeful episode have been learned.
Comment by rob hoveman — 1 July, 2009 @ 9:50 am
But you never appealed against it, Rob, which according to Pat Stack means you accepted that you were wrong.
Comment by external bulletin — 1 July, 2009 @ 9:57 am
It is also worth pointing out that Skidmarx, while undoubtedly an unpleasnat piece of work, is not a member of the SWP, and is therofore not really indicative of what anyone in the SWP thinks.
Comment by Andy Newman — 1 July, 2009 @ 10:03 am
Just to point out that discussion of disciplinary proceedures and their functioning occupied a large part of the DC.
Comment by johng — 1 July, 2009 @ 10:19 am
“Nothing I have heard about the ‘Democracy Commission’ suggests the most important lessons of this woeful episode have been learned”-Rob Hoveman
I suppose that was from gossip?! Lets be honest nothing the SWP does is going to be to your liking.. but lets drop it. I do know a few years ago you wouldn’t be calling for local jobs for local people at the olympic site, or opposing the protests in Iran. Thats a price you pay but lets just get on with our own things. I think its best to let the past be the past……..
Comment by ll — 1 July, 2009 @ 11:56 am
#250 It is also worth pointing out that Skidmarx, while undoubtedly an unpleasnat piece of work, is not a member of the SWP,
Well sticks and stones.As it took you had to have it pointed out to you repeatedly that I wasn’t a member of the SWP before it worked its way into your little brain, that would seem indicative of the general level of thought processes of Respect(minority) supporters. When you thought I was in the SWP you would say repeatedly that what I said wasn’t representative of the SWP. When you were hounding John Rees and Lindsey German at every opportunity you would claim that they weren’t representative of the SWP. All along you’ve been trying to create a myth that most of the SWP really agrees with you, a position which becomes more and more fantastical as time goes on.
#248 rob- your’re response is welcome, but I still don’t think it fits the facts. Just to start with your contention that what I’m saying is baseless:
This is utter nonsense and ’skidmarx’ has absolutely no evidence to support this slur as there is none.
I don’t see why Kevin or I should allow to go uncontested lies repeated as fact by those who have no first-hand knowledge of what happened.
the untruths that were circulated in party notes and the gossip ’skidmarx’ has picked up from somewhere.
So what I’m saying is just what was said by Martin Smith in party notes, by members of the CC and NC. Maybe what they are all saying is untrue. But to attack it when I say the same thing as not being based on first-hand experience is dishonest.
Kevin and I were expelled in a four minute meeting with Martin Smith and Chris Bambery for refusing an instruction to stop working for George Galloway. At no point was any evidence of wrong-doing presented to us.
There was clearly a major difference at this point between the SWP and George Galloway. The SWP, in the persons of Smith and Bambery asked you to take a political action. If your first loyalty was to the SWP rather than Galloway why did you refuse it? If you thought that Galloway’s careeer was more important than the SWP, why didn’t you say so? If you refuse a clear instruction from the party, why is it unreasonable for them to expel you?
The subsequent events cast doubt on your version of events. Checking back on what you said at the time
http://www.socialistunity.com/?page_id=1293
I see that one alleged allegation you deny is that you told Galloway there was a faction supporting him inside the SWP. Yet that is a suggestion persistently made by his supporters here and elsewhere since. When he split Respect by setting up Respect Renewal, and then used a bureaucratic manoeuvre to take the name Respect for his minority faction, where were you? When Kevin was defending Galloway’s line for the Chinese government against the Tibetan protestors, where were you? When Galloway was exploiting his new found freedom to run his faction as he wants by failing to defend abortion rights in the House of Commons, where were you?
#251 For God’s sake don’t tell anyone, or you might ruin the SWP’s reputation for delusional sectarianism.
Comment by skidmarx — 1 July, 2009 @ 12:00 pm
#253
Skidmarx
NOBODY CARES !!!!
MOVE ON.
Comment by Andy Newman — 1 July, 2009 @ 12:35 pm
Just to say that as far as I know the SWP is currently calling for unity on the left. Whilst I’m all in favour of letting the past be the past, and I’m also in favour of comrades expressing their own points of view, I don’t think its the official position of the SWP that everyone should just ‘get on with their own thing’, although I hasten to add that is surely anyones right. My understanding is that, given over a million votes for the Nazi BNP, the absence of any real national level alternative pole of attraction on the left, the SWP is suggesting that the kinds of differences being discussed, painful and real though they are, are not the most important thing in the world. If we’re to have any right to say that though, I don’t think continuely going on and on about our differences or on the other hand responding aggressively to all criticism, is the way to go. It seems to be directly out of line with what we are actually trying to do.
Comment by johng — 1 July, 2009 @ 12:38 pm
Here’s an interesting definition of democratic centralism that I found in E H Carr;
”
a) the application of the elective principle to all leading organs of the party, from the highest to the lowest
b) the periodic accountability of the party organs to their respective party organisations
c) strict party discipline and subordination of the minority to the majority
d) the absolutely binding character of the decisions of the higher organs upon the lower organs and upon all party members”
EH Carr The Bolshevik Revolution Volume 1 p197
It was a definition developed by the Stalinists in 1934. It accurately describes the degenerate organisational culture of the SWP, SP, WP, AWL etc.
These groups operate with a Stalinised version of democratic centralism, which as E H Carr’s book makes absolutely clear began to be established while Lenin was still alive. That explains why the respective bureaucracies of these groups are so in love with it - they can hide their bureaucratic, hierarchical methods behind a facade of orthodoxy.
As for Skidmarx - I think he’s ok and does his best not to rise to the incessant baiting on here, not always successfully, but quite a lot more successfully than most of the people who denounce him.
Although I’m sure that Rob Hoveman’s description of the meeting is absolutely accurate, certainly from my experience of Bamberry, which is fleeting but completely unpleasant. I don’t personally know Martin Smith so can’t comment.
Comment by bill j — 1 July, 2009 @ 12:38 pm
“There was clearly a major difference at this point between the SWP and George Galloway. The SWP, in the persons of Smith and Bambery asked you to take a political action. If your first loyalty was to the SWP rather than Galloway why did you refuse it? If you thought that Galloway’s career was more important than the SWP, why didn’t you say so? If you refuse a clear instruction from the party, why is it unreasonable for them to expel you?”
That is not how internal democracy should work at all. What ever the rights and wrongs of Rob H and Kevin O decisions, in a healthy, democratic working class party individuals like Smith and Bambery should have no power to issue summary expulsions from the party.
Where political differences arise between party members and the leadership (or individuals within the leadership) it is incumbent on that leadership to exhaust every possibility, through discussion and debate, both public and private to win doubters to the position of the leadership or failing that to a position of compromise acceptable to all parties.
Given the short length of time between George Galloway’s letter and Rob H and Kevin O expulsion I do not think this process was undertaken. Compare this to the long drawn out discussion in the Socialist Party over the SSP. In that case the ex-Scottish comrades didn’t even agree with the concept of a revolutionary party but at no point was the idea of expulsion raised. Instead a thorough debate, which in the short term actually damaged our party, was undertaken, publicly and privately.
Even if after all options have been exhausted it is still completely unacceptable for a party claiming to be democratic centralist in nature (read bureaucratic centralist) to summarily expel members on the word of two leading individuals.
At most an emergency suspension from the party can be put in place by the CC or the NC (or whatever the name of the relevant bodies). However the reasons for this decision must be clearly stated and the member under threat of disciplinary proceedings must be given the right to appeal any decision to an independent appeals body with the right of representation from sympathetic comrades.
In the SP we elect an independent appeals committee drawn exclusively from the rank and file. This means members of the NC or EC cannot sit on them. Only they can ratify an expulsion from the party.
I see no reason why the SWP cannot adopt similar practices rather than ad hoc ‘Control commissions’ or the whims of M. Smith. The witch hunters in Unison have given SWP comrades more democratic rights than were given to Rob H and Kevin O in the SWP. This kind of blatantly undemocratic practice tarnishes the whole of the left.
Comment by Neil — 1 July, 2009 @ 12:57 pm
rememeber that what Kevin and Rib were being asked to do was give up their livilhoods, and in Kev’s case with no alterntaive offer of employment.
Also, removing Kev and Rob from galloway’s staff would have effectivley precipitated an immediate split in Respect, so the move the comrades were being asked to do was in contradiction to what the SWp were publically saying they were committed to.
Comment by Andy Newman — 1 July, 2009 @ 1:03 pm
Neil’s wrong about the SWP’s internal arrangements. A Disputes Commission of rank and file comrades is elected by annual conference -there’s nothing ad-hoc about it. Anyone who is expelled can appeal firstly to the Disputes Commission, and if that upholds their expulsion, then to annual conference. I don’t see the practical difference between our set-up and the one Neil describes.
Comment by chjh — 1 July, 2009 @ 2:05 pm
Solidarity meeting hosted by Hands Off the People of Iran
Saturday July 4, 17.10
Room 3B University of London Union, Malet Street
Speakers:
John McDonnell MP
Yassamine Mather (HOPI Chair)
Socialist Workers’ Party (invited)
Socialist Party (invited)
Iranian society is convulsed by a political crisis on a scale not seen for over
a decade. Masses of Iranian people have taken to the streets since the results
of the rigged elections. Their outrage is justified. The levels of blatant
vote-rigging on show was crazy even by the standards of Iran’s Islamic Republic
regime. The masses are continuing to defy the crackdown and to come out onto the
streets and urgently need our material and ideological solidarity.
If the left can come together on this question then we can win hegemony over the
solidarity movement, which is currently dominated either by Moussavi supporters
and/or groupings which are silent on the role of imperialism in the Middle East.
With this in mind, Hopi is hosting this meeting and has invited speakers from
the Socialist Workers Party and the Socialist Party. We are urging the SWP to
incorporate the event into its Marxism event, and if not then to send along a
speaker to try and discuss the way forward for solidarity action on this crucial
question.
Comment by sandy — 1 July, 2009 @ 2:07 pm
259
Indeed, it is pretty much a common disputes procedure that derives from the 1921 constitution of the Communist Party, although the names have been changed in different organisations. Indeed as harry Wicks pointed ut when this constitution was foisted into the IS by Cliff, they even preserved the punctuation errors from the CP dcument
But I remember Cyril Smith descibing the gap between the constitutional position and the reality, and despite the fact that the SLL’s appeals committee had this independent role, its real task was to rubber stamp any nonsense that healy came up with.
When was the last time an appeal was upheld in either the SWP or SP?
Comment by Andy Newman — 1 July, 2009 @ 2:19 pm
#254 NOBODY CARES !!!!
MOVE ON.
So that’s what you’re doing with comment #258. Does your doublethink know any boundaries?
The proposition that it will take the rest of the left a long time to trust the SWP after what they did in Respect is based on your disortions about what occurred. When you stop manipulating the past, we can get on with the future.
#258 rememeber that what Kevin and Rib were being asked to do was give up their livilhoods
So he wasn’t a “spare” Rib then?
Also, removing Kev and Rob from galloway’s staff would have effectivley precipitated an immediate split in Respect
This echoes the e-mail to the CC at the time:
for us to resign from working for George Galloway would be to leave Respect’s sole MP without a political staff.
Could he not have found anyone else to fill the positions? And why would clearly demarcating the line between Galloway and the SWP have precipitated a split, if they were not considerable differences which were leading that way in any case?
To go back to rob Just days before our expulsion, I was offered a full-time job with the SWP. It was only when I turned this down that the expulsions went ahead. If I had been “central” to attempts to undermine the SWP, I hardly think it likely that the job offer would have been made.
Perhaps they thought you could be saved, while clearly they thought Kevin was not. If there were major suspicions that you were using your continued membership of the SWP to undermine it, it isn’t that surprising that the party wanted the matter settled promptly, though I still don’t see any evidence that the rules were broken.
#256 billj- thanks for that. It’s a long while since I’ve read E.H.Carr, but I think it is your own interpretation somewhat that it is a Stalinised version of democratic centralism inherent from the beginning, though the rise of bureacracy within the party and the decline of working-class democracy did start well before Stalin’s consolidation of power.
Comment by skidmarx — 1 July, 2009 @ 3:03 pm
Andy, can you place the last time the SP expelled someone? Certainly not during my 3 and a half years as a member.
Comment by a very public sociologist — 1 July, 2009 @ 3:08 pm
#262
“The proposition that it will take the rest of the left a long time to trust the SWP after what they did in Respect is based on your disortions about what occurred.”
Well flattered as i am to be though so important, thousands of people over the years have experienced working with the SWP, and have made their own minds up about the experience without my interpretation
Comment by Andy Newman — 1 July, 2009 @ 3:10 pm
#263
Phil, I don’t know.
Wasn’t Ted Grant expelled?
Comment by Andy Newman — 1 July, 2009 @ 3:11 pm
#264 It’s the collective you, so don’t flatter yourself.
Comment by skidmarx — 1 July, 2009 @ 3:22 pm
‘Perhaps they thought you could be saved’ - praise the Lord.
Comment by ferrier — 1 July, 2009 @ 3:33 pm
#265
Wasn’t Ted Grant expelled?
Yes, 17 years ago. I don’t think either he or his supporters appealed against this decision though.
Comment by Duncan — 1 July, 2009 @ 3:54 pm
it seems like 5 minutes ago to me
Comment by Andy Newman — 1 July, 2009 @ 3:54 pm
I think we need to distinguish between the pre and post revolution Bolsheviks.
The pre-revolution Bolsheviks did not discipline their members for expressing disagreements, going against the “line” or questioning the authority of the hierarchy. The Bolsheviks even allowed Zinoviev and Kamenev to remain on the CC after they had exposed the date of the uprising.
But the steps taken to centralise power within the party after the revolution did facilitate the rise of Stalin and the bureaucratic decay of the revolution. There’s no escaping the fact Lenin agreed with most of those steps.
The present day bureaucratically degenerate organisations that make up the British left - SWP, WP, AWL, SP etc. all follow a form of “democratic centralism” summarised in that Stalinist definition I provided before.
Existence determines consciousness for Marxists so it is no surprise that these bureaucratically degenerate organisations are congenitally incapable of working together. To do so would undermine the material existence of the beaucracies that control them.
So what’s interesting about these groups is not what keeps them apart - that’s generally (not always) a load of gossip and personal bile - but what they’ve got in common. Namely their essence as bureaucratic “socialist” hierarchial and centralist organisations.
Really I think its as simple as that.
Comment by bill j — 1 July, 2009 @ 4:10 pm
That’s you just showing your age Andy, lol.
Comment by a very public sociologist — 1 July, 2009 @ 4:18 pm
“The present day bureaucratically degenerate organisations that make up the British left - SWP, WP, AWL, SP etc. all follow a form of “democratic centralism” summarised in that Stalinist definition I provided before.”
Yes, I’m really pleased with our Proletkult line but can’t keep up with who’s been airbrushed out of history these days. Thank our great leader, Lenin, that the USSR developed Photoshop is so convincing these days. We in the SWP could not exist without it.
Billj and hyperbole are synonymous once again. All is right with the world.
Comment by Ray — 1 July, 2009 @ 4:43 pm
“Andy, can you place the last time the SP expelled someone? Certainly not during my 3 and a half years as a member.”
nope Derek Hatton of armani suit wearing fame was herelded as a hero!!! when SP (militant) members went on national tv to say they would grass on the poll tax rioters they were still ok to be leading members………pathetic really.
Comment by ll — 1 July, 2009 @ 5:01 pm
Neil’s sectarian rants have backfired on him once again.
Comment by Ray — 1 July, 2009 @ 5:05 pm
Can I just say I’d be very happy to work with the SP?
Comment by johng — 1 July, 2009 @ 5:33 pm
OK.
Comment by bill j — 1 July, 2009 @ 6:15 pm
To my knowledge the appeals committee in the SP has met very rarely in the past decade mostly because of the process I outlined earlier where every effort is made to discuss political differences and come to an accommodation means expulsions very rarely happen. For all our faults what happened to Rob H and Kevin O would be completely unthinkable and unacceptable in the SP. Another good comparison would be the treatment of Nick Wrack when he had disagreements with SP and when he had disagreements with the SWP. Organisation took the road of extensive (some would saying exhausting!) discussion, the other summary expulsion.
As for your point on Ted Grant, Andy, I think your being a little bit disingenuous. You have sometimes made light hearted reference to the CWI’s tendency to produce copious amounts of documents in the course of a faction fight and Ted Grant and the Socialist Appeal group just show the difference between the ways democratic centralist party deals with things. The open turn debate was discussed for almost a year at branch, district, regional and national level at length. Grant, Woods and their co-thinkers formed an open faction with full rights to distribute their material in the party, speak at meetings etc. A special delegate conference was called to decide the issue. Only after Grant and Woods lost the vote by a huge margin and persisted in attacking the democratically decided strategy of the party and were caught openly preparing for a split by taking as many members with them as possible were they expelled.
In any case you can read the whole thing here: http://www.marxist.net/openturn/index.html if you’ve not got much to do for the next week or so. If you want to read a shorter version you can head on over to Woods group website. They mostly just publish their side!
I think even Ray (or Alan Woods
) would agree that was a vastly different process than that which happened to Rob H and Kevin O.
I think what you have failed to grasp Ray in the course of my ‘rant’ is that formal structures are not enough (and there is plenty of evidence from ex-SWP members that ad hoc groups selected by the leadership do expel people) you also need a culture of discussion and debate between the membership and the leadership. The treatment of the two SWP members during the split as well as Wrack and many others down through the years show that the SWP is a long way from instilling this culture in their own organisation.
Comment by Neil — 1 July, 2009 @ 6:54 pm
Except though Neil, to be fair, we’ve just spent six months having exhaustive discussions about almost all of the points you raise.
Comment by johng — 1 July, 2009 @ 7:41 pm
If you look at how the SWP and SP are organised it is essentially identical and completely bureaucratic and hierarchical.
