Leninism is not what you think it is.
Just been blogging about the SWP crisis, its a wider crisis of a kind of Marxist political organisation that in my view simply does not work. I have never been a Leninist but Lenin may have been very different in his approach to what is normally imagined. The ever excellent Dave Riley let me know about this article, its food for thought, let me know what you think and lets not just use this as an excuse to bash each other. How should the left organise?
This is evidence, this article argues, of a discontinuity –- a very large discontinuity -– between what most people think Leninism is (the authoritarian, top-down, steel-hard party) and the “Leninism” that Lenin himself thought appropriate for liberal democracies in advanced capitalist societies: party organisation that allowed tremendous scope for debate, disagreement and discussion, party organisation where the central unit was not the central committee, but the local organisation, party organisation imbued with democracy from top to bottom. The tremendous value of Marcel Liebman’s now classic study, Leninism under Lenin, is that he –- more than any other author -– clearly highlights this discontinuity. The Leninism with which we became acquainted in the liberal democracies of the West was not the Leninism being advocated by, amongst others, Vladimir Lenin.
There is another reason to base this article in large part on Liebman. There is a new and welcome revival of Lenin scholarship that is attempting to peel back the misconceptions and abuses of past analyses, and finally to place our understanding of Lenin in a clear light, one that avoids both demonisation and idolatry.
Lars T. Lih –- insisting on contextualising the debates of the Russian left, very much in the spirit of Liebman –- has written a detailed, scholarly recreation of the context and meaning of the oft-misunderstood What is to be Done? (Lih 2006). However, not all scholars are using such an approach.
Slavoj Žižek is probably getting more sound bites than any other figure in the new revival of Lenin studies. The difficulty is that Žižek’s interpretation of Lenin repeats many of the mistakes made by Leninists in the 1970s -– including a romanticisation of the role of the individual -– Lenin -– and a picture of Leninist organisational theory which shows little sensitivity to the way Lenin himself was aware of the very different kind of party organisation required in the liberal-capitalist “West”. Even worse, in his Revolution at the Gates (Žižek 2002) he has a confusing and at times insulting section with the appalling title, “The Inner Greatness of Stalinism” (165-336).
In our generation’s revival of Lenin studies we need to bring back the best of the last generation (critical scholarship along the lines of Liebman) and avoid the pitfall of re-linking Lenin to Stalin. This article both re-introduces a new generation to the careful scholarship of Marcel Liebman, and in so doing paints a picture of the “pro-fantasy” Lenin about which so little has been developed in the “Leninism” which made its way to the West. There is a complex and buried lived history of Lenin and the original Leninists that -– taken seriously –- demands a sharp rethinking of our inherited conception of Leninism, and for those who have been influenced by Leninism, a careful rethinking of what “Leninism” means in the context of liberal democracies in advanced capitalism.
Hi Derek. Apols for posting off-topic, but could you contact me a.s.a.p. via the 21stCenturySocialism email address, which you can find at:
http://21stcenturysocialism.com/archive/about_us_01088.html
I’d like to discuss something with you re: the Copenhagen debacle.
Best regards,
Noah
Comment by Noah — 20 December, 2009 @ 5:34 pm
I have mailed you.
Comment by Derek Wall — 20 December, 2009 @ 6:09 pm
Derek,
Your article on the SWP is very poor. How come when the SWP get involved in a campaign they are taking it over, when they initiate a campaign its a front. Its just the usual red scare nonsense. Of course the democratic Greens promote War (German greens), Massive cuts in social welfare (Ireland). UK- well in Leeds its get into bed with the Tories, stand against Respect in East London. Caroline Lucas was very notable in the Vestas dispute- in that she did sweet fa. Of course those horrible SWP ( And many others) build solidarity, collections, delegations. Yep those nasty SWP bastards also built support for the Postal workers- didn’t see any Green party members on any picket line in my area. SWP are also terrible gits because they are involved in the anti war movement. Those lovely greens are so non sectarian by doing sweet fa. But of course the Greens are so lovely!!
I am not the only one a bit fed up with the Greens supporting cuts, war and opposing workers fighting back but then lecturing the left on how great they are.
Comment by jimlotto — 20 December, 2009 @ 6:22 pm
It is a remarkably uncomradely article, Derek, and one which suggests a very superficial reading of the situation in the SWP.
I’m disappointed.
Comment by KrisS — 20 December, 2009 @ 6:27 pm
“During the time we were in occupation, we would have been lost without Socialist Worker. You gave us guidance, support, help and the media coverage that was so important. You brought sleeping bags and banners. Without all that, we wouldn’t have survived the first few days. Without you, we wouldn’t have got what we won.”
Elizabeth Boakye, Visteon worker
What bastards those SWP members.. I mean helping workers in occupation, I mean taking sleeping bags and food to those resisting. Much better the Local Greens who opposed the workers because it was dispute involving car production!! Not one Green party member went to the dispute.
Comment by jimlotto — 20 December, 2009 @ 6:59 pm
Surely the cat is out of the bag - as anyone who’se observed or been in a far left party can tell you, whatever their current politics, once the brainwashing and /or PR has worn off it’s obvious to anyone that leninism is dictatorship.
Comment by Anonymous — 20 December, 2009 @ 7:06 pm
Socialist Worker has been fantastic throughout this campaign, one of the papers to tell it how it is. It has led the way with my story, no holds barred. It has set a standard with its honesty, its integrity and its ability to reach out to real people.
Joe Glenton, soldier facing court-martial after speaking out against the war in Afghanistan
More evidence of those awful SWP members… I am sure if Joe was in Germany he would get the support of the Greens…….oh forgot they support the mass murder of War.
Comment by jimlotto — 20 December, 2009 @ 7:09 pm
I am very open to be criticised, I think in some places the Greens have failed but that should not be used as a way of ignoring criticism of the SWP.
May be you need to rethink a few things?
Comment by Derek Wall — 20 December, 2009 @ 7:20 pm
Maybe we do. Uncomradely and poorly researched articles such as yours are unlikely to be helpful in that.
Comment by KrisS — 20 December, 2009 @ 7:23 pm
Left Platform statement here:
http://grayee.blogspot.com/2009/12/message-from-left-platform.html
Comment by Halder — 20 December, 2009 @ 7:35 pm
Derek,
No political party is perfect and I am not claiming the SWP is. I have alongside many others raised criticisms. It is the holier than thou tone of your article whereby the Greens are non sectarian and the SWP the devil incarnate. My direct experience of the Greens is that they rarely get involved, counter pose there own organisation to uniting with others and when push comes to shove fail. the example of Leeds, Ireland, Germany is clear. But also those seen as on the left of the greens - Lucas, why did she not get down to the vesta occupation, green issue, in her euro area (I think). She was nowhere to be seen. The greens have not exacdtly done much in STW, Anti Facist work, workers fighting back- eg Leeds Bin workers, Visteon, Vestas, Postal workers. So if you want to attack the SWP it may worth thinking it through a bit better.
The greens seem to think standing against Michael Lavelette in Preston was a way of forwarding the left! now standing aginst Respect in East London. Seems a bit sectarian? But of course there is always the get out of jail card….its a local choice.
Comment by jimlotto — 20 December, 2009 @ 7:39 pm
Firstly, I’d like to see more critique of the article above than another flamewar over whether the SWP are saintly geniuses or the worst monsters in history. Although with friends like these, I doubt that John and Lindsay need any more enemies: http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/795/defendreesgerman.php
Comment by Daphne — 20 December, 2009 @ 7:57 pm
And secondly?