The central leadership (all full timers) who are in control of all the organisations leading bodies and publications control the selection/appointment of full timers throughout the country and in the various fields of struggle. Who do these full timers owe their alliegance to? The central bureaucracy of course. In fact this method of deploying resources is identical to that deployed by Stalin as he was usurping control of the Bolshevik party. As Peter Taafe explains;
“From its inception difficult choices had to be made between resources for the centre and resources for the regions, districts and branches. It became an axiom in the first, formative period that a revolutionary organisation starts with a central leadership.”
http://www.marxist.net/namechange/nameframe.htm
There is no difference in this respect between the two. It is repeated by all of the other organisations on the British left. All of the mechanisms of accountability, the use of rank and file members for appeals against explusion etc. mean nothing compared with this bureaucratic method of control.
What this means is that none of the bureaucracies will tolerate a position where their essential interests are challenged. Hence, all their talk of “unity” is so much posturing. How could any of them allow a scenario where their control, the jobs, influence, prestige, indeed their very existence, the thing that determines who they are, is fundamentally challenged? Clearly they couldn’t.
So unfortunately, while the left is dominated by these bureaucratically degenerate organisations it will never unite.
Stark huh?
Comment by bill j — 1 July, 2009 @ 8:00 pm
Yes! Yes! All other organizations are bureaucratically degenerate!! Permanent Revolution is the only TRUE organization.
Comment by anon — 1 July, 2009 @ 10:18 pm
Its not by accident that Peter Taaffe is the General Secretary of the Socialist Party.
Comment by bill j — 1 July, 2009 @ 10:47 pm
#267 You and your buddies have certainly passed the ammunition enough times.
#263 If the SP never expels anyone, does that suggest that it is inherently more democratic than the SWP, or that it recruits from a narrower range of opinion, or that its dissidents or leadership are less obstreporous? When was there last a factional platform in the SP?
Comment by skidmarx — 2 July, 2009 @ 10:37 am
‘Its not by accident that Peter Taaffe is the General Secretary of the Socialist Party.’
That sounds like the first line in a trot gothic horror story.. caucuses, daggers, political opponents in pits with swinging pendulums..
Go, please tell us, WHY is it not be accident that Peter Taaffe is the General Secretary of the Socialist Party? The suspense is killing me…
Comment by swp member — 2 July, 2009 @ 11:14 am
#281 I wonder if like Fidel Castro, Taaffe has designated a member of his family as heir apparent to the throne
#279 It is incredible that revolutionary organisations that argue that working class people have the creativity and potential to fully run society, don’t think that their members - who are supposedly the most conscious and advanced section of the class - have the capability to elect (and subject to instant recall) their local organisers and every other party functionary.
What is even more incredible is that this was never even the norm in the Bolshevik Party or other organisations such as the KPD (many of whom operated in undemocratic societies or in insurrectionary situations) which held - as a point of principle - that every party functionary must be elected by the grassroots.
A fish rots from its head downwards, and the culture that this kind of set-up creates is against the spirit of working class rule and workers self-management. Essentially you have a transmission belt downwards. The toy-bolshevik leaders and local organisers act as a clique with an unequal transmission of information, rather than the leaders regularly communicate with the grassroots, they communicate via the local organisers etc.
The problems associated with many local party functionaries - arrogance, hackery, condescension - essentially arise from the fact that they are not appointed by the rank and file members, but by the leadership and therefore don’t act or behave or believe that they are genuinely accountable to the rank and file.
A very unhealthy situation, as Bill J notes what is worrying is that this extremely unattractive and repulsive internal regime is actually being represented as ‘marxism’ to the masses.
Why would any self-respecting working class hero submit themselves to this? We get pushed around enough by bosses and middle management.
Comment by Adamski — 2 July, 2009 @ 11:29 am
Spot on Adamski.
That’s why its no accident, although it does show a certain swagger to so brazenly appropriate such a title. OK SWP member?
Comment by bill j — 2 July, 2009 @ 1:14 pm
Well you’ve lost me. The NUT also has a General Secretary. Is that a pseudo-stalinist organisation? Are you saying the term itself is suspect?
As long as Peter Taafe got elected and is subject to periodic reelection with others having the chance to have a crack at it what’s your problem. Have you lot become anarchists or something?
Comment by swp member — 2 July, 2009 @ 1:31 pm
#286 “Peter Taafe got elected “
So you admit it is no accident he is General Secretary then!
The only process acceptable to Bill J is that the leading members should be there by accident.
Comment by Andy Newman — 2 July, 2009 @ 1:35 pm
#284 “I wonder if like Fidel Castro, Taaffe has designated a member of his family as heir apparent to the throne”
Bullshit!
The four main leaders of the Cuban revolution were Fidel Castro, Raul Castro, Che Guevara, and Cammilo Cienfuegos.
Camillo died in a plane crash in 1959. Che was murdered in Bolvia in 1967 with the complicity of the CIA.
Raul has been head of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Cuba since 1959, and first Vice President from 1976. He was therefore the constitutional successor to Fidel, and he assumed that office purely on his merits as a revolutionary fighter, head of the army and first class organiser, and not because of nepotism.
Comment by Calvin — 2 July, 2009 @ 1:53 pm
Raul’s appointment was also endorsed democratically; and was a very shrewd move; as it avoided a potentially damaging period of uncertainty with Fidel’s ill health. And as Raul is getting on a bit himself, he will be a transitional figure allowing a democratic process to decide the future direction of the revolution.
Comment by Andy Newman — 2 July, 2009 @ 1:59 pm
“allowing a democratic process to decide the future direction of the revolution.”-Andy
that would open elections I take it….
Comment by ll — 3 July, 2009 @ 12:03 am
Cuba has a more participatory democracy than Britain, and the Cuban CP is certainly more democratic than the SWP
But perhaps you are weeping crocodile tears that the political representatives of Miami gangster terrorists are not allowed to stand for election.
Comment by Andy Newman — 3 July, 2009 @ 12:07 am
I basically agree with Bill J about the bureaucratic centralism of the far left parties today - but I largely feel that this happened because of the serious defeats the working class movement has suffered since the mid 1970s. I don’t think any party could be immune from these pressures (relative isolation from the class, loss of members, low recruitment etc) however correctly they had read “the classic texts”.
Of course, there is a subjective element too - as an ex-SWP member, I feel that the Cliff-ites increasingly narrow reading of the Bolshevik tradition (for me particularly over Women’s Voice, Flame and Rank and File around 1980) exacerbated the problems facing the SWP, but I do also accept that the Cliff-ites were fearful of the party splitting apart and they were determined to prevent this. With hindsight, I just feel that the leadership should have trusted the membership a bit more. Trust, see. That word again.
Comment by Stockwell Pete — 3 July, 2009 @ 12:48 am
“Cuba has a more participatory democracy than Britain, and the Cuban CP is certainly more democratic than the SWP”
Unless you happen to be gay. Cuba is no worse than a lot of one party states but that doesn’t make it socialist or even democratic. Democracy in capitalism involves free elections. It’s a rather strange argument to make that those in favour of free elections are supporting the Cuban mafia. But then it’s impossible to justify one party rule in capitalism.
Perhaps Neil is living in a purist bubble because the SWP has been and continues to work with SP comrades in many areas of activity. Those who have to organise in the real world crack on with it rather than engage in hand wringing about our working relationship.
“So unfortunately, while the left is dominated by these bureaucratically degenerate organisations it will never unite.”
billj’s bubble seems to offer a hall of mirrors reflection of reality. For a bunch of degenerates of the bureaucratic persuasion the left didn’t do too badly at Visteon and other recent struggles. Meanwhile billj’s plague on all your houses approach is building unity as we speak. Billj claims that some activist spoke to him rudely at a recent meeting so the left’s fucked apparently. Profound Marxist analysis alert!
Comment by Ray — 3 July, 2009 @ 12:52 am
Ray
“Unless you happen to be gay. ” !!!!!!
Well given that the president’s daughter led the Havana Gay Pride march this year, don’t you think your information might be a little out of date?
Cuba has a good record on LGBT rights in recent years, and has for example used TV soap operas to open a discussion of the issie, certainly considering the machismo culture they have made great strides, and i confidently predict that gay marraiges will be legal in Cuba before they are in the USA.
What is amusing is that SWP members uncritically use the most right wing propaganda from the USA without pausing to think.
Comment by Andy Newman — 3 July, 2009 @ 12:59 am
Ray, run it past me again exactly how Cuba is capitalist in your view. remember that Cliff;s argument about the USSR was based upon competative arms production with the West, and see if you can make that argument stick for cuba in 2009.
Comment by Andy Newman — 3 July, 2009 @ 1:00 am
“I basically agree with Bill J about the bureaucratic centralism of the far left parties today - but I largely feel that this happened because of the serious defeats the working class movement has suffered since the mid 1970s. I don’t think any party could be immune from these pressures (relative isolation from the class, loss of members, low recruitment etc) however correctly they had read “the classic texts”.
That seems about right.
Comment by johng — 3 July, 2009 @ 1:25 am
Andy- Yes you are right. But military competition is, i think, not the only form of competition- the direct economic competition always was a feature, and a growing one as the limits of autarcky became apparent.
Socialism on one small island is still impossible. The harsh realities of earning foreign exchange in order to buy products from a globally integrated capitalist production process imposes real distortions on Cuba.
Although I think much of Nigel Harris’s thesis in ‘The end of the third world’ has been slightly taken over by recent developments (As in there is actually a growing space for state led development, in Venezuela, China etc) the limits to autarchy are still ever present.
Even if you accept that Cuba is run by well intentioned socialists, there are such serious deformations that it is right to shy away from holding out Cuba as some model of socialism.
But to get back on topic- if anyone thinks disagreement over Cuba is some barrier to left unity, then they had best retire from politics.
Comment by Kieran — 3 July, 2009 @ 5:06 am
#297
Kirran
You have clearly conceded here that Cliff’s theory doesn’t apply to Cuba, so why describe that scoeity as state capitalist? Excpet to distance uorself from any actual existing socialist sosiety,and thereofre not having to defend the real compromises and complexities of state power.
Why would an SWP member like ray recycle cold war US propaganda about gay rights in Cuba, when that information is totally inaccurate? describing the situation a generation or more ago?
So we have a society run by a socialist government, on as far as possible the basis of satisfying human need the international context.
that is as much as any socialist government can achieve.
Comment by Andy Newman — 3 July, 2009 @ 8:29 am
Can someone tell me how “participatory democracy” works in Cuba? I would be fascinated to know. Socialism, as I understand it, comes about when the working class becomes the ruling class through leading the revolutionary process. When did that happen in Cuba? Not in 1959 for sure. And where are the organs of working class political power today?
Comment by Stockwell Pete — 3 July, 2009 @ 9:43 am
Well said Ray keep it up.
Comment by bill j — 3 July, 2009 @ 9:57 am
“Our revolution is neither capitalist nor communist! … Capitalism sacrifices the human being, communism with its totalitarian conceptions sacrifices human rights. We agree neither with the one nor with the other … Our revolution is not red but olive green. It bears the colour of the rebel army from the Sierra Maestra”. (Fidel Castro, May 21st. 1959)
Comment by Stockwell Pete — 3 July, 2009 @ 10:01 am
Pete - Cuba has a democratically elected National Assembly of over 600 members, who serve 5 year terms. I think, may be wrong, that each member of the Assembly represents around 20-25,000 people. The candidates for election are nominated by Electoral Commissions, which are made up of delegates elected by organisations reporesenting trade unions, youth, students, women, farmers, etc.
But democracy in Cuba goes far beyond electoral politics. It’s at the grassroots level, in communities and workplaces, that Cuba’s democracy has enabled it to attain a level of consensus and unity completely lacking in liberal democracies. In issues of municipal planning, industry, and the distribution of services, there is wide participation in the decision making process by the people.
There are the Committees for the Defence of the Revolution (CDRs)and there is a mass and widely popular spirit of voluntarism within Cuban society. It is this culture which has enabled Cuba, a nation and a society that has existed and developed under the conditions of a siege, to be able to organise evacuations of large sections of the population in the face of the hurricanes and tropical storms which regularly batter its coastline.
It is simply undeniable that socialism in Cuba, despite the huge obstacles in its path, despite unfavourable material conditions, has been hugely successful. One man, even a group of men sitting in a Central Committee, could not have achieved what Cuba has achieved via diktat or coercion. It is the active participation of the Cuban people that has ensured the survival and success of the Cuban Revolution.
Comment by John Wight — 3 July, 2009 @ 10:06 am
So do differences over Cuba rule out collaberation between socialists? That is to say differences which make zero differences in terms of practice? (defence against imperialism, for lifting blockade etc).
Comment by johng — 3 July, 2009 @ 10:36 am
#302 Well, I think that we must be talking about different Cuba’s then John. There was no major social upheaval in 1959 that was led by the working class, was there? For me this is the basic ABC of socialism - the self-emancipation of the working class. And because the working class did not lead the revolutionary process then something else has happened there.
Basically, I believe that Castro was a Cuban nationalist whose movement captured the state from Batista and then implemented “reforms from above” (land reform, wage increases, nationalisations) that benefited the working class and peasantry. So that was a good thing but it doesn’t make it socialism, does it? Then, when the US embargo took effect Castro was gradually forced into the arms of the Soviet Union and the Cuban economy became increasingly dependent on the Soviet economy for aid.
You give a very glowing account of Cuban democracy at work but this picture is at odds with other accounts that I have read about Cuba. For instance, as I understand it, the Committees for the Defence of the Revolution are appendages of the state, not independent organisations of the working class. So I think that your notions of socialism are very “top down” indeed. Mike Gonzalez wrote this in March 2008 about democracy in Cuba,
“More importantly, this highly educated population has no access to the political system and no opportunity to challenge the state’s policies. The internet is effectively blocked and the newspapers are mouthpieces of the state. Castro spoke a lot about “people’s power”, yet the last Communist Party congress was ten years ago and the Central Committee keeps its discussions secret.”
http://www.socialistreview.org.uk/article.php?articlenumber=10292
Is he making all this up?
Comment by Stockwell Pete — 3 July, 2009 @ 11:00 am
#303 No.
Comment by Stockwell Pete — 3 July, 2009 @ 11:01 am
Well said JohnW,
I think it’s worth recalling that back in the early 1990s, soon after the counter-revolutions in the Soviet Union and eastern Europe, many pundits - from the neo-liberal right through to the dissident-communist left - were predicting the imminent demise of socialist Cuba too.
It is to the credit of the Cuban people and their leadership that this was been resisted through those years of crisis and now, with the more recent emergence of a powerful left current across latin America, Cuban socialism is stronger today than then.
And there have been advances on LGBT rights in Cuba too - not only did the president’s daughter lead the Havana pride march last year, she is also due to speak to London Pride tomorrow.
Why don’t those on the left who criticise Cuba over LGBT issues come along tomorrow and hear her?
Comment by communist — 3 July, 2009 @ 11:02 am
Pete #304 - Speaking for myself, I’ll take socialism from below, from above, from the side, even from behind - just so long as I get it, I don’t care where it comes from.
Seriously, this fetish of how socialism comes into being is and has been merely an excuse to dismiss the realities of attempting to build socialism from less than perfect circumstances, surrounded by a hostile and barbaric rival economic and social system, capitalism.
It strikes me as arrogant to even suggest that we, the left in the West, who’ve singularly failed to build anything of note, have the right to offer advice to those who have, such as the Cuban people.
I also find it laughable when people continue to paint Fidel as nothing more than a rank opportunist who embraced communism out of mercenary motives. If that’s the case, he’s been a mercenary for a long time, as never once has he relinquished or even bent in his commitment to socialism - not even during the dark days after the SU collapsed and a wave of reform followed throughout the former socialist bloc, including China.
We often cite the fact that people change in the course of struggle. Is it really without the bounds of possibility that this is what happened to Fidel - that he began with a nationalist consciousness but in the course of struggle he came to socialist and Marxist conclusions. Also, let’s not forget the influence of Che on Fidel’s political development. They were very close, particularly in the early days of the revolution, and Che, more than anything, was a Marxist to the core of his being.
Comment by John Wight — 3 July, 2009 @ 11:19 am
#298 You have clearly conceded here that Cliff’s theory doesn’t apply to Cuba
Kieran has clearly done nothing of the sort, rather to say that Cliff’s theory was always more complex than your simple-minded version of it.
I think Stockwell Pete puts well the argument that the leadership in Cuba is not committed to the self-emacipation of the working-class.
Comment by skidmarx — 3 July, 2009 @ 11:20 am
#308
Neither is the SWP then, given that it is a self declared vanguard party. Neither then were the Bolsheviks under Lenin, given that they imposed socialism on the working class whether they liked it or not, along with War Communism, NEP, the ban on factions, and so on.
Of course this fetishing of one passage of Marx is ludicrous. The ideal material conditions which Marx envisaged in the emergence of socialism within advanced industrial societies, comprising a large, well educated and homogeneous working class, did not come into being.
Instead, capitalism, developing into a global system, broke at its weakest links in societies with a low level of capitalist development, such as the SU and Cuba.
As Marx also said: ‘Men make their own history, but they do not make it just as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past.’
Comment by John Wight — 3 July, 2009 @ 11:38 am
Cuba is set to become the most socially liberal state in Latin America and the Caribbean. I have written about it for the Guardian:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/mar/28/thestreetscenewasentertain
It is rather amusing to see Ray commenting with such certainty about a country he has clearly never been to and knows nothing about, save what he has read in a yellowing back copy of Socialist Worker.
If he is going to recycle anti-Cuba propaganda, can he at least bring it up to date? Homosexuality was legalised in 1979, and today the president’s daughter leads gay pride marches in Havana.
Comment by Calvin — 3 July, 2009 @ 11:40 am
#307 “Pete #304 - Speaking for myself, I’ll take socialism from below, from above, from the side, even from behind - just so long as I get it, I don’t care where it comes from.
Seriously, this fetish of how socialism comes into being is and has been merely an excuse to dismiss the realities of attempting to build socialism from less than perfect circumstances, surrounded by a hostile and barbaric rival economic and social system, capitalism.”