Comment by KrisS — 20 December, 2009 @ 7:58 pm
… yeah, I’ll get back to you on “secondly”. It’s almost New Year and I’m easily distracted.
Comment by Daphne — 20 December, 2009 @ 8:02 pm
I do think there is a wider problem that needs engaging with, I am very critical of the SWP but their problems are part of a wider way of organising and doing politics which is problematic.
The Lenin article in my view is excellent, what do others think?
Comment by Derek Wall — 20 December, 2009 @ 8:04 pm
Why not read the full article linked to by derek? then have a discussion, rather than the ‘look at what we’ve done-we can’t be bad’
I think its very interesting, and in the organisation I was a part of for a very long time…IMG then successor, it wasn’t the centralism that was the problem, or in a sense a lack of democracry. there was widespread understanding that unity was required in action, and that through action there was at least the theoretical possibility of testing out a political lne, while continuing the discussion. It has to be said we too tried to keep everything internal, and I am a convert to the understanding that this is useless, technically impossible these days, but also poltically unhelpfull.
I personally think it was the voluntarism, that destroyed the org I was latterly a part of (its actually still going, but going where is another question.)
The idea that only, proffessional revolutionaries could or should be in the party, meant an increasing distance from the very real w/c militants and revolutionarys we did have at the begining. It became impossible to have any kind of life that didn’t involve the organusation, time, money,intellect, energy, everything was drained.
Some things were achieved and no doubt still are being, but most activists left because they simply couldnt keep up the unremitting pace. As more and more left so those that remained became more and more isolated.
http://links.org.au/node/1407
The article is a good basis for a discussion because it doesn’t presuppose leninism to be the hier to stalinism (though i know how some on here hate that term)but that Lenin’s legacy does include lessons on the organisation of revolutionaries.
Comment by non-partisan — 20 December, 2009 @ 8:08 pm
Just on that loving and leaked internal SWP bulletin, do they really have to lie to themselves?
Anybody who wants to see exactly how full (not) the Stoke gig was (4000 punters, not 20,000) put your email on here and I’ll email you the pics of how sparse it was when the main act came on stage.
Comment by Red Bob — 20 December, 2009 @ 8:11 pm
#17 “I am very critical of the SWP ” Derek Wall…………..I think you have mentioned this before !!
By the way how do you view the greens in Ireland slashing pay of workers? Leeds Greens having a coalition with the Tories, German Greens supporting bombing Iraq and Afghanistan.. whatever the problems with the SWP it doesn’t rank with the above does it. So before you tell us how wonderful the Greens are tell us how they got into being pro war, pro cuts and loving up with the Tories….
Comment by jimlotto — 20 December, 2009 @ 8:30 pm
I read the article. It seems to say - well, not very much really. Have I missed the point?
Comment by KrisS — 20 December, 2009 @ 8:30 pm
Perhaps the German Greens has a branch in its parliament and voted to back bombing men women and children.. I mean its democratic isn’t!!! Those bastard SWP they all oppose war, cuts… I mean they are just robots. They should have some pro war, pro cuts people to make it fair.
Comment by jimlotto — 20 December, 2009 @ 8:34 pm
‘He is a founder member of the Green Left, an anti-capitalist and eco-socialist faction within the Green Party, which held its first meeting in June 2006[12].
Wall has continued to be an out-spoken member of the Green Party, particularly on the issue of entering into alliances with other parties. He was given a vote of censure by the Green Party Association of Green Councillors (AGC) when he made comments concerning the alliance between Green Party, Conservative and Liberal Democrat councillors on the Leeds City Council; he stated in Red Pepper magazine that, “While I understand that repellent Labour councils may be the only substitute for alliances with Liberal Democrats and Conservatives, the fall in our Leeds West vote suggests that voters were displeased by a perceived shift to the right by Yorkshire Greens”[13].’
is a reasonable summary of my politics, I am opposed to the direction the German Greens have taken,
I am not a fan of the Irish Green Party, although they think I am uncomradly to say so.
Not sure what any of this has to do with a debate about Leninism, perhaps its a good way of avoiding the issue.
Green Left are allowed in the Green Party and are thriving thanks, a Green Left or indeed Left faction in the SWP would be forbidden.
I think the SWP needs a makeover, tell me why I am wrong! Or may be I should be less outspoken.
Comment by Derek Wall — 20 December, 2009 @ 8:53 pm
You guys are being quite infantile- if the German greens do something it doesnt means all greens agree. Just as I’m sure the SWP doesn’t agree with everything done by people claiming to be ’socialist’.
KrisS - Ok so havig read the article do you think theier is a traddition of the left in Western Europe, taking its cue in organisational methods from the fourth congress of the comintern? as the core of ‘Leninism’, or ‘What is to be done’
or maybe- yes you did the miss the point- the point being to undrstand what your read. not necasarily agree, but at least recognise it has some basis in fact.
Comment by non-partisan — 20 December, 2009 @ 8:54 pm
One should not confuse democratic centralism with the SWP!
Comment by Raphie — 20 December, 2009 @ 9:00 pm
It’s also clear that Derek needs to *change the title of his blog-post* - it appears to say that a desicion to expel John and Lindsey has taken place. This is an *untruth*, and beneath Wall who is usually a bit more judicious (except when he’s labelling New Labor as fascists of course…). He also travestises the notion of any serious analysis of what’s going on inside the SWP, which certainly is not all fun and kisses but, for example, if people knew Snowden’s record of conduct in Newcastle I can’t believe they could (genuinely!) rally behind him against the omnimalevelont bureacracy.
More generally, the piece just reads so badly. We know Derek is no great writer, to say the least, but the post just reads like an incoherent moan down the phone, full of ‘oh ands… oh ands…’ and is bereft of *any* actual engagement or analysis. Despite Andy Newman’s clear animus against the SWP he is capable (in his calmer moments) of writing cogent and well-argued critiques of his political opponents - this should be an obvious minimum for such an article. And as others have said the hilarity of it all when one considers the incoherence and practical record of Wall’s own organisation!
Comment by Rev9 — 20 December, 2009 @ 9:03 pm
From ‘Raphie’s’ webpage:
‘The Left Banker was head of Equity Derivatives Research and Strategy at Goldman Sachs International and was an advisor on derivatives and financial markets to the Bank of England, London Stock Exchange, London International Financial Futures and Options Exchange and the Italian Ministry of Finance.’
Bizarre…
Comment by Rev9 — 20 December, 2009 @ 9:08 pm
Derek I don’t think anyone in the SWP minds people being outspoken, its just that the article on your blog is so poor, exagerrated, with an over-the -top and untrue title. The stuff about how we swoop in and take over every local campaign is a caricature of what swp members try to do. Sure I’m sure some swp members somewhere might have acted in a crass way in some campaign, but for every case like that there are loads more of swp members sustaining their union branch, stw group, whatever and just doing their best for the struggle.
Tell you what, if you had a nice pint with Ger Francis, why not try another one some time with some of the SWP members in the climate change campaign that you clearly do get on with and, ask them what they think of what you wrote.
Comment by swp member — 20 December, 2009 @ 9:11 pm
Rev9
‘if people knew Snowden’s record of conduct in Newcastle I can’t believe they could (genuinely!) rally behind him against the omnimalevelont bureacracy’
This is slur and innuendo in place of principled discussion. For someone who has almost certainly never met me - but is simply listening to fourth-hand gossip - to deploy these smears is not only cheap, but also reveals a naive gullibility. There is no substance to it.
It would be great if SWP members supporting the leadership could avoid character assassination and instead engage with the politics (some, to their credit, have done this). And it’s perhaps better to do that through the party’s own democratic channels.
Comment by Alex Snowdon — 20 December, 2009 @ 9:13 pm
Leninism is Fascism. Socialism is dictatorship. The SWP is a disgusting, anti-democratic ragbag of vile power-hungry provocateurs and deluded fools.
Comment by Anonymous — 20 December, 2009 @ 9:19 pm
#25
I don’t see how you could take the fourth congress as the core of Wh..ah, ok, sorry, now I see what you’re trying to say.
Is there a tradition in the West of socialists taking “What is to be done” or the fourth congress these on organisation, as their cue for how to organise?
Well, I’ve not noticed much reliance on the latter, though I’m sure it’s around somewhere otherwise the point wouldn’t have been made. Certainly “What is to be done” is sometimes cited, alongside other works.
Lots of other things come into the discussions about how we organise as well, don’t they? Our history since then being quite a big part of that.
So yeah, so…?
Comment by KrisS — 20 December, 2009 @ 9:21 pm
“Not sure what any of this has to do with a debate about Leninism, perhaps its a good way of avoiding the issue.”
But that’s exactly why your article isn’t being taken seriously. You fail to address the fact that democracy within an organisation is dependent on accountability. In the case of the SWP everyone is accountable to the politics of the organisation whereas the Greens offer no such guarantee. A leading member of our organisation was not re-elected for this reason.
Leninism isn’t about cobbling together a few theories about democratic structure on the internet or on paper. It has to operate in the real world.
Derek, your time would be better spent abstaining from attacking the rest of the left and concentrating your energies in supporting worthwhile campaigns. How can a thinly disguised attack on the SWP in the form of an ill thought out article about Leninism help unite us?
Comment by Ray — 20 December, 2009 @ 9:22 pm
“It would be great if SWP members supporting the leadership could avoid character assassination and instead engage with the politics (some, to their credit, have done this). And it’s perhaps better to do that through the party’s own democratic channels.”
Alex we’ve now all read your emails and while I agree we want to debate the political issues why did you indulge in character assassination rather than follow your own advice?
Comment by Ray — 20 December, 2009 @ 9:31 pm
Nice to see Ray is back debating the difficult question of socialist strategy.
Comment by Derek Wall — 20 December, 2009 @ 9:38 pm
Ray have you read the article here http://links.org.au/node/1407?
It doesn’t sound like.
KrisS the point is that what was passed on to you as ‘Leninism’, i.e. lessons of organisation based on the experience of the achitect of the Bolsheviks and the RR Lenin, was not actually the view of Lenin.
But hey wether its right/wrong, historicaly correct/incorrect, politicaly niave, whatever, hey its not worth commenting on I guess……
by the way, your blog article is not very subtle derek, and can be read as just another hatchet job on swp (because its is so generalised and unspecific) , so understand some of thier annoyance.
But it seems the comrades are either, only interested in having a go at derek or
left platform supporters,. Maybe not a good time to raise the larger organisational questions, or for them maybe no time is a good time.
Comment by non-partisan — 20 December, 2009 @ 9:42 pm
Oh, and Derek, do you really support a comrade in the SWP who was encouraging other comrades to lie to the SWP central committee? Is that the kind of democracy you believe in? If so, it has nothing to do with Leninism and has no place in the SWP.
Comment by Ray — 20 December, 2009 @ 9:43 pm
#18 yes I was there in Stoke too with my daughters and friends, It wasnt a bad day out though not sure how significant it was overall politically. We thought about 5,000 and everytime I see an attendance of 20,000 quoted I show it to remind her how we cant trust people like the SWP with anything!
Seriously if you cant tell the truth about something as obvious as this, what else are you telling lies about?
Comment by Danny — 20 December, 2009 @ 9:44 pm
“Nice to see Ray is back debating the difficult question of socialist strategy.”
Thanks! Why don’t you try it sometime?
Comment by Ray — 20 December, 2009 @ 9:44 pm
Derek - so far you’ve told us that you don’t understand how the SWP organises itself, but you don’t like it.
That isn’t particularly promising, but if you really are looking for a discussion on the subject, I think you’re going to need to take it a bit further.
Comment by KrisS — 20 December, 2009 @ 9:52 pm
Let me just say that posting an article with the introduction “Oh, and read here how I slagged off the SWP” and than feigning hurt innocence when people are upset and don’t attempt to seriously discuss the article is weird.
On the issue at hand, the organizational model adopted by Green parties is one of the reasons their politics when gaining power are so horrifying. It’s all well and good to assert that your personal Green party is different, but there’s no reason to believe this - quite the contrary. As an example the German Greens long had a majority (and still have a strong minority) of radical left members, but due to the organizational model the elected representatives routinely feel entitle to ignore clear majority decisions; the wars in Yugoslavia and Afghanistan are a prime example. Numerous party congresses voted to not support them, and withdraw support when they were underway - but the elected representative simply ignored this. For some strange reason, some people seem to believe that this is “internal democracy” - meaning member can say what they want, but leaders don’t listen.
if the UK Greens were to find themselves in any position of power, I have absolutely not a shred of doubt they would follow the path of their cousins all over Europe. This is no reason not to work with them, but it might be a reason for a tiny bit of humility on their part.
Comment by christian h. — 20 December, 2009 @ 9:53 pm
And on “front organizations” and “taking over” stuff: that’s just unbelievable liberal bollocks, usually sprouted by people who are too lazy to do organize things themselves and therefore reduced to sniping from the sidelines. I’m not talking about Derek personally, who seems to be working very hard for the good guys, but about the political culture that generates these kinds of talking points. In the US, we have this issue with the ANSWER coalition. I do not like their politics one bit, but the fact is they organize the demonstrations, they get people out, and so forth. Don’t like them - do it yourself. It’s that easy.
Comment by christian h. — 20 December, 2009 @ 9:59 pm
is the view that the left platform are ‘renegades and charlatans’ the view of all members of the swp towards the rees group?
comradely
cain
Comment by Cain — 20 December, 2009 @ 10:11 pm
Where do you get that from, cain?
“Renegades” reminds me of something I’ve been meaning to ask for ages, though. Alan Thornett - one minute the industrial hero of the WRP, the next minute “the renegade Thornett”. So what happened?
Comment by KrisS — 20 December, 2009 @ 10:18 pm
Ray: the article is reprinted from the Australian Socialist Alliance’s Links publication (http://links.org.au/node/1407). I really, really doubt that it’s motivated to be a surreptitious attack on the British SWP, given that - SA has other things to think about.
Comment by Daphne — 20 December, 2009 @ 10:31 pm
The problem is not about debating Leninism its just a dreadful article which is nothing more than SWP bashing. Fine but lets have a serious arguement about how parties should be best organised. It seems to me that those who attack the SWP want an organisational practice of no accountability. Why can’t the Greens debate and discuss the merits or otherwise of a coalition with the Tories. Well we could answer this by saying they can discuss, but that discussion cannot lead to any agreed action by the majority. If Leeds Greens want to be with the Tories then thats their right. lets translate this to the field of working class struggle- agree a vote for strike action fine.. ah but as an individual I have the right to not strike and cross a picket line. It is the arguements of all scabs through the ages. I am not saying that the Greens are scabs by the way simply that the philosophy behind the liberal arguement for their structure has little to do with any relationship with workers democracy.