Fetish? You can’t say things like that, comrade. Ha-ha!! Socialism is the self-emancipation of the working class or it is nothing. Write out “No short cuts, no substitutes” one hundred times and then go and stand in the corner!!
“It strikes me as arrogant to even suggest that we, the left in the West, who’ve singularly failed to build anything of note, have the right to offer advice to those who have, such as the Cuban people.”
Well, we can discuss things fraternally, surely? Particularly with those who stand to the left of the Castro regime. Internationalism and all that?
“I also find it laughable when people continue to paint Fidel as nothing more than a rank opportunist who embraced communism out of mercenary motives. If that’s the case, he’s been a mercenary for a long time, as never once has he relinquished or even bent in his commitment to socialism - not even during the dark days after the SU collapsed and a wave of reform followed throughout the former socialist bloc, including China.”
But he was never a communist in the “self-emancipation of the working class” sense, was he? The quote I posted earlier shows his outlook at the time of the revolution. His antipathy to communism then was based on his attitude to the Cuban CP which had reached a certain level of accomodation with the Batista regime in the 1940s. There were big strikes in 1957 and 1958 but during the revolution in 1959 the Cuban working class largely remained passive.
“We often cite the fact that people change in the course of struggle. Is it really without the bounds of possibility that this is what happened to Fidel - that he began with a nationalist consciousness but in the course of struggle he came to socialist and Marxist conclusions. Also, let’s not forget the influence of Che on Fidel’s political development. They were very close, particularly in the early days of the revolution, and Che, more than anything, was a Marxist to the core of his being.”
It is possible, of course, but I don’t believe it happened in the way you are suggesting. If anything, Castro became a more radical nationalist as his regime sought to survive the crippling US embargo and military attack. Yes, Che was more radical than Fidel but he was still primarily a guerilla-ist rather than a marxist who oriented towards the urban working class. He wasn’t shot down in a factory, was he? (I am not being facetious here because I have a lot of time for Che Guevara)
Comment by Stockwell Pete — 3 July, 2009 @ 11:45 am
Again, is the suggestion that the left cannot collaberate because of differences in the precise charecterisation of Cuba, despite zero differences in terms of opposing imperialist intervention and opposition to lifting the blockade?
Comment by johng — 3 July, 2009 @ 11:52 am
#311 Stockwell Pete
If you’re waiting for the ‘right sort of revolution’, pull up an armchair cos you’re in for a long wait. All revolutions are predicated on the actual, rather than imaginary, class structures and balance of forces.
By the way, you’re going to have a difficult job organising the perfect proletarian revolution down in Stockwell. But hey, at least noone’s going to shoot YOU down in a factory, cos there aren’t any left. Think about it.
Comment by Calvin — 3 July, 2009 @ 12:03 pm
#311 Pete
“Socialism is the self-emancipation of the working class or it is nothing.”
Why? that isn’t self-evident to me, it is just a rhetorical slogan.
If we created a society that prioritised human need over profit,that eliminated exploitation, guaranteed full employment, that combatted and eliminated oppression and prejudice, and had encouraged the direct participation of popular opinion in democratic decision making, then wouldn’t that society be socialist, even though it came via a slightly different route?
Comment by Andy Newman — 3 July, 2009 @ 12:11 pm
#304
“this highly educated population has no access to the political system and no opportunity to challenge the state’s policies”
This is totally incorrect. Cuba has a highly participatory model of decision making, and a great deal of democratic debate.
You realy shouldn’t fetishise elections on the Western model, where tweedle-dee and tweedle-dum parties rotate in office, but the most important decisions are taken by uaccountable private bodies.
Do you think that Raul and his closest mates make all the decision about everything? Goervment ministeries, think tanks, local committees for the defense of the revolution, trade unions, universities, all feed input into the decision making process.
What Cuba doesn’t have is an adversarial political system where different political parties compete to form the government, but it certainly has an efficeient and democratic process of including popular opinion into the decision making processes.
Comment by Andy Newman — 3 July, 2009 @ 12:17 pm
#312
johng, your words might have more resonance if the SWP participated in solidarity campaigns (rather than actively boycotted them), and actually tried to LEARN something from the experiences of countries at the sharp end of imperialism. It’s not good enough to say “we are all against the blockade”, if the SWP’s actual contribution is little more than putting a leftist gloss on anti-Cuban propaganda.
Your party COULD play a useful role in solidarity, and many people like myself who have years of first-hand involvement and bags of experience, would genuinely welcome it. But posing as the self-declared vanguard, when all I see is a mixture of arrogance and wilful ignorance, is not going to cut it in the real world.
Comment by Calvin — 3 July, 2009 @ 12:24 pm
#312
“despite zero differences in terms of opposing imperialist intervention and opposition to lifting the blockade?”
Well I think there is a difference when one of your comrades recycles Cold War propaganda saying that Cuba oppresses gays, instead of propomoting solidarity with Cuba, which is actually a country with one of the most socially liberal approaches to LGBT issues in the entire American continents.
These sort of ill-informed snears are the sort of argument that inform the continued sanctions and blockade.
Comment by Andy Newman — 3 July, 2009 @ 12:28 pm
I agree with John G, I don’t think Cuba is a socialist paradise, it is run by a bureaucratic dictatorship, but there are certainly many gains worth defending.
If the left are going to get anywhere though, then they’re going to have to look beyond what their party says.
If we’re always waiting for the leaderships of these left groups - who are not dissimilar to Castro’s bureaucracy in terms of their social make up - to actually propose concrete steps towards uniting the members of the left groups, then we’ll be waiting forever.
Instead the rank and file need to be uniting before and without their leaderships wherever possible.
Comment by bill j — 3 July, 2009 @ 12:44 pm
come on andy- you think north korea is socialist, romania under the caesacau family was socialist and stalin was communist etc etc what a vision- no indepednent trade unions, rich get there privilages and the workers fuck all. Apperantly in Havana prostitution is common, the gap between rish and poor is widening. so yes we all agree against usa imperialism its just some of us choose not to make out that socialism in one island is possible and the basis for internationalsim is more than moral but vital. Its basic marx and lenin etc etc but then Andy’s ditched these a long time ago.
Comment by ll — 3 July, 2009 @ 12:47 pm
Well my memory of solidarity work is that anyone who does not have the correct technical designation of what Cuba is gets subjected to endless tirades. Bit like the above actually. I think this is a disservice to solidarity work. Perhaps those of us for whom the left in the global south is not a romantic fantasy but an everyday reality are less prone to this sort of thing.
Comment by johng — 3 July, 2009 @ 12:57 pm
#313 Calvin, have you abandoned Marxism completely or is it the case that you never have been a marxist?
Still some factories in Stockwell (marble cutters, carpets), a bus depot, a college, some offices, lots of housing estates where workers live. Very proletarian is Stockwell. Actually, we don’t get shot in factories here, but we do get shot going down the tube.
Comment by Stockwell Pete — 3 July, 2009 @ 1:00 pm
Given the way people like ll towards their opponents, that they could ever dream of leading any kind of revolutionary struggle is scary.
Comment by external bulletin — 3 July, 2009 @ 1:04 pm
#316 Asking pure propagandists to be political or politically courageous or subtle is a waste of breath. They are not interested in a class analysis of the state but only the empirical manifestations of what is put in front of them. They pander to the worst bourgeois prejudices for short term gain at the expense of the international movement.
Even if we agreed that a political revolution was required in Cuba there are ways of saying it that don’t turn you into a mouthpiece for western intervention or provide left cover for anti-Cuban propaganda or relieve you of the duty of defending Cuba or even N.Korea come to that against imperialist agression. At times they sound indistinguishable from the neo-con `democratic’ peace theorists.
Comment by Plinney — 3 July, 2009 @ 1:17 pm
#314 ““Socialism is the self-emancipation of the working class or it is nothing.”
Why? that isn’t self-evident to me, it is just a rhetorical slogan.”
It is not a rhetorical slogan. It is the core idea of revolutionary socialism and it was what motivated the revolutionary workers who made October 1917. To say otherwise is to completely break from marxism.
“If we created a society that prioritised human need over profit,that eliminated exploitation, guaranteed full employment, that combatted and eliminated oppression and prejudice, and had encouraged the direct participation of popular opinion in democratic decision making, then wouldn’t that society be socialist, even though it came via a slightly different route?”
But how would your scenario happen? Who is the “we” you are referring to? Which social forces do you envisage leading the movement to make these changes if it is not the working class? Again, like John W, you seem to have a very top-down conception of socialist transformation.
Comment by Stockwell Pete — 3 July, 2009 @ 1:19 pm
#315
I think that it is time to get the cocoa out again, Andy - it is a bit early in the day though. And I am not “fetishising elections on the western model” - I am quite aware of how our society works, thank you very much.
You sort of make my point for me really. No adverserial political parties, presumably no internal factions either. So a highly controlled political process then for fifty years now. A bureaucratic dictatorship without any shadow of a doubt. And can you tell me what happens to those people on the left who persistently do not accept these pre-ordained parameters?
Comment by Stockwell Pete — 3 July, 2009 @ 1:43 pm
#319: “Apperantly in Havana prostitution is common, the gap between rish and poor is widening”
Yes, but the gap remains tiny compared to the disparities in capitalist Latin America, and prostitution (or rather, ‘jineterismo’, which is somewhat different) is declining.
But the question is: have you ever considered the cause of these problems and what the Cuban government’s response has been? If, as I suspect, you can’t answer that, or have no helpful suggestions of your own, then all you are doing is parroting out-of-context bourgeois propaganda.
Then you say that “socialism on one island is not possible”.
What exactly do you mean here?
That ‘perfect socialism’ is impossible in a capitalist dominated world, and that a socialist government has to manage the contradictions in the interests of the working class? If so, we agree. But why blame the leadership of Cuba for something that they can’t change? Is it their fault that the SWP has failed to organise a revolution anywhere, let alone a simultaneous global one?
Comment by Calvin — 3 July, 2009 @ 1:59 pm
But there is a fundamental difference among marxists as to whether “socialism” and “communism” are different from one another.
Many would argue that they are distinct and separate stages of human development, while others insist that they are simply different names for the same thing.
Comment by communist — 3 July, 2009 @ 2:08 pm
#324
“to completely break from marxism.”
Surely marxism is another name for histotical materialism, the beleif that human society proceeds due to its own internal contradictions, between opposing class interests, and due to the dialectical tension between developments of the economic base and the politicall and social superstructure.
As human society changes, then marxists need to analyse the concrete changes in actually existing society, and base their polticall actions on that; not fetishise only one political possibility.
Comment by Andy Newman — 3 July, 2009 @ 2:19 pm
#328 Yes, to a considerable extent you are right, but marxism is also specifically a theory of working class emancipation. You wouldn’t seriously deny this, would you? So, if not the working class, then which class is to lead the revolutionary process in the 21st century?
Comment by Stockwell Pete — 3 July, 2009 @ 2:46 pm
To follow up at #319: “Apperantly in Havana prostitution is common, the gap between rich and poor is widening”
When the USSR collapsed, so did Cuba’s main trading partner. GDP declined by 35% in a single day. Oil could not be paid for, and the lights went out, literally. The population was half-starved; the only thing that prevented actual starvation was the socialist nature of Cuba’s system, i.e. what little food and resouces there was was shared out equally.
So how did Cuba respond to this crisis, which was deliberately exaccerbated by the tightening of the US blockade?
They developed a mass tourism industry, massively increased trade with capitalist countries who were prepared to defy the blockade, legalised the US dollar and and allowed Cubans to receive money sent by their relatives living abroad, mainly in Miami.
What would you have done differently? Wait for the world revolution, maybe? It’s a nice thought, but whilst you’re waiting for the SWP to deliver, real flesh and blood human beings want to eat, and they can’t eat your slogans. So please explain in practical terms how you would feed 11 million people and get the electricity turned back on.
Back in the real world, Cuba made its compromises in order to survive. A mass influx of relatively wealthy Western tourists created inequalities in a very equal society. A cottage industry of hustlers, jineteras, and petty criminals arose to take the dollars off the tourists. How would you have managed this? By crackdowns? Preventing contact between Cubans and tourists? How, exactly?
And what about the money that was being sent to some (mainly white, mainly middle class) Cubans from abroad? This is worth billions to the economy. Well, to get these relatives to send money, you have to provide shops and consumer good for the recipients to buy. The downside was that some Cubans got to have things that others could not afford.
What the Cuban government did to manage the consequent inequality was to impose, in effect, massive taxes on consumer goods. So a colour TV which the government imports for, say, $100, goes on sale at $500. The difference in the two prices ($400), goes into the social pot and pays for health, education and so on, i.e. things that benefit all Cubans.
Again, what would you have done differently?
Stop all remitances from abroad, maintain equality, but dismantle the health and education systems - the jewells in the crown of the revolution - and wait for the inevitable counter-revolution?
Or maintain social spending and tax the hell out the recipients to minimise the inequality that was created?
These are real questions that demand real answers, not empty slogans. And until you are able to engage with reality, your uncontextualised and arrogant attacks on blockaded revolutionary Cuba are nothing but manna to the bourgeoise, and poison to the working class.
Comment by Calvin — 3 July, 2009 @ 3:12 pm
A fine example of the kind of sectarian ranting tomfoolery which does no service to any solidarity movement. Now can I ask again. Are differences about the precise class nature of Cuba a barrier to the left co-operating in a pragmatic fashion when confronted with the splintering of social democracy and a million votes for the BNP. On the other hand we could just spend our time giving talking points to a nasty right wing buffoon like David T.
Comment by johng — 3 July, 2009 @ 4:02 pm
# 321 “Calvin, have you abandoned Marxism completely or is it the case that you never have been a marxist?”
Stockwell Pete, the starting point of Marxism was about analysing the world as it actually is, not the world as you would like it to be, i.e. materialism versus idealism. This applies equally to Stockwell in 2009, as it does to Russia a hundred years ago.
The Cuban revolution was successful because it mobilised the population on the basis of the actual class structures and balance of forces, as opposed to trying to impose a template from a different society and different era. If Marx was still around, I suspect he would agree.
Comment by Calvin — 3 July, 2009 @ 4:23 pm
So the disagreement is between those who think it was a nationalist anti-imperialist revolution but not socialist and those who think it was both. What exactly is at stake here for practice? In particular what is the relevence of this to discussions about unity on the left?
Comment by johng — 3 July, 2009 @ 4:31 pm
#309 I would answer your points, though again they mostly seem to have been answered again by Stockwell Pete. I might dispute your assertion that the SWP ” is a self declared vanguard party”. As far as I’m aware its spent the last thirty years trying to apply for the role, but doesn’t think it’s there yet. Further “Neither then were the Bolsheviks under Lenin, given that they imposed socialism on the working class whether they liked it or not”.There was democracy initially through the soviets, under the couter-revoultionary pressure it declined, as I’m sure you’re aware from Trotsky’s view on the subject, but if your happy with the system in Cuba it seems understandable that you don’t care about the difference.
#314 the direct participation of popular opinion in democratic decision making
#315 Goervment ministeries, think tanks, local committees for the defense of the revolution, trade unions, universities, all feed input into the decision making process.
There are public consultation processes in the UK, but the decisions are still made by government and the civil service (influenced of course by the interests of business). Whee is the democratic control in Cuba, as opposed to the views of the public being taken into account.
#330 I’m not going to tell you in detail; I’ve never been to Cuba and would like to avoid preaching when I don’t have the answers. I think there’s a lot to be said for freedom of expression, something your Guardian article points out well has improved in Cuba in recent years(does the photo do you justice?), so what is wrong with pointing out the ways in which it is not a socialist paradise?
The fundamental point being made by those you’re attacking here is that socialism can’t survive on one island, so your request for a prospectus of what they would do differently to make things work is somewhat misplaced.Real democratic control by the workers of the means of production can inspire greter willingness to defend what there is, and less desire to flee on a boat to Florida, and act as more of a beacon to workers in other countries.As this isn’t the case right now , I’m sure you’re willing to repeat your contention that these are just empty slogans.
Comment by skidmarx — 3 July, 2009 @ 4:34 pm
Damn. That should read “Where is the democratic control in Cuba, as opposed to the views of the public being taken into account?
#333 What exactly is at stake here for practice? In particular what is the relevence of this to discussions about unity on the left?
Two good questions. Perhaps little, and not a lot; or perhaps it is an example of differences about the nature of socialism which are important, and would in an ideal state of the left be discussed in a comradely fashion so as to inform working together, not to be used as excuse not to. Do Calvin and John Wight really think that those who agree with the position of disagreeing with the way Cuba is run while defending it against the US really indistinguishable from that of pro-imperialists?
Comment by skidmarx — 3 July, 2009 @ 4:42 pm
#334 “The fundamental point being made by those you’re attacking here is that socialism can’t survive on one island, so your request for a prospectus of what they would do differently to make things work is somewhat misplaced”
Brilliant! Socialist or not, when asked to engage with reality, you respond by saying you don’t do reality.
Comment by Calvin — 3 July, 2009 @ 5:01 pm
#333
“What exactly is at stake here for practice? In particular what is the relevence of this to discussions about unity on the left?”
Well, no-one is suggesting that this is an obstacle to unity, it is a fraternal debate about what we mean by socialism.
Comment by Andy Newman — 3 July, 2009 @ 5:57 pm
I think ‘poisening the working class’ tends to be a bit of a barrier on the left…:)
Comment by johng — 3 July, 2009 @ 6:13 pm
#332 “Stockwell Pete, the starting point of Marxism was about analysing the world as it actually is, not the world as you would like it to be, i.e. materialism versus idealism. This applies equally to Stockwell in 2009, as it does to Russia a hundred years ago.”
Well, yes, very good, advance two spaces. But it is not getting us very far, is it? You see, I just disagree with you about the characterisation of the Cuban regime after 1959 and I don’t accept that the working class movement has never been in control in Cuba. Now, if you really want to know, I think that the Cuban revolution was basically a good thing for the Cuban people, because the Batista regime (aided by the Cuban CP) had run the place for the benefit of US corporations and themselves. I expect Castro absolutely hated the regime and wanted to live in a much fairer society. All this is good, but it does not mean that I am prepared to overlook the fact that the working class movement did not exercise power. What was it you said? “Analysing the world as it actually is, not the world as you would like it to be.” Exactly.