Whatever our different takes on the issue of Iraq and Afghanistan it is clear that over the last 10 years this has been the biggest political question and campaign in the UK. It is legitimate to ask why the Greens have played no real part in that mass movement.
Comment by jimlotto — 20 December, 2009 @ 11:09 pm
“Ray: the article is reprinted from the Australian Socialist Alliance’s Links publication (http://links.org.au/node/1407). I really, really doubt that it’s motivated to be a surreptitious attack on the British SWP, given that - SA has other things to think about.”
Daphne, perhaps the original article has nothing to do with the SWP but as Christian points out that appears to be the ulterior motive behind Derek’s post.
The SWP obviously has a position on what it believes to be democratic centralism and Lenins interpretation of it. As does every other revolutionary socialist organisation. That interpretation has been debated in formal and informal settings with others on the left for decades. An informed debate about democratic centralism is important but I believe that’s not what Derek is offering.
What Derek is offering is an opinion that the revolutionary left is Stalinist and has rejected the politics of Lenin. If he is serious about supporting this analysis then it’s incumbent on him to provide evidence. Providing evidence rather than opinion is at the heart of Lenins analysis. We should expect no less from Derek.
Comment by Ray — 20 December, 2009 @ 11:11 pm
Sad to see disunity in what should be a united front.
A crucial issue is the connection with between socialist revolutionaries, ie those in the know, and the day to day working class, including the class conscious. Misunderstandings will occur all the time, yet when the connection works, the workers will expode into conscious activity.
When I was a shop steward, some SWP members didn’t get (or get through to) people like me, some did. Likewise with Militant. Success in organising workers at that time involved flexibility on among activists and patient efforts at building a shared understanding of the local and national situations. Shop stewards in my workplace were regarded as politically naive, as bureaucrats by some, syndicalists by others; stewards listened greatly to people like Ritchie Venton of Militant, and read John Molyneux’s Teach Yourself Marxism each week in the Socialist Worker. Major difficulties only arose during big disputes as a result of misinformed party lines: the disconnect between the general and the specific.
Lack of understanding together with inflexibility has been the downfall of Leninist parties. The core of scientific socialism is Earth-given humanity. The message need not be complicated by rigidity. The role of the party should be to keep up with the class, to anticipate developments, and to advise and offer leadership practically when feasible, even to lead the workers in overthrowing the state. A united front approach to defending the workers is, today, feasible. This can only be done with the full commitment of the SWP to a new Left organisation.
The condition of the working class, now as ever demands maximum unity. The SWP in strife while fascists are on the telly, not to mention the world capitalist crisis? What kind of revolutionary socialism is that?
A new united front is urgently needed. This should be the primary focus for all socialists. This needs flexibility and self-sacrifice from all faction leaders who operate under the name of revolutionary socialism.
Much respect to SWP activists by the way.
Comment by Jim McL — 20 December, 2009 @ 11:21 pm
It’s just over 30 years since I joined the SWP and almost 20 years since they expelled me. What strikes me reading wall’s article and the SWP responses is that neither the current left nor the current greens have any understanding of the working class and what role they do or could play in society.
They just don’t figure in their mindset.
Lenin and trotsky shouldn’t be part of any discussion on what should be done in the 21st century apart from as a warning about what happens to failures.
Comment by T. M. — 20 December, 2009 @ 11:21 pm
“Daphne, perhaps the original article has nothing to do with the SWP but as Christian points out that appears to be the ulterior motive behind Derek’s post.”
I don’t give a toss about Derek’s ulterior motives, I’m interested in hearing what people think about the original article.
Comment by Daphne — 20 December, 2009 @ 11:37 pm
Is it a “part one of two” article, or something like that?
Comment by KrisS — 20 December, 2009 @ 11:39 pm
Well one problem with the original article is that it’s not clear to me who the author thinks they are arguing with. Most everyone would surely agree that Leninism should not mean - and was never intended by its Bolshevik founders - “authoritarian, top-down” party organization. It’s true that Leninist organization often takes this shape in practice, but this problem will not be overcome by arguing against it as if it was intended theoretically.
Comment by christian h. — 21 December, 2009 @ 12:10 am
46-Well said, spot on.
Comment by jim mc donald — 21 December, 2009 @ 12:26 am
46 seem to be a fair engagement with the question, others seem less keen to address it.
Comment by Derek Wall — 21 December, 2009 @ 12:35 am
All Leninist organizations in the 21st century have to face very differing realities to the Russian experience that they draw from. Paul Le Blanc, one of the more interesting writers on the topic and himself a member of a Leninist organisation, puts it well:
‘Lenin’s Bolshevik organization was part of a broad global working-class formation, part of a developing labor movement, and part of an evolving labor-radical subculture that embraced masses of people. Much experience of the [U.S.] Left demonstrates that an effort to create such an organization outside of such a context all too often degenerates into the construction of a political sect, with well-meaning activists penned up in a world of their own, separate and apart from the working class.
The development of a broad, numerically significant layer and subculture of socially conscious people who are part of the working class is essential for creating the kind revolutionary party that Lenin helped build. The accumulation of a significant percentage of activists who are part of that layer is the precondition for such a party. This can’t simply be proclaimed by a handful of would-be Leninists.’
http://www.isreview.org/issues/59/feat-lenin.shtml
‘The primary condition preventing the formation of a revolutionary vanguard party is the fact that a revolutionary vanguard layer of the working class does not exist…Those who claim to be members of a revolutionary vanguard party — independently of a revolutionary vanguard layer of the working class — are pretending to be members of such a party, creating a little organizational universe of their own, disconnected from the actual lives and struggles and consciousness of the working class. This is a definition of a sect and of sectarianism — as you note, “estrangement from the working class,” in the form of a so-called Leninist party.’
http://www.laborstandard.org/New_Postings/Being_A_Leninist.htm
The challenge in overcoming the huge problems these hard objective realities present is not one that can be reduced to, or resolved by, forms of internal party democracy.
Of course internal democracy, and the corresponding internal culture of an organization, is critical. Without it, you get political leaders more likely to get things wrong, members more likely to be deferential and betray their better instincts, and bullying. But no matter what organization you are in, you will inevitably have robust political debate in which one side will enforce it’s will upon the other. This is simply impossible to avoid because some ideas are simply better, more constructive to advancing the struggle than others. There will be winners and losers in the ensuing political battles and, in my experience, those on the losing side often claim abuse of democratic norms simply as a disingenuous factional tool.
The bigger and more important failure of British Leninist parties has been one of perspectives, strategy and tactics. It is a sobering fact that despite decades of political practice all, when standing in their own clothes, remain completely marginal to political life in this country. In this regard much of what passes for ‘Leninism’ has been a resoundingly failure. A big reason for this is objective, as Le Blanc outlines. But another, has been the complete ineffectiveness to theorize adequately the nature of the beast we are confronting, and the necessary strategy and tactics required to do so more effectively. Nothing illustrates this more than the complete irrelevance of Leninism in the electoral arena. Yet this is exactly the medium in which ‘politics’ is played out for the vast majority of people. It is simply inconceivable to me that a mass Marxist current can develop in this country without success in this critical area. Those that think that this failure will be overcome by some ‘big bang’ theory of revolution display both an ignorance of revolutionary processes and political delusion, in my view.
Comment by ger francis — 21 December, 2009 @ 12:45 am
well said Ger and I hope the SWPs can have a practical contribution when it comes to supporting solid left candidates like Dai Davis, Caroline Lucas and Salma Yaqoob in the General Election….none of whom are SWPs but stand a good chance of being elected and promoting some left goals.
Having said that one SWP plus is the parties support for Jerry Hicks, so credit where credit is due comrades.
Comment by Derek Wall — 21 December, 2009 @ 12:50 am
At last, something it’s possible to grapple with.
So Ger, when you say “the complete irrelevance of Leninism in the electoral arena”, do you mean:
1) No soi-disant Leninist party has achieved anything electorally
or
2) “Leninism” as you understand it has nothing to say to us about how we might operate in the electoral arena
?
Comment by KrisS — 21 December, 2009 @ 1:17 am
Duncan Hallas in 1984 talking about the decline of the Comintern talks about many relevent issues for anyone interested in a genuine discussion of Leninism. I was struck by what a fantastic talk this was. Genuine organic intellectuals on the left are a rare thing. This is for any Socialists christmas cracker! They really don’t make them like this anymore (just scroll down to ‘the decline of the comintern’):
http://www.marxists.org/archive/hallas/audioindex.htm
Comment by johng — 21 December, 2009 @ 1:43 am
I’d also just add that the relatively peripheral nature of far left organisations is mirrored by the relatively peripheral nature..of everyone else on the left. But certainly everyone should support left candidates like Salma Yakoob or left wing members of the Greens where they are standing. No argument from me there.
Comment by johng — 21 December, 2009 @ 1:45 am
This is a huge generalisation, but I think people tend to be more critical, even cynical today, which means that they are less likely to be taken in by Marxist/Leninist groups. Of course there will always be people who are gullable, naive, or even genuine romantics, but most people are critical enough to see that there is a sinister side to Leninist politics.
In practice, no matter where in the world this method of socialism has been tried it is incapable of transcending dictatorial control.
Comment by Owen — 21 December, 2009 @ 2:03 am
Duncan’s talk is of course interesting, and his great growl was a blast from the past, but his talk is concerned with experiences of at least half a century old, and longer when the discussing the high point of the 1917 revolutionary wave. My point is that wave broke a very very long time ago, yet much of what constitutes Leninist theory in the english speaking West simply has not advanced to adequately theorize the challenges Leninists face in the very different circumstances of today. In addition to objective barriers, a major contributing factor to a failure of contemporary Leninist political practice has been a failure of method.
Comment by ger francis — 21 December, 2009 @ 2:14 am
There is no such thing as “Leninism”. The Bolsheviks were simply trying to build a social democratic party where none had existed before. Nearly everything in “What is to be Done” is an adaptation of Western European ideas, including democratic centralism. In addition to what LeBlanc and Lars Lih have written, I would recommend my own articles here:
http://www.columbia.edu/~lnp3/mydocs/organization.htm
Particularly these:
http://www.columbia.edu/%7Elnp3/mydocs/organization/lenin_in_context.htm
http://www.columbia.edu/%7Elnp3/mydocs/organization/comintern_and_germany.htm
Comment by Louis Proyect — 21 December, 2009 @ 2:18 am
Ray #45: “What Derek is offering is an opinion that the revolutionary left is Stalinist and has rejected the politics of Lenin.”
Well, that’s a slight exaggeration / distortion.
The Paul Kellog article from Links (which Derek cited) asserts that the ‘revolutionary’ left has applied, as universal organisational principles, methods which were applicable in Russia in the early 20th Century but not elsewhwere & in other times. This is an assertion which has previously been made by Louis Proyect.
Unfortunately, a large proportion of the content of the the Links article is comprised of cliches rather than real history, & much of its account of events is based on a rather dubious interpretation by an academic called Marcel Liebman, instead of using facts & first hand sources.
The arguments put forward in the Links article are based on the repeated assertion that Lenin was a proponent of ‘fantasy’; implying what exactly? a disregard for objective truth, or for the writer’s responsibility within the wider class struggle, as directed by the Communist Party? Paul Kellog bases this assertion about Lenin’s opinion on one phrase, deftly lifted out of its context by his mentor Marcel Liebman.
But the full paragraph by V.I. Lenin is as follows:
****
“All comparisons are lame,” says a German proverb. So is my comparison of literature with a cog, of a living movement with a mechanism. And I daresay there will ever be hysterical intellectuals to raise a howl about such a comparison, which degrades, deadens, “bureaucratises” the free battle of ideas, freedom of criticism, freedom of literary creation, etc., etc. Such outcries, in point of fact, would be nothing more than an expression of bourgeois-intellectual individualism. There is no question that literature is least of all subject to mechanical adjustment or levelling, to the rule of the majority over the minority. There is no question, either, that in this field greater scope must undoubtedly be allowed for personal initiative, individual inclination, thought and fantasy, form and content. All this is undeniable; but all this simply shows that the literary side of the proletarian party cause cannot be mechanically identified with its other sides. This, however, does not in the least refute the proposition, alien and strange to the bourgeoisie and bourgeois democracy, that literature must by all means and necessarily become an element of Social-Democratic Party work, inseparably bound up with the other elements. Newspapers must become the organs of the various party organisations, and their writers must by all means become members of these organisations. Publishing and distributing centres, bookshops and reading-rooms, libraries and similar establishments—must all be under party control. The organised socialist proletariat must keep an eye on all this work, supervise it in its entirety, and, from beginning to end, without any exception, infuse into it the life-stream of the living proletarian cause, thereby cutting the ground from under the old, semi-Oblomov, semi-shopkeeper Russian principle: the writer does the writing, the reader does the reading.
Source: http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1905/nov/13.htm
****
Read that again, as often you like. Lenin defended the concept that literature is a “cog” in the the class struggle, and refutes the allegation by “hysterical intellectuals” that this “degrades, deadens, ‘bureaucratises’ the free battle of ideas, freedom of criticism, freedom of literary creation, etc”. And he added:
“Publishing and distributing centres, bookshops and reading-rooms, libraries and similar establishments—must all be under party control. The organised socialist proletariat must keep an eye on all this work, supervise it in its entirety…”
Party control! Perhaps Lenin was right about this, or perhaps he was wrong; and of course he wrote these words in the conditions of his time. But irrespective; the academic Marcel Liebman (despite his no doubt other virtues) knowingly misrepresented Lenin’s views. And, perhaps due to enthusiasm for his thesis, intellectal laziness, or for whatever other reason, the Links writer Paul Kellog simply imbibed that drivel.
Further. The article declaims that “The Stalinist parties… have largely been swept from the stage of history.”
Paul Kellog neglects to remark that social democracy (which did not observe ‘democratic centralist’ organisational principles) was also swept away, or that the other presumably ‘non-Stalinist’ left groupings- trotskyist, libertarian, or whatever- never approached the slightest likelihood of achieving state power.
Nevertheless. Nothing is written in stone. What was an error, what was necessary, what was contingent on local and historical circumstances, what is universally applicable from the struggles to defeat capitalism and build socialism in the 20th Century?
We don’t know yet, though the survival of Cuba, and the rise of socialism in Venezuela & other countries in Latin America give us some inklings.
Comment by Noah — 21 December, 2009 @ 2:35 am
I take it that statement was made when Lenin was a Socialist Democrat,prior to the Communist Party.There is the belief by some, that Lenin strayed from the Marx/Engels theory of Socialism, by constructing a state capitalist structure under vangaurdist control.
Comment by jim mc donald — 21 December, 2009 @ 3:16 am
Louis Proyect: “There is no such thing as “Leninism”. The Bolsheviks were simply trying to build a social democratic party where none had existed before… etc etc”
Not true.