“The Cuban revolution was successful because it mobilised the population on the basis of the actual class structures and balance of forces, as opposed to trying to impose a template from a different society and different era. If Marx was still around, I suspect he would agree.”
I don’t disagree with this at all - but Marx would not have called the outcome socialism, nor would Lenin.
#333 There is no problem here, is there johng? I know this discussion has hijacked the end of the SWP thread but it is friendly enough. I think it is an important debate too. It shows major differences among us about conceptions of socialist transformation - between what might be termed a “benevolent despotist” approach (top down) and a “self-emancipatory” model (bottom up).
Comment by Stockwell Pete — 3 July, 2009 @ 8:31 pm
“Marx would not have called the outcome socialism, nor would Lenin.”
I am not so sure of that. These were too very pragmatic men, and Marx wa snot the sort of person to have a blueprint. lenin of course wuld have recognised that in his own practice, most parts of the USSR were won to socialism by the bayonets of the Red Army.
You see the problem with the “from below” thesis, is that “from below” and “from above” are abstractions that do not really correspond to the actual social classes nor superstructural institutions of any society. If “from below” is sucessful in securing any influence in the actually existing institutiosn of society it becomes “from above”. This is particularly true of a revolution that succeeds in crwating a socialist government in one state, and then has the task of running society and the economy in isolation - they have to be a government.
Comment by Andy Newman — 3 July, 2009 @ 8:42 pm
Skidmarx #335:
“Do Calvin and John Wight really think that those who agree with the position of disagreeing with the way Cuba is run while defending it against the US really indistinguishable from that of pro-imperialists?”
Well, if your publicly-expressed view is that there is something wrong with ‘the way Cuba is run’ (& clearly not something trivially wrong, but majorly wrong from your point of view), then it is surely for you to show what the Cubans should be doing differently, and why that would be better than what they are presently doing; and it is also for you to show how and why that alternative way forward would be successful in Cuba’s circumstances.
But neither you, nor Ray, nor ll, nor Johng, have made any attempt to do this. Thus it is clear that your position of ‘disagreeing with the way Cuba is run’ is destructive, not constructive.
Nor is the ‘disagreement’ with Cuba that you guys express based on any personal experience, serious research, understanding of the context, or up-to-date knowledge.
Hence for instance the post by Ray at #293, trotting out Cold War-style anti-Cuban propaganda without even bothering to check the facts, and also ll at #319: “no indepednent trade unions, rich get there privilages and the workers fuck all. Apperantly in Havana prostitution is common, the gap between rish and poor is widening” etc etc.
Johng at #334 seeks to excuse the position of himself & like-minded people as follows:
“The fundamental point being made by those you’re attacking here is that socialism can’t survive on one island, so your request for a prospectus of what they would do differently to make things work is somewhat misplaced”
The only logic which can be discerned in this argument appears to run as follows:
1) We don’t believe that socialism can survive on one island; so therefore-
2) We can and should politically attack those who are trying to make socialism survive in Cuba, without having any responsibility to consider what they could do differently, or even to consider the context and the facts.
Johng’s excuse gives the game away on the SWP’s historic & obviously still continuing anti-communism. They don’t believe that socialism is possible, unless it occurs everywhere all at once. So when socialist movements actually gain state power in certain countries, what they create cannot be socialism… and therefore, according to the theory, one must politically attack those ‘actually existing’ socialists, rather than engaging in solidarity with their struggles.
As Calvin correctly points out, that’s a poisonous theory; & one that is helpful only to capitalism and imperialism.
Comment by Noah — 3 July, 2009 @ 9:25 pm
#341 Hmmm. I’m not sure about that. This is from Marx and Engels’ introduction of the 1872 edition of the Communist Manifesto (1848) just one year after the Paris Commune had been crushed . . .
“One thing especially was proved by the Commune, viz., that “the working class cannot simply lay hold of ready-made state machinery, and wield it for its own purposes.”
I think that Marx might have been wagging his finger at Fidel in 1959.
I understand the point you make about Lenin and bayonets (outside of “European Russia” in the main) but it is sometimes forgotten that the soviet government immediately after October 1917 was a coalition government of workers and peasants representatives (Bolsheviks and Left Social Revolutionaries). Of course, the greatest support for the Bolsheviks was in the main urban centres and along the railway lines.
But on the question of the state we have to distinguish clearly between two different scenarios. Castro’s movement captured the Cuban capitalist state in 1959 and implemented some reforms on behalf of the working class and peasantry/rural proletariat. Chavez is doing a similar thing through the auspices of the capitalist state in Venezuela. Both are clearly “from above” methods of social transformation.
But the example of October 1917 is different. The Bolsheviks were at the head of a mass working class movement that was pulling the poorer peasantry behind it (mainly represented by the “left” SR’s. They didn’t capture the Tsarist state. They smashed it - and then set up a worker’s and peasants state. Their whole mode of operation was what is often called “socialism from below”.
Now we do know that as early as 1918 and 1919 Lenin was saying things like “if there isn’t a revolution in Germany we are doomed” and “we don’t have a dictatorship OF the proletariat now in Russia, we have a dictatorship FOR the proletariat”. But the point is, this wasn’t their intention, they were genuinely trying to build a fully functioning democratic worker’s state.
But the catastrophe of imperialist invasion and civil war severed the organic links that had existed for about a year after October between the working class, the Bolshevik party and the new machinery of the worker’s state (the “left” SR’s broke over Brest Litovsk in the summer of 1918) . . . and to cut a long story short
these links were never fully repaired in the early 1920s and the revolution eventually succumbed to Stalinism.
But, hypothetically, if the civil war in Russia had been relatively shortlived and workers democracy had survived into the 1920s in Russia, then we would still have been talking about “socialism from below”, even if the revolution had remained internationally isolated. The key question would still have been - which class is the ruling class? And the only answer would have been workers and poor peasants.
Comment by Stockwell Pete — 3 July, 2009 @ 10:10 pm
Stockwell Pete #342:
“the working class cannot simply lay hold of ready-made state machinery, and wield it for its own purposes.”
“I think that Marx might have been wagging his finger at Fidel in 1959.”
Of all the nonsense posted about Cuba, this has to be one of the most ignorant and ludicrous comments ever made by someome who claims left credentals.
You clearly imply that the Cuban revolution ’simply lay[ed] hold of ready-made state machinery, and wield[ed] it for its own purposes’.
What utter shite.
In the seizure of power by the revolutionaries in 1959, the old Cuban state machine was overthown; following which, new socialist state institutions were created.
It appears that you do not like those new institutions- OK, that’s fine for you to assert your opinion. But why are you so keen to be against Cuba that you feel the need to fly in the face of the facts?
Comment by Noah — 4 July, 2009 @ 1:07 am
“Why would an SWP member like ray recycle cold war US propaganda about gay rights in Cuba, when that information is totally inaccurate? describing the situation a generation or more ago?”
A generation ago? Are you claiming that Cuba is now a gay paradise? Andy stop painting your Stalinist veneer over Cuba. I suppose interning people with AIDS into camps in the 90’s was for the benefit of the peoples state was it? In the UK homosexuality was decriminalised in the late 60’s yet in the so-called socialist state of Cuba where everyone is supposed to be equal gays have been persecuted until very recently and in many cases still are. In what way does Cuba resemble the Bolshevik government where there was no state interference in workers sex lives? To what lengths will you go to justify an undemocratic one party state?
Cliff analysis of state capitalism applies to Cuba in every way. Are you claiming that Cuba doesn’t trade internationally and isn’t part of international capitalism? Not only do we have individuals on the left in unreality bubbles here on SU but now a whole island exists in a socialist unreality bubble according to Andy. Cuba may not have an internal market (although I’m sure sections of the bureaucracy compete with one another for funding just like in the NHS) but the Cuban bureaucracy operate as part of global capitalist markets. If you don’t think that influences their so-called “socialist” society then you’re more utopian than I realised. By your definition the NHS must be socialist then.
Comment by Ray — 4 July, 2009 @ 2:56 am
“…Marx wa snot the sort of person to have a blueprint…”
Ever read the Communist Manifesto, Andy? What part of proletarian revolution from below did you miss?
“lenin of course wuld have recognised that in his own practice, most parts of the USSR were won to socialism by the bayonets of the Red Army.”
Where in his writings does he say this? I’m curious because you’re the first person making such an assurance on his behalf. I’m asking for proof because it’s not very Marxist to make sweeping statements without a shred of evidence. A bit like your analysis of Cuban socialism.
“You see the problem with the “from below” thesis, is that “from below” and “from above” are abstractions that do not really correspond to the actual social classes nor superstructural institutions of any society. If “from below” is sucessful in securing any influence in the actually existing institutiosn of society it becomes “from above”. This is particularly true of a revolution that succeeds in crwating a socialist government in one state, and then has the task of running society and the economy in isolation - they have to be a government.”
This explains why you think Cuba is socialist. You’ve rejected Marx’s analysis of the class struggle and replaced it with a postmodernist relativity clause. Apparently, socialism isn’t about class struggle any longer it’s about people claiming to be socialists that counts regardless of whether a ruling class still exists.
So if I claimed to be Che Guevara then who could dispute this if anything goes now days?
Comment by Ray — 4 July, 2009 @ 3:26 am
No, Ray, it is clear that you’ve replaced the materialism espoused by Marx for idealism. And in fact you’re quite wrong - socialism isn’t about class struggle at all. Socialism is about replacing an economic system predicated on commodity production with one that is predicated on producing things for human need. Marx saw it as the necessary transitional stage between capitalism and communism. Socialism emerges FROM class struggle, which is the means to the end and not the end in itself.
Now please explain how around 100-200 men were able to take over and run a nation of then 7 but now 12 million people for six decades without the people’s active participation, support and ’struggle’ in the face of six decades of concerted effort to topple it by the strongest, most violent and powerful empire in human history?
Kindly also explain how those members of the Cuban bourgeoisie, landowners and US corporations that were expropriated were not done so as a result of ’struggle’?
What’s clear to me, and I suspect many others reading this thread, is that the tradition to which you adhere has replaced socialism which arises from struggle according to concrete material conditions, with a type of socialism which only exists in the pages of a book and which involves millions of workers marching lockstep through sun kissed cornfields singing the internationale with flowers in their hair.
The Paris Commune lasted 72 days, Ray. The Soviets lasted just a few months in 1905 and not much longer in 1917.
The lesson learned from each is that without state power socialism will only ever comprise a bunch of rhetorical slogans and theoretical tracts. In Cuba self emancipation in the form of literacy, education, healthcare, and dignity has certainly been attained. But unlike your subjectivist view of history, socialism, in accordance with the concept of historical materialism, is a process. It does not appear from nowhere as a thing in itself, pure and perfect, just as Marx envisaged when he said that ‘the new society comes into being bearing the birthmarks of the old.’
The Cuban Revolution has literally transformed the lives of millions both in Cuba and beyond, especially in the developing world. It continues to do so to this day, despite the massive obstacles and external pressure arrayed against it. In order for it to develop further requires that this pressure is removed. This is where socialists living outside Cuba come in. It is also why, despite all the talk of left unity, it is clear that with such differing views on what is an existing, breathing struggle for socialist transformation in Latin American, unity in practice would probably prove well nigh impossible.
Comment by John Wight — 4 July, 2009 @ 8:01 am
Andy- I actually think a lot of criticisms like those you point to are unhelpful and pretty sectarian.
Who do some do it ? Probably a mix of a genuine, sincere belief in the theory, combined with a tinge of sectarianism and laziness.
It is also necessary to understand the origins and legacy of I.S theory. Much of it was formulated when stalinism, and social democracy where powerful rival currents to revolutionary socialism, or more narrowly I.S. theory. Orthodox Trotskyism also had some influence and its own set of problems.
Thus theories like state-capitalism and the I.S tradition in political economy became to serve a utility- of carving out a space separate from these rival traditions.
Mostly this was positive, becuase Stalinism and social democracy really are dead ends.
But we just do not operate in that sort of climate any more.
Where are the radical reformist Eric Heffer types that may have been a rival pull in the 1970’s now? Do we really need to employ a rather catastrophic thesis of falling profit rates to damn social-democracy and reformism ?
I think sometimes the renditions of I.S theory are a bit overstated, but in the context of the cold war period it was probably justified.
Now- I don’t think so. I think the core insights are mostly correct, but a bit of an anti- dogma/sectarianism corrective might be in order.
Ray- Cuba trades on the world market, or might have internal markets. So What ?
How is this different from Russia under the NEP period ?
Abolition of the market is no criteria of socialism. Most important are property relations.
If workers in a society owned cooperative enterprises, alongside collective ownership of state enterprises, even if the market was pretty pervasive it would still be socialism. The particular form of resource distribution and allocation is not the defining issue.
Of course, this does not mean Cuba is a workers state- far from it. Just that you cannot make this call on the basis of the extent of market relations.
Comment by Kieran — 4 July, 2009 @ 8:22 am
“Are you claiming that Cuba is now a gay paradise?”
Always, just below the surface, is Ray’s total inability to argue honestly and to deal with what people actually say. Always, ready to pounce, is Ray’s hectoring, SWP-drilled lecturing at people, no attempt to change their mind, no attempt to challenge their politics, just dishonesty, hectoring and dismissal.
You won’t ever have any credibility Ray because you’re fundamentally incapable of honest debate and discussion.
Comment by external bulletin — 4 July, 2009 @ 9:08 am
#343 “Of all the nonsense posted about Cuba, this has to be one of the most ignorant and ludicrous comments ever made by someome who claims left credentals.
You clearly imply that the Cuban revolution ’simply lay[ed] hold of ready-made state machinery, and wield[ed] it for its own purposes’.
What utter shite.”
Oh my gawd, Noah. You really have missed the point here. I was discussing with Andy whether Marx (in his time machine) might have regarded Cuba as socialist after 1959. It is hypothetical, I know. But I quoted from the 1872 Preface to illustrate that Marx, nearly a quarter of a century after writing the Manifesto, was still quite clear that the agency for socialist transformation was the working class and he also stated that they would have to create their own state machinery (a worker’s state) to begin this process. And so, in a light-hearted manner, I then suggested that Marx would have wagged his finger at Castro because in the 1959 revolution the working class movement was essentially passive and it did not create its own state.
“In the seizure of power by the revolutionaries in 1959, the old Cuban state machine was overthown; following which, new socialist state institutions were created.
It appears that you do not like those new institutions- OK, that’s fine for you to assert your opinion. But why are you so keen to be against Cuba that you feel the need to fly in the face of the facts?”
I don’t really agree with your first sentence. The key question is the class nature of the state. Under Batista I think that we would agree that it was a capitalist state. But after 1959 what sort of state was it? You say it was a “socialist state”, but the revolutionaries of 1959 were not marxists for the most part - Castro was a radical nationalist really.
I would prefer to use the term “worker’s state”. I feel that it is more specific than “socialist state” - and there is no evidence at all that a worker’s state was set up after 1959. The essential class nature of the state, in its relationship to the working class, remained the same. Castro may have changed the names on the doors, he may have created whole new departments, but the class nature of the state did not change. Essentially, the revolutionaries captured the “Batista state”, modified it a bit, and used it to effect important social changes on behalf of the population. This was good as far as it went, but it did not constitute the beginnings of socialist transformation in the way that the first tentative steps of the worker’s government in Russia did after October 1917.
And I am not “against Cuba”, whatever that really means. It is just that I disagree with you about it.
Comment by Stockwell Pete — 4 July, 2009 @ 10:03 am
The reality about Socialist Cuba is that for most of its existence, when compared to the short period of time when the overwhwlming majority of those claiming a leninist tradition (orth trots, atate caps, tankies and others)would say that the Soviet Union was something to be supported more or less unconditionally, has been less oppressive and more democratic in relation to the role of working people in running society.
This can be taken either as a condemnation or critique of the early soviet union as much as a defence of Cuba depending on your standpoint.
Btw- “most parts of the USSR were won to socialism by the bayonets of the Red Army”- whether Lenin conceded this or not it is patantly correct, like it or not. Objective reality is objective relality.
Comment by Armchair — 4 July, 2009 @ 10:26 am
So John it is impossible for socialists to unite if they disagree about the precise class nature of the contemporary Cuban state and don’t see its current situation as embodying the highest embodiement of the struggle for socialism in the contemporary world (as opposed, for instance,to an attempt to defend self determination for a regime whose origins lie in a combination of anti-imperialist struggle and the cold war). Well thanks John for answering my question. Unfortunately I think your answer embodies a deeply destructive sectarianism though.
Comment by johng — 4 July, 2009 @ 11:32 am
“You won’t ever have any credibility Ray because you’re fundamentally incapable of honest debate and discussion.”
#348 As usual you descend into an ad hominem attack without applying any politics to the issue.
“…socialism isn’t about class struggle at all. Socialism is about replacing an economic system predicated on commodity production with one that is predicated on producing things for human need. Marx saw it as the necessary transitional stage between capitalism and communism. Socialism emerges FROM class struggle, which is the means to the end and not the end in itself.”
That’s the Stalinist conception of socialism where the working class are used to bring about the revolution and dispensed with when the bureaucracy takes over. After a revolution the centrality of the working class is crucial to ensure that a situation like the one that gave Stalin the opportunity to come to power does not arise. In fact you don’t specify any class so perhaps you believe the peasants or anyone can be the agent of revolution.
“The Cuban Revolution has literally transformed the lives of millions both in Cuba and beyond, especially in the developing world. It continues to do so to this day, despite the massive obstacles and external pressure arrayed against it.”
So has the NHS in the UK but that doesn’t make it socialist. The problem is that you equate criticism of Cubas lack of democracy with support for US imperialism. If workers are so happy with being controlled by Stalinist bureaucracies then why haven’t they re-elected them in Eastern Europe? Why won’t you support the democratic right of Cuban workers to choose how their society is run?