Whatever your views on their organisational methods, the communists- as distinct from those on the ‘left’ who came to describe themselves as social democrats- were part of the global struggle against Western imperialism.
The anti-colonial liberation movements, from Malaya to South Africa and Vietnam. were an inseperable part of that struggle. The technical military means for most of those struggles were provided by the Soviet Union; aided also, & not insignificantly, by progressive people in the West.
You were one of those people, in your contribution to solidarity with Nicaragua.
Comment by Noah — 21 December, 2009 @ 3:32 am
Someone posting here said that Lenin and Trotsky should primarily be remembered as ‘failures.’ That’s rather a strange comment, given that Lenin played a central role in building a massively popular socialist organisation in very dangerous circumstances which eventually led the first successful takeover of power by workers’ organisations (and stopped a world war), and Trotsky was at the head of the first ever soviet when he was still in his twenties and later the Red Army, which saw off multiple foreign invasions. Would that we could all be so unsuccessful in our own lifetimes.
Perhaps what they meant was that Leninists and Trotskyists have been failures. Ok, there they would seem to be on slightly stronger ground. In its own terms, the SWP has been a failure in that it clearly hasn’t built a mass revolutionary party over the last forty years of trying and certainly doesn’t look like being able to achieve that in the forseeable future. It has managed to maintain a fairly well organised core of activists who have, on occasions, been able to connect with the outside world and encourage forms of resistance and movements that have had an important impact on things. Anti-war and anti-racist activity obviously stand out, although attempts to draw together grassroots union militants in the 70’s also looked promising for a brief moment. The fascists were pushed back in the ’70s by the efforts of many thousands of people, but the impetus largely came from the SWP, in the form of the ANL and Rock Against Racism. The latter remains, I’d say, the most successful cultural intervention by the left in Britain ever.
For all sorts of reasons, the political terrain today is tougher and the task is far more difficult - drawing together forces to the left of New Labour which can begin to fill the vacume left by the collapse of traditional social democracy. In this, it’s record is not one to be so proud of, although it is by no means the only group that bears responsibility for that failure. I think it’s been hampered partly by a misunderstanding of its role in that process. That is, that its members are engaged in building ‘the’ revolutionary party in a way analagous to Lenin and the Bolsheviks in Russia. I don’t think the failure of that project and its ramifications have even begun to be properly theorised by the SWP.
Comment by dennis — 21 December, 2009 @ 4:14 am
What strikes me about the above views on the “Failure” of Leninist organisations is the complete absence of any reference to the objective. It appears here that how revolutionary organisations have fared over the last 50 years is all down to the subjective. If only this was true then some tinkering would suffice. Well we could look at it another way..
what has happened in the UK over the last 50 years
There is the legacy of labourism, the deep roots of reformism as argued by Cliff many years ago is something that is held throughout the working class, not just some aristocracy of labour which is brittle.
The role of the CP and legacy of stalinism
crucially for the last 30 yrs- the defeats the working class have experienced- miners, wapping etc etc. There are signs of recovery but it is painfully slow.
You can be critical of the SWP , ok. But lets put it into context.
In terms of Ger’s point about the electoral field and revolutionary practice of course this is true that for a mass revolutionary organisation to be built a serious engagement with elections is required is something that is evidentially true. However I think given this is only part of the story.
The self activiety of workers remains the key to changing conciousness. Lets look at the record of Ger’s organisation. Looking at the web site RESPECT played absolutely no role in the postal workers dispute, Vestas, Visteon. Of course they as much as anyone were on the workers side.. good. But made no serious effort to raise solidarity, collections, delgations, visit picket lines etc. For all its faults the SWP saw this as centrally important. For example if the Postal workers had won the effect of raising the confidence for resisting the onslaught on the public sector won have been substantial.
The 1 Respect MP George Galloway rarely/never attends picket lines. The all out strike at Tower Hamlets college which won! Galloway didn’t visit the picket line until the last day! It seems to me a socialist MP should be backing workers and showing support.
The SWP has much to be proud of, the theory of state cap, permanant arms economy, union bueracracy, helped it navigate often very difficult times. It played a central part in launching the anti war movement- against much of the left who opposed it or were pessimistic about its prospects. Ger, this movement has had profound political implications without which the modest gains made by Respect would not have been possible. The SWP’s record of anti fascist work is something for its comrades to be proud of.
And unlike a lot of the far left- even through a sharp faction fight- the priority of the organisation over the last year has been to intervene, shape and be part of the resistance in whatever form it takes. Of course the SWP makkes mistakes and to be honest the last number of years have seen some vintage examples. However my view is that the arguements within the SWP have been long overdue.
One thing that strikes me about Ger’s contribution is that the centrality of workers struggle is absent. I get the distinct impression he long ago gave up on the need for a revolutionary transformation of society.
Comment by bibblybob — 21 December, 2009 @ 5:02 am
#65
Assertion and subjectivism presented as objective fact does not make it so. Having worked closely with them in the past, at the height of the antiwar movement, Gleneagles, and in various united fronts, there is no doubt that the SWP have always demonstrated a level of activity which far eclipses that of every other organisation on the far left. The problem is that this level of activity is married to rotten theory which succeeds only in demoralising its activists, most of whom are young students, who after suckling on the belief that revolutionary change is just around the corner, and all it requires is the selling of more newspapers and the handing out of more leaflets, find themselves burned out. The amount of times I heard the SWP stock-in phrase that ‘the class is on the move’ when discussing a small strike, or a small series of strikes, I’ve lost count.
With regard to the antiwar movement, the SWP played a key role and deserve credit for that. However, here you perhaps contradict yourself in asserting that the subjective factor rather than the objective factor was key. It wasn’t. What we had was one of those rare confluence of circumstances whereby mass consciousness reached across class divisions to produce a tidal wave of moral outrage at the looming war. This made it a certainty that a mass movement would emerge in some form or other regardless.
But for every positive there is a negative, and it could be argued that the SWP have also played a significant role in hastening the antiwar movement to its end as a mass movement as well. During its height I and many others began to worry about its lack of politics and depth. We argued that the moral outrage which sparked the mass demos of its early years had to be replaced by material necessity when numbers began to fall off. This meant connecting the dots between local issues and the war.
It was never done. Why? Because the contradiction that lies at the heart of groups like the SWP is that at bottom their priority lies in recruitment, even if it comes at the expense of the working class or the campaign or mass movement which they are involved. It is this contradiction which is largely responsible for the wreckage of campaigns, united fronts, and most other formations they’ve been involved in. In the context of the antiwar movement the SWP never wavered in its belief that its interests were best served by continuing to try to recruit within a large, amorpheus pool of activists, most coming into political activity for the first time, even when that pool was shrinking at a huge rate. At the same time, any attempt by Marxists or socialists outwith the SWP to play a key role in the movement was quashed.
The other critical and congenital failure of groups such as the SWP is as others have pointed out a blind and rigid determination to graft an organisational model, created in adaptation to specific material conditions in Tsarist Russia at the start of the 20th century, onto British society at the start of the 21st century. Electorally, as Ger rightly states, the SWP have either ignored the working class or else failed to gain traction, turned off by the lack of revolutionary consciousness which pervades in this country.
A revolutionary romanticism has resulted, which in concrete terms ensures that most SWP meetings you attend are more like Christian evangelist meetings than meetings of Marxists in which honest and concrete analysis is central to how and where the organisation intervenes.