Comment by Ray — 4 July, 2009 @ 12:05 pm
Ray #352: “So has the NHS in the UK but that doesn’t make it socialist.”
Actually that’s an interesting comparison. The British NHS (pre-marketisation, part privatisation etc), although existing within & as part of a capitalist society, could indeed be described as a socialist institution in much of its principles & functioning.
Now, I’m not saying that it was ever very likely that the UK could have become a socialist country between 1949 and 1985, but had that occurred then it would not have been necessary to abolish the National Health Service and replace it with something nicer- though obviously one would want to have increased the level of funding, raised the wages of the lower-paid staff etc. The basic model of the old-style NHS would have been fine for a socialist society.
More from Ray: “If workers are so happy with being controlled by Stalinist bureaucracies then why haven’t they re-elected them in Eastern Europe?”
Well, pluralist democracy as practiced under capitalism isn’t in reality a particularly democratic system. There’s plenty of evidence, eg from opinion polls, that a very large proportion of the population in the former socialist countries, especially working class people and those old enough to have spent a significant part of their adult life ‘being controlled by Stalinist bureaucracies’ have a positive view of the socialist period. For example:
“The majority of Hungarians believe that life was better in the János Kádár era before Communism collapsed in 1989-90, according to a survey by market researchers Gfk Piackutató.
“In all, 62% of the 1,000 people interviewed in the survey said they were happiest in the period preceding the change of regime, up from 53% in 2001. Those favouring the Kádár era were generally the elderly rather than the young, and those with lesser schooling. The number saying that the pre-1990 era was the worst fell from 20% in 2001 to 13% today […]
“Some 80% of those 50 years of age or older consider the time before the change of regime happier. Nearly 75% of those aged 40-49, and 55% of those who were students and young adults during the late 1980s concur, whereas only 24% of those aged 15-29 agree.”
http://21stcenturysocialism.com/article/most_hungarians_feel_life_was_better_under_communism_01674.html
And:
“A poll showed that more than 60 percent of Russians saw the Brezhnev era in a positive light compared with 17 percent who did not.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/22/AR2006122201179.html
But Ray continues: “Why won’t you support the democratic right of Cuban workers to choose how their society is run?”
The question is based on the usual anti-communist assumptions that Cuban workers don’t have democratic rights and that they don’t choose how their society is run.
In fact the workers (& retired people, students etc) do choose how their society is run, through the system of popular power and through other institutions including the trade unions, the CDRs, and the Communist Party in which the most politically advanced and active people are members.
There are local and mass meetings, secret-ballot elections; and there is a very high rate of participation by the population.
Nevertheless, of course, the Cuban system is far from ideal. But Cuba does not exist in an ideal world. Nobody here is arguing that Cuba has reached the stage of communist society- merely that it is a socialist society, a much better society than capitalism but still having significant negative features which are inescapable given that it survives in the context of a capitalist & imperialist-dominated world.
Given this, to attack the Cuban system politically without having any realistic & constructive proposals for what Cuba could do differently (without risking the country succumbing to imperialism) is just poisonous.
Comment by Noah — 4 July, 2009 @ 3:26 pm
Well, obviously bringing down the Berlin Wall was not sold to East Germans with “Oh, by the way, one third of you are about to become unemployed.”
Comment by Faust — 4 July, 2009 @ 3:33 pm
johng #351:
“So John it is impossible for socialists to unite if they disagree about the precise class nature of the contemporary Cuban state and don’t see its current situation as embodying the highest embodiement of the struggle for socialism in the contemporary world… etc etc”
Well, if the aim of ‘unity’ is to achieve socialism (ie, rather than on ’single issues’) then John Wight’s point is absolutely correct.
Three aspects need to be considered:
1) Political attacks on existing socialism in other countries, eg labelling them as ‘undemocratic’, false allegations about gay rights, claiming that they are not genuinely socialist etc, clearly undermines- among people who could be won for socialism in ones own country- any confidence that (a) it is actually possible to create socialism, and (b) that even if it could be achieved, it would be a good thing.
2) The struggle for socialism is an international one and is not fought out merely within national borders as if the rest of the world hardly exists. The revolutionary developments in Latin America have re-vitalised that global struggle (though it is still at a very low ebb and the shadow cast by the defeat of the USSR will be a long one historically), and Cuba plays a hugely important role in this process. Denigration of Cuba undermines the prospects for futher gains in the global socialist struggle.
3) What can one make of people who are stridently for socialism in principle, but have a negative & hostile attitude to the government of any and every country where socialism is actually achieved? I have to say that it is an over-simplification to describe such people as socialists. They are in favour of an abstract socialism, but against it in practice.
Comment by Noah — 4 July, 2009 @ 4:16 pm
#355. Actually, I think that is true. The beautiful utopia must not be sullied by reality. Perhaps such people should be called book socialists. Their politics are what they find in a textbook, divorced from, even repelled by, political reality and living struggle.
Comment by Faust — 4 July, 2009 @ 6:29 pm
Faust #354: “Well, obviously bringing down the Berlin Wall was not sold to East Germans with ‘Oh, by the way, one third of you are about to become unemployed’.”
Absolutely. And, just like the Russians & the Hungarians, most people in the former GDR have on balance a positive view about life during the socialist period. Der Spiegel published an article yesterday, written in a horrified tone, under the title: HOMESICK FOR A DICTATORSHIP: Majority of Eastern Germans Feel Life Better under Communism.
A couple of quotes:
“Glorification of the German Democratic Republic is on the rise two decades after the Berlin Wall fell. Young people and the better off are among those rebuffing criticism of East Germany as an ‘illegitimate state.’ In a new poll, more than half of former eastern Germans defend the GDR.”
“Today, 20 years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, 57 percent, or an absolute majority, of eastern Germans defend the former East Germany. ‘The GDR had more good sides than bad sides. There were some problems, but life was good there,’ say 49 percent of those polled. Eight percent of eastern Germans flatly oppose all criticism of their former home and agree with the statement: ‘The GDR had, for the most part, good sides. Life there was happier and better than in reunified Germany today.’”
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,634122,00.html
It seems that the majority verdict, among people who have experienced both capitalism and socialism in their lifetimes, is generally positive about ‘actually existing socialism’. There can be little doubt that that this majority view is more pronounced among working class than ‘middle class’ people.
This is despite the very serious difficulties which the socialist states had to cope with due to being in a mainly capitalist world, less economically developed than the West, facing Cold War technological sanctions, having to expend huge resources on the arms race, the consequent restrictions on travel, political expression etc.
That the majority feeling is not expressed in the results of pluralist elections is an indication that capitalist democracy is not as democratic as it claims to be.
Further. That this is the majority opinion, despite twenty years of intense anti-communist propaganda denigrating the former socialist societies, is a very good sign- a reassurance that socialism is worth not merely fighting for, but actually achieving.
Comment by Noah — 4 July, 2009 @ 10:00 pm
It’s rather pointless debating Cuba with Stalinists. They have a top down conception of socialism that the working class must make do with because that’s all they’re worth.
Cuba is hardly a problem for the left in the UK nor is it, as I made clear from my first post, the worst offender of Stalinism. I can think of other one party states that were/are far worse. It has liberalised to a greater extent but it’s far from democratic or a classless socialist society the Stalinists claim it is.
The left will have to unite if we want to combat the nazis and offer an alternative to New Labour. Bickering over Cuba is not a luxury we can afford right now. It was good to see comrades from Workers Power supporting the open letter and committing themselves to forming an alliance. Judith Orr in her meeting about where next for the left made it clear that we need to work out some form of electoral alliance asap because in less than a year the general election will mean that without a credible left alternative the right, especially the BNP, will make the most of a political vacuum on the left.
Shall we leave Cuba for another time and focus on how the left can unite to oppose the BNP and offer an alternative to Labour?
Comment by Ray — 4 July, 2009 @ 10:24 pm
Ray #358: “It’s rather pointless debating Cuba with Stalinists.”
Translation: ‘Due to my complete ignorance of the facts & my fossilised Cold War anti-communist mindset, I find myself unable to engage with the points made above.’
Nevertheless, you continue: ” They have a top down conception of socialism that the working class must make do with because that’s all they’re worth.”
Your claim to espouse socialism ‘from below’ rather than a ‘top down’ socialisim has already been thoroughly discredited on this thread, I think by Andy if my memory is correct. Any socialist state, while having the mandate and involvement of the masses, must act also ‘from above’ in using state power & its institutions to drive through the socialist project and defeat the efforts of counter-revolutionaries.
As for “the working class must make do with because that’s all they’re worth.” That insinuation flies in the face of the facts of previously (& actually, in the case of Cuba) existing socialism. Those societies, for all their faults & difficulties, valued the working class in a way that was never seen before: free and good quality education and healthcare, zero unemployment, cultural and sports participation at little or no cost, retirement at 55 or 60 on decent & guaranteed pensions… And in the case of the Soviet Union, the bulk of the leadership cadre of society was drawn from the working class.
You go on: “Cuba is hardly a problem for the left in the UK nor is it, as I made clear from my first post, the worst offender of Stalinism. I can think of other one party states that were/are far worse.”
Of course, Cuba is not a problem for the left in the UK. Cuba is an inspiration for the left in the UK and everywhere else in the world, along with its allies Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador etc.
You say that Cuba is not the “worst offender”. How generous of you to relegate Cuba to the status of a ‘lesser criminal’.
And you add:
“It has liberalised to a greater extent but it’s far from democratic or a classless socialist society the Stalinists claim it is.”
Another repetition of the allegation, chiming with that of the imperialists, and exposed as false by facts posted above on this thread, that Cuba is ‘undemocratic’. Followed by something which you have made up all by yourself- the assertion that people here are claiming that Cuba is a “classless” society.
Nobody on this list, or anywhere else so far as I am aware, claims that Cuba is a classless society.
Anyway, you would now rather talk about something else. That’s most understandable.
Comment by Noah — 4 July, 2009 @ 11:54 pm
“Nobody on this list, or anywhere else so far as I am aware, claims that Cuba is a classless society.”
So you admit it’s not socialist.
“Anyway, you would now rather talk about something else. That’s most understandable.”
Now that we’re in agreement why not get back to discussing left unity - the original topic of this thread.
Comment by Ray — 5 July, 2009 @ 1:58 am
The likes of the SWP, and many Trotskyists, fail to valorise any successful seizure of power more recent than 1917. Everything more recent is “Stalinism”, “state capitalism” etc.
As Noah has noted, there is a fossilised anti-communist mindset in such people, often hard to distinguish from the ruling classes’.
Ultimately, it is also deeply pessimistic. If socialism is such a high bar to vault over that it was only once (briefly) reached nearly a century ago in Russia, isn’t it some kind of utopian ideal? Isn’t it about as meaningful as the old song, “You’ll get pie in the sky when you die (it’s a lie)”?
I am used to openly right-wing people telling me that socialism is “contrary to human nature”. But the likes of the SWP, it seems to me, come very close to admitting as much.
Comment by Faust — 5 July, 2009 @ 2:18 am
Good grief comrades.
“That the emancipation of the working classes must be conquered by the working classes themselves, that the struggle for the emancipation of the working classes means not a struggle for class privileges and monopolies, but for equal rights and duties, and the abolition of all class rule . . . “
Marx, First International 1864
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/iwma/documents/1864/rules.htm
Comment by Stockwell Pete — 5 July, 2009 @ 10:28 am
True, but what revolution did Marx and Engels actually lead, though? Engels, it is true, had a little experience of armed struggle in Baden, Germany, an experience surprisingly little referred to, because most lefties, at least in “developed countries” prefer to avoid such things.
Both of them had a lot to say about the Paris Commune and its repression, but got no nearer to it than London. Two of Marx’s daughters did go to France to try and track down a family friend involved in the Commune and forced to flee. They were briefly detained by the French police.
The practice of revolution, and preparing for it, didn’t come into being until the following century, and was left to others than Marx and Engels to develop.
It is this experience that many “socialists” spend a lot of time rejecting, but then they say war is glorious to those who have never experienced it. I think the same can be said about revolution and the defence of it.
Marx also seems to have found the British working class of his day to be be disappointingly un-militant, and in his lifetime it had not even gone as far as ditching the Liberal Party as its mode of political expression. Whether he would have regarded today’s class as much of an improvement is a moot point. He did look at the “Marxists” of his own day and say, “I am not a Marxist.” Again, what would he make of the left today?
Comment by Faust — 5 July, 2009 @ 11:04 am
#363 But Lenin says exactly the same thing as Marx . . .
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch05.htm#s2
Comment by Stockwell Pete — 5 July, 2009 @ 2:53 pm
Ultimately Faust your argument could be used for suggesting that anyone who does not join the Labour Party is pessimistic about human nature and parrots right wing arguments about the impossibility of socialism. The IS tradition, forrunner of the SWP, was the child both of the Trotskyist movement and the New Left that emerged and developed in the context of widespread disillusion both with actually existing socialism and with the reformist practice of the bureacratic communist movement.
This was a far wider current then simply the SWP, and reflected global hopes and dreams of a new generation sick of both western capitalism and the mind-numbing charade of actually existing socialism. This movement suffered shuddering defeats in the late 1970s as the tide turned rightwards. We saw something of a rebirth and the forging of new connections in the period since the late 1990s, and something of that spirit in the global anti-war movement and the new generation of activists who emerged within it.
Of course if one wants, in the face of adversity, to scale back our vision of socialism as something which emerges out of the collective struggles of ordinary people, transforming themselves and the world in the same moment, that is perhaps understandable.
I think adjusting our tactics is more appropriate then, what it really boils down to, abandoning the struggle for socialism, and turning it into something to do with fulfilling production quotas. I also don’t think the dominant mood amongst those thinking about how to challenge the system is nostalgia for the old Soviet Empire. Indeed this is the only site I have come across with any weight where such things are argued.
To start parroting the jargon of actually existing socialism might win you friends amongst fossilised sects pretending to be mass parties, but its doubtful if you would win anyone else.
Comment by johng — 5 July, 2009 @ 3:14 pm
Just found the time to read this thread in entirety. At the risk of bringing things back on topic, I’d like to say that Adamski at #284 is 100% correct.
Socialism is not just a set of policies, it’s a fundamentally different way of organising society. Just saying that we’re different to the capitalist parties is not enough; if we can’t run our organisations in a collectively democratic, non-hierarchical, non-bureaucratic manner then how can we persuade others that such a system is both possible and desirable for the rest of society?
Both Adamski and myself were members of Respect at the time of the split. I sided with Renewal because it was clear to me that the SWP leadership were behaving in an unacceptably undemocratic and authoritarian manner. Respect Renewal also had and have problems in that regard, but as an organisation it was and still is more open and democratic than the SWP led faction. (I’ve just received an all-member email from the National Secretary asking for opinions on a matter before the NC, which would never have happened in the old days.)
In #284 Adamski seems to be acknowledging these criticisms of the way the SWP organises, despite the fact that he was on the other side of the split to myself. The reason he took the other side- and I hope he’ll correct me if I’m misrepresenting him- was that he considered the politics of Respect Renewal to be significantly to the right of the Left List. I think many others in the SWP genuinely believed and still believe that Renewal was a right-wing breakaway from the ‘real’ Respect.
In other words, the side you took over the Respect split boiled down to whether you saw authoritarianism or reformism as the greater evil in a left wing organisation. Louis Proyect discusses this dynamic at some length here, and I agree with his statement that sectarianism is the biggest obstacle facing left unity today, not reformism.
I mention all this merely because it reflects the arguments going on across the entire left about the best way to proceed in the present climate. That’s why one side bangs on about the SWP/SP being ‘authoritarian’ and the other side bangs on about Respect being ‘communalist’, and/or No2EU being ‘nationalist’. My own view is that only a genuinely bottom-up democratic organisation will be capable of filling the space to the left of Labour, and that organising in such a way necessarily means abandoning ideological purity and giving space to people to the right of the revolutionary left.
Comment by Jon — 5 July, 2009 @ 7:30 pm
Stockwell Pete #362: “Good grief comrades. ‘That the emancipation of the working classes must be conquered by the working classes themselves’ etc…”
Not completely sure what you’re getting at here, but given the discussion on Cuba on this thread, I hazard a guess that you’re attempting to show, by quoting from Marx in 1864, that Cuba can’t possibly be a socialist country in 2009; because the main centres of the military struggle in Cuba pre-1959, which resulted in the conquering of power by the revolutionaries, were in the countryside (populated mainly by poor peasants and agricultural workers) rather than in the cities. Or perhaps that Cuba can’t possibly be a socialist country now because, in 1959, out of the three main leaders of the Cuban Revolution only Raul and Che were committed communists, while Fidel had not yet fully come to that understanding?
If that- or anything like it- is the case, Faust has you bang to rights in his post #365: “Perhaps such people should be called book socialists. Their politics are what they find in a textbook, divorced from, even repelled by, political reality and living struggle.”
Karl Marx, being a mere genius and not gifted with powers to foretell the futue in detail (such prophets are found in religious texts and science fiction, but do not appear in reality) could not possibly have predicted the twists and turns of the global class battles of the 20th Century- including the role of the Soviet Union as an international inspiration and practical backer of anti-imperialist struggles, the alliance between actually existing socialism and national liberation, etc.
And by the way. Although the armed struggles in Cuba during the 1950s took place in the countryside, the revolutionaries were supported by the masses in the cities.
And following the achievement of state power, the political party of the urban working class- the Communist Party of Cuba- united with the forces led by Fidel, Raul and Che (despite their previous tactical disagreements) in order to drive through the socialist and anti-imperialist project.
Today, and despite the appalling consquences of the defeat of the USSR, Cuba’s achievements shine out as a beacon. The present-day revival of socialism, centred in Latin America, would be inconceivable without the example and influence of socialist Cuba.
Comment by Noah — 5 July, 2009 @ 10:38 pm
#367 “Not completely sure what you’re getting at here”.
No, you’re definitely not. I was talking about Marxism - it is a theory of working class emancipation. But don’t mind me, carry on by all means.