This lack of analysis is, as I say, rooted in flawed theory. It is also rooted in a culture of voluntarism which tends to alienate when it attempts to connect to the wider working class rather than attract.
Comment by John — 21 December, 2009 @ 7:00 am
“However, here you perhaps contradict yourself in asserting that the subjective factor was key in that. It wasn’t. What we had was one of those rare confluence of circumstances whereby mass consciousness reached across class divisions to produce a tidal wave of moral outrage at the looming war. This made it a certainty that a mass movement would emerge regardless.”
A mass conciousness against the war in its build up no doubt would have been there regardless but a mass movement!! I would have thought when you have a movement against a war such as what we saw it is the combination of objective with subjective. Someone had to take the first steps, contact other forces, build local groups, book meetings, book coaches, produce leaflets etc etc. As well as this lets be honest not everywhere in Europe has had the same level of anti war movement, sure this may be largely down to the fact uk forces were direcdtly involved etc. but the role of the SWP is important, I never said it was on their own. In fact I think the way in which that coalition was constructed was to look to much bigger forces/figures. There is no reason to presume that without the anti war movement that anti war sentiment could have been reduced.
I think there has been a tendency to voluntarism and this is largely what the recent debates have been about and its healthy consquence is a much more nuanced view of the situation. The tradition of the SWP and IS is very much to look at the situation and try to be honest. We took a lot stick over the downturn anaylsis for this. No doubt mistake will be made.
However the idea that the SWP just saw the anti war movement as a way of recruitiment is a very inaccurate picture. In my view we did not look to build our organisation enough and it suffered in the period.
Of course you then blame the SWP for the anti war movements lessening ability to mobilise- again it seems all the good things are objective and all bad things down to the SWP. I am not sure what method that is but it ain’t marxism.
Comment by jimlotto — 21 December, 2009 @ 7:23 am
#67
Sure, somebody had to take the first steps, but here you are guilty of airbrushing out of the picture the hundreds of activists involved in the setting up of STW who were not in the SWP. If the SWP hadn’t taken those steps, my view is that somebody would have. This is not to diminish the SWP’s role, but let’s not claim that it was all down to them. It wasn’t.
As to your last point regards the relation between the subjective and objective, my criticism is not that the SWP subjectively weakened the antiwar movement. My criticism is that they failed to adapt to those changing objective conditions and continued on with the same tactic of calling demo after demo in some vain hope that suddenly Feb 15 2003 would be repeated. This, if anything, demonstrated an abandonment of Marxism in favour of delusion.
The reason the SWP failed to recruit more members goes back to the way in which they succeed in alienating more than attracting when involved in mass movements and campaigns. I’ve seen it myself first hand. They do have a tendency to try to assert control, of padding out meetings and attempting to steer those meetings in a direction already pre-planned at their own pre-meetings. They certainly have a right to exert political influence, but when this is done in a crude and aggressive way it inevitably leads to mistrust and finally disintegration.
Comment by John — 21 December, 2009 @ 7:34 am
John
oh thats ok if the SWP hadn’t done it someone else would have? who? and on what basis politically. CND initially opposed the anti war movement so they weren’t going to take the plunge, the Labour left.. I don’t think so, perhaps CP.. ummm lets be honest not a runner. So John who was going to pile in. By the way I never stated it was just the SWP. In fact there were many discussions in the SWP about the need to widen the movement, get as many people involved as possible. On the steering ctte nationally I think there is about 50 people and 4 are SWP. It really is total control freakery !!! But of course every mistake is the property of the SWP and on one else. You want the SWP not to be in control fine, well when you then think the movement made a mistake why is it just the SWP. Come on John what organisation are you from and lets take a look at their record. Would be interesting.
Comment by jimlotto — 21 December, 2009 @ 7:45 am
John you see no importance of the political basis of the anti war movement
STWC never condemend the resistance in Iraq
Principled opposition to Islamaphobia
Backs the Palestinians when there was a very sharp arguement by some on the nat ctte to sperate these issues
raisded the issue of civil liberties and its connection witht he war on terror.
This didn’t just happen by chance John. It was argued for. If other forces had politically set the agenda it would have on many of these issues caved in to the pressure from the right. I am sure we made mistakes in stwc but you have to engage in the movement John. Oh by the way the SWP take control line is something I rememeber the right wing always attacking the left for, its those outside agitators! you really need to do better than that.
Comment by jimlotto — 21 December, 2009 @ 7:50 am
#69
That there would have been a movement is inevitable. Groups such as CND may have wavered or been less than enthusiastic initially, but between them and various figures within the trade union movement and other far left organisations there most certainly would have been a movement.
In Scotland where I am there was an antiwar movement, set up by the SSP at the time. For various reasons it gave way to Stop the War.
I was a member of the SWP at one time myself, back in 2005. I left for two reasons: rotten theory, particulary state capitalism, and a leading member of the organisation in Scotland scabbing on a demo I played a key role in organising during the G8 in Edinburgh. This member, whom I won’t name, arrived at a demo which myself and others were leading and which was illegal. He immediately began cooperating with the police in trying to get us off the street and succeeded in imperilling the safety of those left behind, given that the police at the time were eager and had already demonstrated an eagerness to get stuck in.
This individual received no sanction or disciplinary action as a result, while myself and the others involved in organising and leading this action were arrested and prosecuted.
Comment by John — 21 December, 2009 @ 7:54 am
“This individual received no sanction or disciplinary action as a result, while myself and the others involved in organising and leading this action were arrested and prosecuted.” what by the SWP!!!
Look you think state cap is rotton theory, ok, you don’t agree with one of the SWP’s fundamental points. So what organisation do you belong to. ?
The anti war movement set up in SCotland by the SSP of course was something along the lines of truth and justice and was ambivlent about who that truth and justice was for? so point proven. But just wondering who you are a member of now.
Comment by jimlotto — 21 December, 2009 @ 7:58 am
Of course what’s completely left out of the picture is the utter failure of groups and parties not organized on a Leninist model, in the only arena such organizations address, the electoral one. At least the Leninist groups (for all their faults), while they may have failed electorally (although maybe one shouldn’t forget that the UK’s only left-of-Labour MP was elected in part through the efforts of the SWP and its activists) have engaged in struggles in the work places and the extra-parliamentary space.
It’s all well and good to point to problems with Leninist practice (and god knows there are many). It’s not honest though to ignore the problems - in my opinion worse - of other “pluralist” forms of organization.
Derek’s comment 54. sadly illustrates the role he sees for revolutionary socialist organizations: to be used as free labour to support bourgeois electoral politics. But when those groups then try to assert their politics, Derek and company will accuse them of trying to take over blah blah blah. The demand (which has nothing to do with organizational models, which are clearly only a cover story) that the SWP (or SP or CP) drop everything they are doing and knock on doors for Green or Respect candidates - but please don’t mention “socialism” in the process - is frankly offensive. I’m all for supporting these candidates, but any collection of activists has limited time and resources.
Comment by christian h. — 21 December, 2009 @ 7:59 am
#70
The stance against Islamophobia was indeed exemplary, as was the refusal to condemn the resistance. That said, STWC never took a position in overt support of the resistance either. On this it was always abstract, scared to do so in case it lost wider support. I recall Rees at a STW Conference having the gall to stand up and claim credit for the resignation of Tony Blair over the war, etc. When it was pointed out to him from the floor, by me, that it was the Iraqi Resistance responsible for Blair’s resignation he disagreed.