Comment by Stockwell Pete — 5 July, 2009 @ 11:01 pm
Ray #360: **”Nobody on this list, or anywhere else so far as I am aware, claims that Cuba is a classless society.” So you admit it’s not socialist.**
Ray, I don’t know where you receved your political education. But given the combination of ‘theoretical’ pro-socialism with strident opposition to socialism in practice, which seems to be your theme, I would guess that your political education was received in the SWP.
If so, your comment can only reinforce ones impression of the very low level of political education provided to its recruits by the ‘Socialist Workers Party’.
As eny fule kno (except, perhaps, the fules trained by the SWP) the achievement of socialism does not- and cannot, purely by dictat- abolish social classes.
Social classes still exist under socialism. Even after capitalism is overthrown, significant negative features of the old society will persist.
That would be the case even if the world revolution took place everywhere all at once; but the fact that a revolutionary country- unless global capitalism is immediately destroyed- must strive to endure in a capitalist & imperialist dominated world, obviously makes it more difficult to carry out all the social transformations that one would wish to achieve.
Nevertheless, and despite the US blockade, what the Cubans have achieved is remarkable and astonishing. A quality of life higher than any other Third World country; free health and education services, extending far beyond their national borders; inspiring many millions of people in Latin America & elsewhere to struggle for socialism.
Ray. You, Stockwell Pete, 11, Johng, etc etc, are distinctly unenthusiastic about these achievements, and seek out any way to negatively criticise Cuba as much as you can, despite your lack of knowledge and experience.
What can one conclude from this? No more than what I said already. You are in favour of socialism in principle, but against it in practice.
Comment by Noah — 5 July, 2009 @ 11:49 pm
Stockwell Pete #368: “I was talking about Marxism.”
Oh really?
For you, ‘Marxism’ is clearly nothing but a pile of old bones, from which you believe you can exhume a fragment and throw it against anybody who is actually, under today’s conditions, trying to maintain or achieve state power in struggle for socialism and against imperialism.
Shame on you.
Comment by Noah — 6 July, 2009 @ 12:10 am
#370 Oh, piffle. I’m going to bed. Do Stalinists dream of tanks, I wonder? Ha-ha-ha!!
Comment by Stockwell Pete — 6 July, 2009 @ 12:46 am
“Stalinists, Stalinists!” = I have no arguments left so I’ll try and scare the children.
If Cuba can’t be socialist because socialism anywhere is impossible until the SWP organise a simultaneous global revolution, then why attack Cuba for the failure of the SWP?
If the SWP were genuine about defending Cuba from US imperialism, they would, at the very least:
1. Support the international solidarity movements, rather than instructing their members to boycott them.
2. Highlight the remarkable achievements of Cuba and contextualise its contradictions and problems, rather than parrot, or in some cases invent, anti-Cuba propaganda.
The SWP’s attacks on this small blockaded socialist island are the opposite of solidarity. It’s akin to attacking a union during a strike by recycling Daily Mail propaganda - basically scabbing.
Wake up, SWP! You have some committed and decent members who play a positive role in many stuggles. But in persisting with your shameful attacks on Cuba, you are undermining your own credibility and making it very difficult for others to work with you.
If the SWP leadership ever grants its members a voice, then I strongly suspect that their anti-Cuba line will crumble even quicker than Ray’s arguments.
Comment by Calvin — 6 July, 2009 @ 1:23 pm
#282.
“If the SWP leadership ever grants its members a voice, then I strongly suspect that their anti-Cuba line will crumble even quicker than Ray’s arguments.”
I am not so sure about this. The SWP line panders to prejudices that bourgeois ideology and its media implant rather deeply in society. What the SWP and similiar groups do is slap a coat of red paint on views which are often hard to distinguish from the Mail or the Telegraph. The SWP line is a symptom, not a cause, of bourgeois ideology. The idea that the SWP membership would find their way to pro-Cuba views if it wasn’t for their nasty Central Committee ignores the impact of ideology.
In 1914, chauvinism proved to be deeply implanted in all sorts of people who, in theory, subscribed to “workers of all lands unite”. And yet some of these, like the German SPD, were mass parties, with daily newspapers and real weight in society. Yet they too were swept up in the tide.
The SWP, a relatively tiny organisation with no social weight (even though a large fish in the British left pond), recruits people who have picked up the view that Communists Are Bad People And Run Dictatorships, and just runs with this rather than challenging it. Perhaps the SWP should not be blamed too much for not resisting tides that have swamped bigger groups.
Comment by Faust — 6 July, 2009 @ 1:45 pm
#372 Faust
Your point about the SWP refelecting bourgeois ideology is basically correct, but I think you may be overstating the case.
I do think that most recruits (at least the younger ones) join the SWP because they genuinely want to reject capitalism, and because the SWP is “doing something”. In other words, the SWP social demographic is to the left of the general population and whilst obviously not immune from bourgeois ideology (who is?), has come part way towards rejecting it.
Given this demographic and the fact that Cuba’s popularity in Britain extends well beyond the organised left, I can only conclude that the SWP leadership bullies or brainwashes its members into supporting an anti-Cuba line which is unsupported by the evidence.
Either way, it really is a complete disgrace.
Comment by Calvin — 6 July, 2009 @ 3:15 pm
Calvin do you really think that the SWP’s line is compatible with ‘bourgoise ideology’? What planet are you on? Solidarity is not about diplomacy. It is not an ‘attack’ on Cuba to disagree with comrades who mistakenly think its a workers state.
Comment by johng — 6 July, 2009 @ 3:28 pm
The SWP tells people that Cuba, the USSR etc. ARE capitalist, just of the “state capitalist” variety. I never found this convincing. The USSR I visited in 1984 and the post-Soviet Russia I visited in 1992 were very different places. Some of the people who lived to tell about being driven out of Phnom Penh into the countryside by the Khmer Rouge in 1975 recall the latter setting off explosive charges in the banks. People would be showered with now worthless banknotes blasted into the air. But to the SWP, the Khmer Rouge were capitalists. Hmm.
The SWP tell people everywhere is capitalist, not least everywhere that claimed or claim to be socialist. The short-term effect is that the SWP can, for example, join the anti-Cuban chorus just like any Miami gusano. Longer term, it contributes to the idea that capitalism cannot be combated, because no state has been able to resist it for long. Anyone who can think outside the box would conclude, “If even the USSR couldn’t stay out of capitalism’s grip for long, what chance has a micro-group like the SWP that has never even unleashed successful strike action?”
Comment by Faust — 6 July, 2009 @ 3:40 pm
#375
Oh come on, JOhnG
Ray’s lies about the position of gays in this debate are a clear example of rehashing bougesoise propaganda against Cuba.
And the idealist nonsense about the alleged lack of demcracy in Cuba clearly suggest an identification with the norms of liberal democracy.
Reproducing anti-socialist lies about the freedom of trade unions in Cuba (without reflecting that in a socialist soicety the key aims of the unions are transcending sectionalism and maximising production), is clearly underminiog solidarity.
What is funny is the absolute lack of serious engagement with the reality of Cuban life, and the options actually open to the Cuban government. Given the growing profile of cuban solidarity n the trad eunion movement, you are putting yourself into a sort of anti-communist camp over this along with only the most right wing camp in the unions.
Comment by Andy Newman — 6 July, 2009 @ 3:47 pm
“The SWP tell people everywhere is capitalist, not least everywhere that claimed or claim to be socialist. The short-term effect is that the SWP can, for example, join the anti-Cuban chorus just like any Miami gusano.”
That’s like saying anyone who criticised Stalinist Russia or Maoist China is a Western stooge. Pure reactionary Cold War rhetoric meant to stifle debate and excuse any old rubbish in the name of Stalinism.
And where have the SWP called for the overthrow of the current one party state in Cuba? If anything, the SWP has condemned US imperialism in the region. Please stop attributing made up politics to the SWP so that it fits your Stalinist line.
Democracy does not exist in Cuba and no Stalinist paint job is going to change that fact.
Comment by Ray — 6 July, 2009 @ 3:47 pm
#376 “The short-term effect is that the SWP can, for example, join the anti-Cuban chorus just like any Miami gusano.”
SWP members are quite capable of looking after themselves on here, but that is frankly outrageous. The right-wing Miami exiles call for worker’s councils in Cuba, do they? They are all well read in Marx and Lenin, are they? Sorry, I hadn’t realised that. Whatever next?
Comment by Stockwell Pete — 6 July, 2009 @ 3:53 pm
“Ray’s lies about the position of gays in this debate are a clear example of rehashing bougesoise propaganda against Cuba.”
Except they’re not lies and no amount of Stalinist cover up on your part will change that. It’s bordering on the homophobic that you defend the so-called “socialist” Cuba’s appalling record on gay rights.
Comment by Ray — 6 July, 2009 @ 3:54 pm
Andy, what has happened to your cricket thread on the Ashes today? I was halfway through my run up and the stumps disappeared!! I was about to wax lyrical about revolutionary defeatism and also about Sussex getting to another final. When is play likely to be resumed please?
Comment by Stockwell Pete — 6 July, 2009 @ 3:58 pm
Stckwell Pete,
sadly you are contradicted by Ray at #378 who argues “Democracy does not exist in Cuba “, a statement that could clearly have come straight from the Miami gangsters.
Sorry to disapoint but Cuba simply is a very democratic society, with a high degree of popular participation. What is not permitted is allowing people to organise to overthrow the government in order to restore capitalism.
How would “workers councils” be any more democratic that the current constitution?
Comment by Andy Newman — 6 July, 2009 @ 4:01 pm
#381
technical glitch, somehow the wordpress software ate it. I will repair the damage and repost it later.
Comment by Andy Newman — 6 July, 2009 @ 4:02 pm
US-funded Radio Marti says Cuba is not democratic. So does the SWP. Are they by any chance related?
Comment by Faust — 6 July, 2009 @ 4:08 pm
From Wikipedia, (it paints a rather different picture to the one Andy claims):
“In 1979, Cuba removed sodomy from its criminal code, but “public scandal” laws sentenced those who “publicly flaunted their homosexual condition” with three months to one year in prison (Article 359 of the 1979 Penal Code). The International Lesbian and Gay Association (ILGA) reports that “public flaunting” could be interpreted to include visibly transgender people and “effeminate” men, in addition to same-sex public displays of affection. The 1979 penal code also categorized “homosexual acts in public, or in private but exposed to being involuntarily seen by other people” as “crimes against the normal development of sexual relations.”[10] A reform of the penal code in 1988 instead imposed fines on those who “hassle others with homosexual demands” (Article 303a, Act 62 of the Penal Code of April 30, 1988), and then in 1997 the language was modified to “hassling with sexual demands” and the phrase “public scandal” changed to “sexual insult”.
Enforcement of public decency laws anywhere in the world is typically varied, as they may be interpreted broadly by police. For example, in England and France, when laws against sodomy were struck from the statutes, prosecutions of homosexual men increased for some time under public decency laws.[11] In China they have been the main legal means of persecuting homosexuals.”
“In July 2004, The BBC reported that “Cuban police have once again launched a campaign against homosexuals, specifically directed at travestis whom they are arresting if they are dressed in women’s clothing.”[13] This follows from reports in 2001 of a police campaign against homosexuals and travestis, who police prevented from meeting in the street and fined, closing down meeting places.[14]
According to a Human Rights Watch report, “the government also heightened harassment of homosexuals [in 1997], raiding several nightclubs known to have gay clientele and allegedly beating and detaining dozens of patrons.”[15]”
Comment by Ray — 6 July, 2009 @ 4:10 pm
Forgot to add this:
“According to the World Policy Institute (2003), the Cuban government prohibits LGBT organizations and publications, gay pride marches and gay clubs.[16] All officially sanctioned clubs and meeting places are required to be heterosexual. The only gay and lesbian civil rights organization, the Cuban Association of Gays and Lesbians, which formed in 1994, was closed in 1997 and its members were taken into custody.[17]”
Comment by Ray — 6 July, 2009 @ 4:14 pm
#375 johng
“Calvin do you really think that the SWP’s line is compatible with ‘bourgoise ideology’?”
On Cuba, yes.
“What planet are you on?”
Earth. And you?
“Solidarity is not about diplomacy.”
Correct. It’s about standing shoulder to shoulder with the working class in struggle, including the working class state of Cuba.
“It is not an ‘attack’ on Cuba to disagree with comrades who mistakenly think its a workers state.”
It is not the SWP’s ludicrous theoretical position I care about. It is their recycling of capitalist propaganda about Cuba that is the problem.
If you were to say:
“Well, I don’t think Cuba is socialist because socialism is impossible, but it has achieved fantastic things for its people and is an inspiration to millions more. I know Cuba has problems and contradictions caused by being surrounded by capitalism, but when Cuba is attacked I will explain the context”
But you and the SWP don’t do that. Instead, your party actively looks for reasons to attack Cuba, e.g. Ray’s lies about gays, blames Cuba for not being perfect, and boycotts solidarity movements.
This is not the attitude of a critical friend. It’s the actions of a scab. Sorry to put it that bluntly, but that’s exactly what it is.
Comment by Calvin — 6 July, 2009 @ 4:19 pm
I could post more info but Andy will probably claim it’s all made up by US imperialist. Here’s the link for anyone interested:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Cuba#Sex_change_operations_and_hormonal_therapy
Comment by Ray — 6 July, 2009 @ 4:20 pm
“Cuba is a very democratic society”
What a joke. So, Cubans can’t use tourist beaches, can’t enter hotels, can’t access the internet in an uncensored way, waiters can’t even keep their tips. Cops on every corner constantly check your ID when you walk down the street - even though they know you and have done so for years, just as part of the petty harassment by the regime of its citizens.
Andy, you should talk to Cubans who aren’t part of the government machine.
And claims that to oppose the Cuban regime is to support the Gusanos is simply a display of ignorance about what are the demands of the Miami mafia (restoration of landed estates and all property to the original owners, etc.) as opposed to the demands of left critics - real democratic control of trade unions, the right to strike, the right to criticize the regime, real democratic decision-making about the direction of the Cuban economy, etc.
And it is true that the position of gays in Cuban has improved dramatically but it is also true that in the 80s they were imprisoned regularly.
Nor does it imply that in the imperialist countries - particularly in N. America in general and the USA more specifically - the main thrust of argument is against the Cuban regime. Most of what any socialist says is against the embargo. But that doesn’t mean pretending that Cuba is a workers’ paradise (without any workers’ control).
Comment by redbedhead — 6 July, 2009 @ 4:26 pm
Ray
what a load of nonsense.
the fact is that cuba removed legal restrictions on gay sex in 1979, only a few years after the UK, and only three or four yeas after leading members of the International socialists in the UK(later rebranded as SWP) stopped desrcibing homosexuality as a sign of bourgeois decadence that would disappear under socialism.
far from there being no legal LGBT organisation in Cuba, the President’s daughter actually leads one! And she led this years Havana Pride march.
Cuba is a society that is deeply steepped in machismo, as is all of the Americas; but the government has made great strides at combatting that anti-gay culture in recent years; including opening up story lines on the nation’s main soap operas to promote tolerance.
As in the former DDR, those organsiation that seek active links with the West are likely to be scrutinised and closed down; so I know there have been LGBT organisation in Cuba that have openly linked with groups in the USA, ad would be likely to be closed down for that reason, not becase of their advocacy of LGBT rights.
It seems that you are criticising the culture, and not the government. Amd it seesm you are happt to parrot any CIA smears without looking at the reality of Cuba
Comment by Andy Newman — 6 July, 2009 @ 4:27 pm
#382 Well, we are essentially arguing about the class nature of the present Cuban state, aren’t we? You say it is a “socialist state”, but would you say it was specifically a worker’s state? I think that might be a bit more problematic for you.
If we go back to the 1959 revolution, it is quite clear to me at any rate, that the working class did not play a leading role in the overthrow of Batista - even though most of them would have been delighted to see the back of him. A radical leftist, nationalist, intelligentsia lead an overwhelmingly peasant army against the US-backed regime. So, with reference to Marx and Lenin who continuously emphasise that the working class is the only social agency that creates socialism, I cannot see for the life of me how it is possible to characterise the government that emerged from the revolution as a worker’s state. In fact, the Cuban working class was more active in the upheavals of the 1930s than they were in 1959.
Moreover, at that time, Castro was talking about an “olive revolution” and said that he was specifically opposed to communism. Because, for him, the Cuban CP represented communism and they had joined the Batista government for a time in the 1940s.
Of course, as with all these arguments, we know that we are unlikely to persuade our fellow participants to change their positions. Fair enough. But hopefully, there will be people reading this blog who are new to the arguments and they will realise that there is a serious argument here about rival conceptions of socialism - and they will go away and research for themselves and eventually draw their own conclusions about things.
Comment by Stockwell Pete — 6 July, 2009 @ 4:30 pm
Some stories we have covered in the past agout gay rights in Cuba:
President’s daughter leads Havana Pride:
http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=4046
Cuba hosts international conference against homophobia:
http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=2327
Cuban soap opera boasts has gay story line:
http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=99
Comment by Andy Newman — 6 July, 2009 @ 4:49 pm
Canada has gay marriage. Are we also a socialist paradise? I wish someone would have told me.
Comment by redbedhead — 6 July, 2009 @ 4:52 pm
skidmarx:
“as time goes by and many former state capitalist countries become reintegrated into the world economy ,”
What has happened with the introduction of capitalism into the former comecon countries ahs been disastrous social collapse, and totaly social restructuring that very much gives the lie to the claim that nothing changed.
see for example: http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=933
Comment by Andy Newman — 6 July, 2009 @ 4:53 pm
“What has happened with the introduction of capitalism into the former comecon countries ahs been disastrous social collapse.”
The same thing happened with structural adjustment programmes in Latin America and Africa.
Comment by Roobin — 6 July, 2009 @ 4:56 pm
#394
How ridiculous.
In countering the lies from ray that Cuba is particularly oppressive to gays, we established that it isn’t.
To which you respond, that this doesn’t prove it is socialist!!
Of course it doesn’t, but it does establish that Ray is recycling anti-communist propaganda; which is totally incompatible with solidarity.
Comment by Andy Newman — 6 July, 2009 @ 4:58 pm
#396
Roobin, you would have to substantiate that. Has any country in latin America suffered the dramatic decline in life expectancy that Russia has, and significant drop in population?
Did any country experience a rise in female unemployment from 0% to around 90% in less than 18 months, like the former DDR did?
But generally, yes the dismantling of state protection has been disastrous in Africa and latin America
Comment by Andy Newman — 6 July, 2009 @ 5:03 pm
Cuba treated its gay citizens terribly in the 80s and before. Saying that “Well, it has an anti-gay culture, like the rest of Latin America” just isn’t good enough if you’re claiming that Cuba is a beacon of socialism or, worse, claiming that criticizing Cuba is tantamount to scabbing (as Calvin does).
And though the point is taken that Cuba has moved forward considerably on gay rights - though it isn’t the only place in Latin America, or the Americas more generally to do so, witness Canada. And, lastly, saying that Cuba shut down an LGBT organization because it had links with US gay rights organizations (horror of horrors) is cover for the fact that the Cuban government doesn’t allow any organizations independent of the state. Meanwhile, the Cuban government will soon negotiate with the imperialist US government to move towards normalization of relations - but connections between organizations of the oppressed. None of it!
Comment by redbedhead — 6 July, 2009 @ 5:08 pm
Well, I’ll have to do me maffs, bub, but you know exactly what I’m talking about. Neo-liberal policy implimented in the 2nd and 3rd world has led to numerous cases of economic, environmental and social decline. The effect has been similar regardless of whether the old regime called itself socialist or not.
Comment by Roobin — 6 July, 2009 @ 5:10 pm
#389 redbedhead
Here we have a near perfect example of a “socialist” parroting anti-Cuba propaganda: “So, Cubans can’t use tourist beaches, can’t enter hotels”
False. Cubans could always could always enter the lobby and bars of hotels. Until last Autumn they could not stay in the rooms as paying guests. The reason for the previous restrictions was for fairness - only Cubans with unearned access to US dollars sent from abroad, or criminals, could afford a dollar denominated hotel room.
Cubans without dollars are deeply resentful of the unearned spending power of those that have dollars. Conversely, Cubans with dollars were resentful of not being able to spend them wherever they wished. This is one of the many real dilemmas facing Cuba which cannot be resolved by empty slogans.
“[Cubans] can’t access the internet in an uncensored way”
False. The only websites censored are Miami-based anti-Cuban terrorist supporting sites like CANF. Miami terrorists, backed and financed by the CIA, have attacked Cuba on numerous occassions including blowing up passenger airplanes and bombing tourist hotels. Capitalist media, such as the BBC, CNN, and your inaccurate posts on this website, are all unrestricted in Cuba.
The limited access to the internet is caused by the the USA refusing to allow Cuba to use high speed cables from the USA; hence they have to use hugely expensive sattelite connections. This is now being resolved by the building of a cable link from Venezuela.
“waiters can’t even keep their tips.”
False. Hotel unions have agreed that waiters pool their tips with other hotel staff, in order to create a fairer system.
“Cops on every corner constantly check your ID when you walk down the street - even though they know you and have done so for years, just as part of the petty harassment by the regime of its citizens”
False. The police check ID in the tourist areas in order to protect tourists and discourage petty criminals and prostitution. Get out of the tourist areas and you hardly ever see a cop. In Jibara, a town of 20,000 people I stayed in recently, there is no police station and no police officers.
Comment by Calvin — 8 July, 2009 @ 12:13 pm
Oddly I’ve never heard of a right winger critquing emerging class inequalities in Cuba, connected to adaptations to neo-liberalism. Then again I’ve never heard of a socialist defending them. One things for sure. I wouldn’t want Calvin as my union rep if I worked in catering. He’d probably explain to me that I really owned the hotel.
Comment by johng — 8 July, 2009 @ 12:54 pm
Just a couple of articles that I found while this site was down that may be of interest. Written by my old mate from the Socialist Alliance . . .
“What democracy means for Cuba has been much debated on the international left. Uncritical sympathisers of the Castro regime regularly laud the degree of participation, discussion and regular elections that take place in Cuba. They also argue that participation in the mass organisations and by workers in the factories and farming co-operatives show that Cuba is a model of democracy. Unfortunately they confuse the forms of democracy with the content. (7)
There is no shortage of “formal elections” in Cuba, of “participatory” meetings, and formal rights of report and recall. What there is a complete lack of is any political argument, presentation of competing political programmes or rights to organise for them. Also there is a complete lack of workers’ control in the workplaces. In sum, the mass of people, the working class in whose name the regime rules, cannot control its political destiny – a complete negation of socialism.
http://www.permanentrevolution.net/entry/2458
And then there is some fascinating stuff on the fate of Cuban Trotskyists after 1959 . . .
http://permanentrevolution.net/entry/2519
Comment by Stockwell Pete — 8 July, 2009 @ 1:58 pm
Calvin - thanks for the regime propaganda. I live and work with Cubans. My information is based on first hand accounts of life in Cuba. I’ll be sure to tell the Cubans that they are delusional and/or liars.
Comment by redbedhead — 8 July, 2009 @ 2:00 pm
I think redbeardhead you have lost the argument here. Calvin has shown your examples are false…
Comment by Derek Wall — 8 July, 2009 @ 3:03 pm
Which “regime propaganda” is redbedhead propagating? (Clue: it’s a hostile superpower and is just 90 miles from Cuba at the nearest point.)
You know, for all the “communism is dead, long live socialism” of the SWP in the early 1990s, it hasn’t escaped the left’s post-USSR malaise. It can wear Cliff’s theory of state capitalism like Buffy The Vampire Slayer wears her crucifix, but it does not keep the capitalist vampires at bay, nor overcome the fact that socialist states had, and have, more credibility than pseudo-socialist propaganda groups.
Comment by Faust — 8 July, 2009 @ 3:14 pm
I have just found this as well . . .
http://www.cubantrotskyism.net/PhD/central.html
Comment by Stockwell Pete — 8 July, 2009 @ 3:37 pm
Derek - No, Calvin has made claims based upon his personal opinions backed up by nothing more substantial. I’m not providing footnotes either, so my claims are of equal weight. If you want to think Cuba is a workers’ paradise and that all the Cuban workers who don’t like the regime are Gusanos, you are free to delude yourselves. But I have spent the last six years in almost daily contact with Cubans - immigrants, performers here on temporary permits, consulate staff, etc.
Comment by redbedhead — 8 July, 2009 @ 3:37 pm
Whats missing in this discussion is any sense of the way in which the Cuban model became popular in much of Latin America as an alternative to official communism (much as Maoism did in the late 1960s). In the IS tradition we never believed that either Castroism or Maoism were alternatives to Stalinism, but we at least recognised the need for an alternative. The argument about Cuba was, on much of the left, both in Latin America and elsewhere, an argument about alternatives to Stalinism. That was the argument the IS as it then was initially intervened in (in an earlier period and amongst some Trotskyists ‘Titoism’ played much the same role). Presumably though Calvin would back then, be lambasting Castro’s childishness for refusing to ally with the Cuban Communist Party.
Today though the argument has shifted. There is an argument about the possibility of a new kind of anti-neo-liberal axis in Latin America, centred around Venezuela. Here differences on the left tend to express themselves in terms of the relative importance attached to movements on the ground and political leaderships. Its actually a different argument all togeather.
But Calvin’s stale rehash of Stalinism with its deeply unattractive definitions of socialism (apparently its just an economic structure and not about human liberation and struggle, and might even be imposed by force against the majority of the population) would have few takers, whatever other disagreements there might be.
Comment by johng — 8 July, 2009 @ 3:58 pm
redbedhead #408
What I posted about Cuba is fact, not opinion. I have spent over 12 months in Cuba since 1995, travelling to every part of the island, staying mainly in Cuban houses, but using the services of hotels. I have sat in the internet cafes of dozens of hotels, alongside Cuban customers, and accessed the capitalist media without any problems whatsoever. For example, the Golden Tulip, the Las Americas, the Hotel Santiago, the Havana Libre, the Hotel Savilla.
If necessary, I can provide examples to back up everthing else I’ve said.
What you have posted is simply false.
Comment by Calvin — 8 July, 2009 @ 4:33 pm
More then a few people have spent more then 12 months in Britain. This doesn’t always mean they have reasonable opinions about British politics. Some of them are Tories.
Comment by johng — 8 July, 2009 @ 4:41 pm
johng #409
Unable to coherently argue with anything I’ve ACTUALLY said, you have now decided to argue with what I HAVEN’T said, but “presumably” think. Please fix up.
Comment by Calvin — 8 July, 2009 @ 4:43 pm
johng:
But Calvin’s stale rehash of Stalinism with its deeply unattractive definitions of socialism (apparently its just an economic structure and not about human liberation and struggle, and might even be imposed by force against the majority of the population) would have few takers, whatever other disagreements there might be.
Reply:
It really is impossible to take this kind of piffle seriously, John. Calvin has offered rebuttal after rebuttal to the subjectivist, moralising nonsense that you and others have posted on this topic. Now you’re going so far as to suggest that the majority of Cubans don’t support their goverment or socialism in Cuba.
It is clear to me now that socialism for you and your cohorts is nothing less than a utopian paradise, completely disconnected from reality. It’s nothing more than religion, which just like the heavenly kind replaces fact with faith and materialism with idealism. And just like religion it acts as a palliative in the face of a cruel world
What strikes me is the fact that over the past few days the great and the good of the SWP have been locked together in that annual event of naval gazing and intellectual masturbation which they have the temerity to call Marxism. During the course of this event, talks were conducted on such illuminating topics as ‘Was It Right To Celebrate The Collapse Of The Berlin Wall?’; ‘Do Our Genes Determine Our Future?’; and ‘The Festival Of The Oppressed - What Would A Revolution Look Like?’
At the same time as this annual jamboree was taking place, a man whom the SWP accused of leading a rightward split in Respect, George Galloway, was in the process of leading a second humanitarian convoy from the US to Gaza, placing more pressure on the Egyptian government to open the Rafah crossing in defiance of the Israelis, US, and EU.
With the aformentioned in mind, it also strikes me that the words of Marx have never been more apropos: ‘Philosophers have hitherto only interpreted the world in various ways. The point is to change it.’
I feel certain that if he were alive today, old Karl would be more likely to be supportive of a convoy being led by a man who doesn’t describe himself as a Marxist, but who continues to be a thorn in the side of the imperialist ruling class, than an event which bears his name but which is about as much a threat to the system as a pond of ducks.
Comment by John Wight — 8 July, 2009 @ 4:58 pm
I am amused at all the “reductio ad Stalinum” logical fallacies offered up by SWP supporters when their anti-Cuba bilge is exposed for what it is.
Comment by Faust — 8 July, 2009 @ 5:03 pm
No John Wright. I was not implying that the majority of Cubans want to see regime change. I was discussing visions of socialism, and pointing out that the popularity on the Cuban revolution in much of Latin America was to do with the alternative it appeared to offer to the official Communist movement (viz arguments about Guerverism) and indeed Stalinism. I was suggesting that we in the SWP had never believed that it did offer such an alternative but always defended it against US imperialism. Both you and Calvin on the other hand believe it is ‘utopian’ to discuss such things. Apparently you are even hostile to socialists meeting up once a year to have a festival of ideas largely because they have the temerity to disagree with your correct views on everything. I was suggesting that such visions of socialism are unlikely to have great appeal. Whats also unappealing is a deep inability to engage in any form of discussion or debate. No wonder you don’t like them.
Comment by johng — 8 July, 2009 @ 5:06 pm
john, the point is that you don’t defend Cuba - at least certainly not in practice, you don’t. If so you would realise that Cuba needs to be defended now, not when it’s been invaded. If you or your organisation were serious about defending Cuba it would be affiliated to the CSC. It would send delegations to the island to gain first hand knowledge of the place, its society and the challenges it faces trying to build socialism under less than ideal conditions, to say the least.
Faust is right. In attempting to reduce these types of discussions by throwing the word Stalinism around with such abandon, you only expose the weakness of your position.
The discussion of ideas is great. But when such discussions are employed only as a means of maintaining religious-type purity, when the received truths are not tested, they do more harm than good.
In the words of J S Mill: ‘Received opinion is only truth if it is contested.’
Comment by John Wight — 8 July, 2009 @ 5:24 pm
johng #411
Suppose someone who had never been to Britain claimed that black people aren’t allowed on the bus. Then suppose someone else who had spent a year in Britain and regularly used public transport countered that this was completely untrue and that they had personally witnessed hundreds of black people using the buses. Who would you believe? Unless the regular visitor to Britain is a pathological liar, I would suggest that the evidence he gives is more credible.
Comment by Calvin — 8 July, 2009 @ 5:35 pm
12 months in Cuba since 1995 - that would be less than a month per year - as a foreigner. And, sorry, you may be able to speak Spanish but you are still a foreigner. And people will talk to you like a foreigner. My wife lived, worked and studied in Cuba for the better part of year, living with a pro-regime Cuban. In fact, she went there strongly pro-Cuban and came back very confused by the experience and disillusioned (no she wasn’t a member of the SWP/IS). My housemate - a pro-Cuban Chilean - has visited and toured Cuban workplaces and met with union officials. Even he understands the difference between his experience as a foreigner (even as a Latino) and that of the local population. Even he knows that Cubans are prevented from entering certain beaches and the hotels.
The people I know who grew up in Cuba, are Cuban, return to Cuba where their families live and work, tell a different story about life there. None of them support the Cuban mafia in Miami and some of them even support Castro (though that’s certainly a minority opinion in the diaspora). I trust their personal experiences of life in Cuba over that of a foreigner with access to convertible pesos and US or UK currency. They all experienced life in Cuba as that of a dictatorship, with no real democratic say over the direction of the economy or foreign policy (even if they supported some of those decisions and were even proud of certain achievements like Cuba’s role in parts of Africa. They all talk about being denied access to tourist hotels, being harassed for ID in their neighbourhoods, etc. So, your claim that this is untrue are, frankly, unconvincing.
Does any of that mean I want Cuba overthrown by the US government or the Gusanos, or that I think there weren’t gains as a result of the revolution? Of course not and the attempts to shut down all conversation with denunciations and accusations is neither convincing nor particularly intimidating. It’s actually a bit pathetic. And in the real world you’ll find that people will not be impressed by defensiveness and posturing.
What’s more, I’m afraid, that if Obama makes more dramatic moves to relax relations with Cuba, Raul will likely move to relax controls on the internal market and allow US investment (without any input from the working class). For everyone who thought Cuba was socialist, this will be profoundly disorienting.
Comment by redbedhead — 8 July, 2009 @ 5:44 pm
I don’t ‘throw’ the word stalinism around. I was pointing out the historical origins of this argument. I have friends in the Communist Party of India (Marxist) who have been taught for most of their lives that Castroism and Gueverism are deviations from Marxism-Leninism. They however support the Cuban regime against imperialism and moreover believe that it is socialist. When they visit Cuba on delegations they get put up in the posher hotels. I also have friends in some of the M-L organisations in India who are Maoists. Its always been unclear to me exactly what their position is on Cuba but they also get invited to Cuba on delegations. They tend to get put up in the cheaper hotels. One of them suggested to me that he had been a bit shocked to discover that it didn’t seem that different from home. In any case both groups regularly get delegations to Cuba and both are seen as part of Cuba solidarity, despite their own ‘deviations’. Frankly I’m a bit tired of wide eyed euros who imagine that any critical discussion at all of anything is a deviation. Its nonsense. And if you can’t tolerate any differences on the left, I’d suggest that your attitude is counterproductive to the wider solidarity and unity required in the struggle for socialism.
Comment by johng — 8 July, 2009 @ 5:52 pm
On defending Cuba let me get this straight… The chief threat to the Cuban regime is the United States government. Therefore the thing to oppose is American imperialism. Therefore the SWP doesn’t oppose American imperialism. Therefore we have actually gone through the closet an ended up in some upsidedown Castroite narnia.
No, we’re all deviants. DEVIANTS!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UX8Dg4nW7lU
Comment by Roobin — 8 July, 2009 @ 6:03 pm
If an actual revolution happened, the likes of the SWP would be a thousand miles from it, and ten thousand miles from defending it.
Comment by Faust — 8 July, 2009 @ 6:09 pm
Faust - are you ten years old? Perhaps you could also call SWP members poo-poo heads since childish name calling seems to be your stock-in-trade.
Comment by redbedhead — 8 July, 2009 @ 6:26 pm
One of the things I particularly enjoyed about this discussion was the way in which Calvin seems to think he’s a hardened revolutionary because of what he does on holiday. Faust, do you happen to be an American by any chance?
Just wondering.
Comment by johng — 8 July, 2009 @ 6:33 pm
The list of hotels as a badge of authenticity was a hoot. You really couldn’t make it up. This has nothing much to do with Cuba. And an awful lot to do with what Louis Proyect calls socialist identity politics.
Comment by johng — 8 July, 2009 @ 6:38 pm
Right, so you have had time to read the documents that I posted about Cuban Trotskyism. How do you supporters of the regime justify this persecution then?
Surely, if Cuba was a workers state as you claim, then you would have different factions and working class parties contesting the direction of the Cuban revolution?
Comment by Stockwell Pete — 8 July, 2009 @ 7:00 pm
Comrade Pete,
I am shocked SHOCKED by your OPEN espousal of bourgoise counter-revolutionary politics. You will be trying to tell us that the alliance between the Cuban Communist Party and Batista was in some sense a ‘mistake’ therebye repudiating the entire science of Dialectical Materialism and revealing yourself as a screaming hyena of fascist monopoly capitalism. Even a child would understand this.
With warm Communist greetings etc.
Comment by johng — 8 July, 2009 @ 7:15 pm
johng - I admire and respect your conviction. Sometimes it’s okay to agree to disagree.
After all, revisionists love their mothers too.
Comment by John Wight — 8 July, 2009 @ 7:21 pm
#426 Comrade, I confess - I am a dupe of US imperialism and I will immediately go and shoot myself (or step outside my flat and let the police do it instead).
Comment by Stockwell Pete — 8 July, 2009 @ 7:21 pm
I thought the Maoists were the revisionists. No, wait a minute, it was the Kruschevites. No, wait, it was the Naxhalites. No, that’s not true, it was Posadaists with his doctrine of socialism in one galaxy.
Comment by redbedhead — 8 July, 2009 @ 7:35 pm
#428 Socialism in one galaxy? Pah! Bloody sectarian!!
Comment by Stockwell Pete — 8 July, 2009 @ 7:37 pm
NO, NO AND AGAIN NO! Comrades are behaving as if this whole discussion has been a bit of an irrelevence in any discussion of how socialists should forge unity in the 21st century, instead of deadly important (hopefully) FINAL battle against errors. Not any particular errors. But all of them. At once. For myself I persist in the no doubt dangerous illusion that disagreements about the precise class charecter of Cuba should not be a barrier to practical left unity around practical issues. As it isn’t in most of the world, issuing in nothing more serious then the quality of hotel accomodation on official delegations. Generally speaking people have other things to row about.
Comment by johng — 8 July, 2009 @ 7:44 pm
Sounds like Redheadbed has discovered Trotskyism. Who would have thought it, Cubas a bureaucratic dictatorship presiding over planned property relations. Novel.
Comment by bill j — 8 July, 2009 @ 8:06 pm
Did he? Shoot the mad dog!!
Revisionism is a great word incidently. It tends to be used when the implications of a particular set of political commitments are realised in practice: as opposed to questioning the nature of the political commitments which led to results held to be at variance with their goal.
This is particularly true of the Maoist tradition: hence the emphasis on moral failing and backsliding tends to be a substitute in that tradition for political analyses.
Hence also the phenomenan of revisionism being everywhere but at the same time nowhere in particular: its opposite generally concentrated in the person of someone with unimpeachible virtue (although with startling dialectical suddeness this too can turn into its opposite).
This also lies behind the style of argument sometimes found on the western left which insists on endlessly questioning the moral integrity of political opponents rather then their actual political arguments. As soon as this begins you can always be sure that there will be no coherent outcome to a political argument: precisely because that is what is being avoided.
It is a style which complements modern bureacratic reasoning given the latters compartmentalisation of means and ends. The kind of screeching sectarianism in evidence on this thread is the product of the logic of capitalist modernity even as contributers work themselves up into greater and greater fits of self righteousness about who is most opposed to it.
As you were.
Comment by johng — 8 July, 2009 @ 8:30 pm
Surely its… pat the mad dog?!
Comment by bill j — 8 July, 2009 @ 8:32 pm
Only if you are a running dog capitalist roader QUITE OPENLY opposed to the political tradition I belong to. Or as Marlow would say on the wire: They be talking unity: best tool up.
Comment by johng — 8 July, 2009 @ 9:16 pm
Stockwell Pete (424) says ‘…surely, if Cuba was a workers state as you claim, then you would have different factions and working class parties contesting the direction of the Cuban revolution?
Perhaps he could let us know if the suppression of the Socialist Revolutionaries (described below) fatally compromised socialism in Russia. And here is a text to help him along
“During the days of the insurrection engineered by one ruling party against another, when all personal relations were suddenly put in question, and when the functionaries in the departments began wavering, then the best and the most devoted Communist elements within all sorts of institutions quickly drew close to one another, breaking all ties with the Left SRs and combatting them. The Communist nuclei became fused in the factories and in the army sections. In the development of the Party and the State alike this was a moment of exceptional importance. Party elements, distributed and in part dispersed throughout the still formless framework of the state apparatus and whose Party ties had become to a large extent diffused in departmental relations, now came instantly to the fore, closed ranks and became welded together under the blows of the Left SR insurrection. Everywhere Communist nuclei took shape which assumed in those days the actual leadership of the internal life of all the institutions.”
Comment by Nick Wright — 8 July, 2009 @ 10:14 pm
Did the suppression of the Left SRs fatally compromise socialism? Quite possibly. It certainly was not a positive development.
Comment by bill j — 8 July, 2009 @ 10:32 pm
I wonder what the people of Cuba make of a section of the Western left’s ideological dilemma over Cuba.
Glad they don’t live in Haiti most probably.
Comment by Eddie Truman — 8 July, 2009 @ 11:05 pm
#435 Oh what a patronising tone, comrade.
In case some comrades do not realise, the text is written by Trotsky and it is an obituary or memorial to Sverdlov who had just died in 1925 . . .
http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1925/03/sverdlov.htm?sess=a71ff92bb90500e2f4010d9acf78d2dd
Do I think the suppression fatally compromised socialism in Russia? No, I don’t actually. The insurrectionaries did bombard the Kremlin and they did try to assassinate Lenin in order to overturn the Brest-Litovsk peace treaty. I am not sure what else the worker’s government could have done really in those circumstances. It has some similarities to the suppression of Kronstadt in 1921, in fact.
No, as far as I am concerned, the fatal compromise did not come until early 1925 when Stalin abandoned internationalism for the building of “socialism in one country”.
But I would be interested to know how the suppression of the Left SR’s in 1918 bears any resemblance to the suppression of Cuban Trotskyism after 1959. Did the Trotskyists attempt to overthrow the new government by force? After all, it was not a worker’s state, so they had some reason to try. Or perhaps they just got a bit impatient and shot at Castro instead? Of course, it may just have been because the Cuban revolution was moving into the clutches of Stalinist Russia and all independent organisations of the working class had to be crushed? You know, like in Russia in the 1920s.
Comment by Stockwell Pete — 8 July, 2009 @ 11:14 pm
I suspect the people of Cuba, much like people elsewhere, are not an ideological monolith. They’d probably have different opinions about some of these discussions. I also suspect Redbedheads description of Cuban nationalism, proud of some of the achievements of the Cuban revolution, chaffing against other aspects of it, is pretty accurate.
Comment by johng — 9 July, 2009 @ 12:22 am
Caught me out then…not. The suppression of the Left SRs was a result of their very mistaken coup attempt. Was it good for the revolution? Not at all. Did the Bolsheviks have any choice but to do it? Of course not. Did it accelerate the trends towards one party rule and bureaucracy. Yes quite a lot. Was it the end of the game? No it wasn’t.
Comment by bill j — 9 July, 2009 @ 8:34 am
But wasn’t the SR breaking from the government itself a respnse to the Bolsheviks overturning Soviet legality by reintroducing the death penalty by government administrative order against the express intentions of the Soviets?
This is not to say that the government was wrong, but to point out the idealistic idea that there was a golden age of the Russian revolution where there was “workers democracy” as opposed to party rule are misplaced.
Comment by Andy Newman — 9 July, 2009 @ 9:23 am
#442 Oh, I thought that the left SR’s had broken from the government earlier in 1918 primarily because of the signing of Brest Litovsk. The actual revolt didn’t occur until the middle of the year when they were defeated in the Central Soviet - they held around a third of the seats at that time. The death penalty was another controversy at that time but I would have to look up the details as I cannot recall exactly what happened.
No, I am not saying there was a golden age of the revolution or anything like that, but I do recognise that there was a genuine attempt to build workers democracy after October 1917 - and this was wrecked by imperialist invasion and civil war.
Comment by Stockwell Pete — 9 July, 2009 @ 9:47 am
Nicely put by Andy Newman.(442)
The mistake of the ’state cap’ tendency – and what has uncharitably been called the ’slow learning’ trotskyite tendency – in this discussion is to idealise the forms of state power in the early years of Soviet socialism and then measure subsequent attempts to construct socialism and defend working class power against this impossible standard.
Trotsky’s appreciation of Sverdlov (referenced above at 439) does rather dwell on those of his personal characteristics that would most appeal to an autocratic and charismatic authoritarian like himslelf. The man himself seems much more rounded and subtle. Pity he died of flu so early. If he had survived the label Sverdlovist might have supplanted Stalinist in the lexicon of anti communism.
The tendency to bureaucracy seems to be a universal human characteristic. There was an amusing moment some years ago at the annual conference of the civil service union when a leading SWPer (more recently a high official in the DWP) was ranting against the bureaucratic Stalinist leadership of the union – before an audience of state bureaucrats.
Comment by Nick Wright — 9 July, 2009 @ 9:54 am
and now for something completely different
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNkgOaMTnB4
Comment by Nick Wright — 9 July, 2009 @ 10:02 am
#444 “The mistake . . . is to . . . idealise the forms of state power in the early years of Soviet socialism “?
What do you mean - that we are mistaken to really believe in all this self-emancipation of the working class stuff? And that we would be better off spending our time looking for substitutes and short cuts?
” . . . then measure subsequent attempts to construct socialism and defend working class power against this impossible standard.”
Well, the Russian working class movement certainly didn’t find it impossible in 1917 when they were a much smaller proportion of the overall Russian population than is the case today. And, of course, you cannot have “working class power” unless the working class itself makes a revolution.
Comment by Stockwell Pete — 9 July, 2009 @ 10:25 am
A little historical pedantry never goes amiss so:
1. Sverdlov died in March 1919 not 1925. Trotsky wrote the piece linked in order to counter the campaign to rewrite Bolshevik history.
2. The Left SRs were tolerated after leaving the government in late 1918 and only suppressed after the attempt to assassinate Lenin by a Left SR supporter in the summer of 1919. The Bolsheviks considered this a counter revolutionary act.
Context can help when discussing the tactics of the past.
Comment by Dirty Red Bandana — 9 July, 2009 @ 10:41 am
#447 Yes, you are correct about Sverdlov, my mistake.
But I think that you may have your dates wrong about the left SR’s. I understood them to have left the government in March 1918 - their uprising occurred in July of that year and SR member Fanny Kaplan attempted to assassinate Lenin in August 1918. Are you referring to something else?
Comment by Stockwell Pete — 9 July, 2009 @ 10:54 am
re 446
“…are we mistaken to really believe in all this self-emancipation of the working class stuff? And that we would be better off spending our time looking for substitutes and short cuts?”
Making revolutions and holding on to state power are two very different sets of problems. What distinguished Sverdlov (an Lenin) was their hard headed realism and their determination to retain state power. What distinguishes the critics of Cuba’s communists in the Cuban’s defence of state power is a frivolous lack of realism and an extremely abstract view of what constitutes the working class.
Revolutions are not made in ideal circumstances but they have to be defended in the real world. The passage from Trotsky’s celebration of Sverdlov is noteworthy because, unlike much of Trotsky’s later rationalisations, it gives a real flavour of the distress, uncertainty, vaccilations and confusion that affected the working class movement as the Bolshevik allies became the ultra left agents of counter revolution.
The system of popular power in Cuba undoubtedly has its imperfections but it is extremely effective in its basic function.
Comment by Nick Wright — 9 July, 2009 @ 12:04 pm
I’m sure the Lenin whose realism included being ruthless in insisting on the imperfections of the Bolshevik government (attacking Trotsky for writing of the Soviet Union in an unqualified way as a workers state in the debate on trade unions, and insisting that the workers state was a workers state with bureacratic deformations, and stressing the temporary nature of such a situation: who is leading who? was the question he asked) would have strongly disapproved of anyone suggesting that the idea of self emancipation of the working class was utopian, or in some sense ceased to be an over-riding principle of analyses on coming to power.
Comment by johng — 9 July, 2009 @ 1:10 pm
Most of today’s “revolutionaries”, especially in industrialised countries (not just the SWP, but certainly them) remind me much more of Martov than of Lenin, or even of Trotsky. Abstract doctrinaires likely to be sidelined, at best, by actual revolution. That such people denounce actual revolutions and do not defend them is only to be expected.
For me, revolution is like war, and indeed it is generally brought on the agenda, and accompanied, by war. It is not a university teach-in.
Comment by Faust — 9 July, 2009 @ 2:24 pm
#425 Luckily some Cuban ‘Trotskyists’ (why not just say Marxists?) have taken a more nuanced and progressive line than the SWP: http://www.internationalviewpoint.org/article.php3?id_article=1052
Comment by Gav — 9 July, 2009 @ 2:28 pm
Faust, are you a student per chance? And yes the subject of left unity in countries we can actually be active in (in this country we have a serious recession, incipient signs of a revival of industrial militancy, and on the other side the rise of the fascists) we surely have more important things to talk about then the minutae of our differences, or what has aptly been described as ‘pissing contests’.
Comment by johng — 9 July, 2009 @ 5:46 pm
The system of government in Cuba is effective. That isn’t the same thing as saying its democratic or socialist. It isn’t either. But there is a contradiction in Cuban society between the bureaucratic dictatorship of the Stalinist rulers and the economy over which the rule. That economy is not capitalist - funnily enough as redheadbed has explained - but is a bureaucratic central plan. The restoration of capitalism would undoubtedly be a very reactionary indeed a counter revolutionary act. What is required is therefore political revolution, just indeed as Trotsky explained in the USSR in 1938.
Lenin did recognise the dangers of bureaucratism in the the soviet union. Unfortunately, he saw it as coming mainly from the Tsarist administrators who the state were forced to rely on due to the lack of skills across society as a whole. He didn’t see, until too late, the other danger of bureaucratic degeneration from within the core of the Bolshevik Party itself lead by Stalin. Indeed many of the measures Lenin supported to consolidate and centralise the power of the Bolshevik Party, the banning of factions being the most obvious, also conslidated and centralised the bureaucratic counter revolution. Actually Trotsky didn’t see the danger as coming from Stalin initially either. By 1924 when he began the Left Opposition, the bureaucracy had already consolidated its power.
Comment by bill j — 9 July, 2009 @ 6:16 pm
#454 “we surely have more important things to talk about then the minutae of our differences”.
John, I don’t think that the differences revealed on this thread are insignificant. Although we have been talking about an event that occurred 50 years ago, the discussion has revealed very wide differences in our politics, particularly with respect to our conceptions of how socialism can be achieved - and crucially, what role the working class might play in this struggle.
Of course, we should all still be able to unite against the Nazis or all fight together to win a particular strike or campaign, but these theoretical differences cannot be brushed under the carpet in my view - and this is because they are fundamental to the struggle for working class liberation.
Comment by Stockwell Pete — 9 July, 2009 @ 7:03 pm
@ Redbedhead 389 & 418. You suggest that Calvin’s refutation of your untruths and exaggerations about life in Cuba is not to be trusted, because he spent time in the country as a foreigner and did not experience life there the way that Cubans do.
That’s a specious argument. You posted at #389 what purported to be a set of facts, not merely interpretations and subjective feelings.
If an Englishman stays at various hotels in Cuba, and finds that there are lots of Cubans walking into the hotels and having drinks in the bar, etc, the the fact that he is a foreigner does not invalidate the observation which he makes.
For the record- I’ve only been to Cuba once, and that was quite a while ago (in 1996/97), so my own personal experience is very limited.
Nevertheless, I went to several beaches. There were many Cubans at these beaches.
I stayed at two hotels, one in Havana and the other in Santiago. At both of them, there were plenty of Cubans using the facilities, and local people could walk in and out (though at that time they were not allowed to stay in a hotel room).
The problem for them was not denial of access to the hotel bars, etc, but that the drinks were charged at ‘international’ prices, so very few of the Cubans there could afford to buy a drink. Their drinks were bought for them by the tourists who they struck up conversation with.
That’s obviously a far from ideal situation. Before the defeat of the E. European Socialist countries and the USSR, hotels in Cuba were mainly for the use of Cubans; booking a room or buying a drink was very cheap by international standards, and affordable for Cubans.
Following that defeat, by which the CMEA trading / investment system was destroyed, and Cuba lost its main international economic partners, the country turned to tourism (among other measures) in order to survive; thus its hotels etc had to be aimed at extracting foreign dollars.
Obviously, that decision had negative consequences. However, the income which Cuba has derived from tourism has funded the continuation and improvement of the country’s excellent free health and education services, good nutrition etc.
Without which, Cuba could not have survived to be the inspiration which it is today for the ongoing revolutionary process in Latin America.
Comment by Noah — 9 July, 2009 @ 8:44 pm
Johng #424: “The list of hotels as a badge of authenticity was a hoot. You really couldn’t make it up. This has nothing much to do with Cuba. And an awful lot to do with what Louis Proyect calls socialist identity politics.”
What Calvin actually posted, at #410, was this: “I have sat in the internet cafes of dozens of hotels, alongside Cuban customers, and accessed the capitalist media without any problems whatsoever. For example, the Golden Tulip, the Las Americas, the Hotel Santiago, the Havana Libre, the Hotel Savilla.”
Ie, in rebuttal of the allegation by Redbedhead that Cubans aren’t allowed to enter hotels and have only censored internet access, Calvin has listed five hotels in Cuba which he has visited, where he not only sat among the Cubans present, but alongside them has accessed the uncensored capitalist media on the web.
To which Johng has no factual answers. Instead, his recourse is to bizarre verbiage about ‘badges of authenticity’, Louis Proyect, and ’socialist identity politics’.
Johng. Why are you so desperate to believe anything bad said against Cuba, even when the contrary has been clearly demonstrated?
When the facts and your theory are incompatible, surely that’s a sign that you should reconsider your theory.
Comment by Noah — 9 July, 2009 @ 11:05 pm
I hope that Socialist Worker and Respect can sort of patch up their differences and form a new type of organisation again, and then be really nice and self-effacing and maybe get the CPG and Militant to join in if everybody admits they’re not perfect. Then if everybody says they’re not perfect to the Labour Left, some of them might say well, they seem okay now.
If people think yeah, but that’s not hard enough because of Lenin and that, you can have hard-core Marxist Workers Party thingies in the set-up. If two (or more) hard-core Marxist Workers Party thingies form within the overall thingy, they ought to get along and allow a sort of dual membership, but I can see a problem because one of these sub-thingies (or more) might say NO!
It’s a bit like Venn Diagrams; I’m sure the movement can work it out.
Anyway, Good Luck with it!
Comment by David Ruaune — 8 August, 2009 @ 7:35 pm