The antiwar movement has been a timid and disappointing affair. The fact is it failed to have any meaningful impact on the British government’s policy in Iraq or the prosecution of the war. The reason for this is largely the political failures of the movement. As I said for every positive there is a negative. Anti imperialism was and has been subordinated to a message of peace and justice, which ended up with a movement adopting the kind of slogans of which the Salvation Army would be proud.
Re Palestine, there was a time when you had to fight to get Palestine included on STW leaflets and in its literature. Gaza was the turning point in that, as it provided an opportunity of breathing life into the movement again. Galloway and the muslim community have led the way when it comes to Palestine though, so please do not try to claim credit for that.
Going back to Islamophobia, yes, the SWP played a great role initially. But then came the debacle of the split in Respect and all that great work was undone with accusations of communialism being levelled at the likes of Salma Yaqoob and others, which ensured that all that great work was undone.
Comment by John — 21 December, 2009 @ 8:03 am
#72
Jim, you sound like a narc or a police officer with your continued demands to know which organisation I’m in.
I’m in no organisation at present. Does this preclude me from having an opinion or an analysis?
Marx himself was not a member of any organisation for 14 years. Would this in your view have also rendered his opinions and analysis moot?
The point is I have played a full and active role in groups such as STWC at its height, within the G8 actions at Glenagles, and within Palestine Solidarity work. I’ve also been a full and an active member within both the SSP and Solidarity.
I know that of which I speak.
Comment by John — 21 December, 2009 @ 8:08 am
*65 BB’s comments are revealing of a sectarian self righteous method. He ignores the bigger questions of why so little return after decades of practice, and instead takes comfort with some very short lived strike support work, wrapped up in moralism about how many picket lines he visited. (By the way you should read your own IB documents. If visiting picket lines is the litmus test for being a ‘revolutionary’ then a sizeable chunk of the SWP has failed it.)
Respect is not in the business of preaching to trade unionists. And the community rather than the workplace will always be our primary focus by virtue of the terrain we are contesting. But we want to have a greater orientation towards the broader trade union movement and the stronger we get the more we can develop that side of our work.
What we already do is try use the platforms we have to advocate on behalf of all those in struggle or suffering injustice and exploitation, including trade unionists. Nobody on the left does this more successful than George Galloway, just listen to his prgramme, and your criticisms of him are simply sectarian nonsense. And likewise Salma does what she can. So, for example, later this morning I will be accompanying her to the UNITE HQ in West Brom from which she will be broadcasting her weekly show for the Islam Channel. The topic this week is ‘Racism & Discrimination in the Workplace – A Growing Phenomenon’ with guests including Jack Dromey - Deputy General Secretary of the Transport and General Workers Union (Unite), Waseem Zaffer - Birmingham Representative, Unite Union, and Zohid Javid – Unite shop steward and one of the sacked workers from the Two Sisters Chicken Factory. Like I said, we do what we can with the resources and platforms we have.
But I find this kind of point scoring exchange beyond tedious.
My original point was about the balance sheet of what constitutes successful Leninist practice in the UK today. And I maintain not just that the record is poor, but that there is near complete self-denial that it is poor, or broader and deeper self-reflection as to why it is poor.
For example, I have just read an account by two Birmingham SWP members of their experiences in the city in the latest IB. Now, lets leave aside the complete turning reality on its head over the EDL experience in the city, and its amusing pompous tone about their practice being examples of ‘Leninism writ large’, what is striking is a failure to draw any balance sheet about their impact in the city in recent years.
Yet the hard facts are this.
Birmingham in the last decade has seen major political upheavals. Firstly, over the closure of Rover, then over the war, and then over political fracturing as a result of the war. Yet despite these momentous events the SWP is no nearer having any more influence in the city now than it was near a decade ago. It simply has nothing to show for a decade of toil. If anything, it is more marginal and weaker. The answer why cannot be reduced to objective circumstances, which were favourable, but rest in limitations of method.
By any honest assessment the British experience of the IS tradition has failed in the tasks it has set itself. For me personally, the jury is still out on the totality of that tradition. I am sure there is much impressive work going on that I am unaware of. Reading the article by Paul Kellogg brought back warm memories of accompanying Salma on a North American anti-war speaking tour years ago and being mightily impressed by the Canadian IS comrades who organized it, and ditto a similar trip to Greece. I don’t know enough about the IS experience in Germany but am fascinated by what glimpses I get. Similarly, I like the approach of the New Zealand comrades. The Irish comrades have made a breakthrough into new waters, albeit under an electoral system and objective circumstances much more favorable to here, and certainly in terms of a more orthodox modern-day Leninist model, the American ISO fly their flag strongly. But the balance sheet in the UK, for so long held up as the pinnacle of Leninist practice, and the one whose practice I have had the most experience of and insight into, is simply poor. There is no disgrace in failure, but willful self-denial, putting ones head in the sands, is the opposite of any genuine application of Leninism. It is always possible to for Marxists to build propaganda groups, and sometimes large ones at that, but applied ‘Leninism’ is supposed to be something with much more ambition.
Comment by ger francis — 21 December, 2009 @ 9:10 am
‘Derek’s comment 54. sadly illustrates the role he sees for revolutionary socialist organizations: to be used as free labour to support bourgeois electoral politics.’ it is a general election year, I see myself as free labour for good candidates. You can reject the Greens and Salma but why not put some energy into Dave Nellist’s campaign.
I am not of course some one who sees elections as the only part of the political process.
of course theoretical justification for total inaction may be the new line of the SWP, we shall see.
Comment by Derek Wall — 21 December, 2009 @ 9:36 am
“Duncan’s talk is of course interesting, and his great growl was a blast from the past, but his talk is concerned with experiences of at least half a century old, and longer when the discussing the high point of the 1917 revolutionary wave”
The relevence was quite simply related to the title ‘leninism is not what you think it is”. That was a theme of his talk in many ways, and I think, still has relevence. In addition the detailed account of the transition to ludicrous top down models of organisation in the name of a fictional ‘leninism’ still has relevence. One difficulty with much contemporary discussion on the left is precisely what is meant is ‘leninism’. And you’d get no argument from me about the need to re-think our practice in Britain. From where I’m standing thats what we are trying to do.
Comment by johng — 21 December, 2009 @ 11:34 am
I also think his talk was in many ways far more radical and edgy on the question of Leninism then many of the newer thinkers today.
Comment by johng — 21 December, 2009 @ 11:35 am
Hi Ger
That’s an interesting assessment of Birmingham left, having lived there for a short time I understand some of the problems encountered. I think part of the problem was that when we were attempting left unity first through STW then Respect, there were people from such a vast range of left organisatons, some people were islamophobic which caused big problems in uniting with the Muslims, no doubt big credit to Salma for holding things together initially but later her lack of politics meant she came unstuck, and was drawn to more right wing politics.
Re your point about the “failure” of the SWP - well it may be a combination of objective and subjective factors. Overall you have to go back to Marx - the ruling ideas are the ideas of the fuling class, and workers who have become so disillusioned with Labour’s betrayals are more likely to just give up altogether on politics than support a left unity project like Respect. Rather than beat ourselves up, we should give ourselves some credit sometimes - it takes a lot of guts and determination to stick to your politics and carry on the strugle year after year.
By the way Ger, so good to hear your complimentary comments about IS groups in other countries.
Comment by John E — 21 December, 2009 @ 11:48 am
Having read the Derek’s article, all I can say is that this particular contribution by Derek suggests that tub-thumping sectarianism isn’t something restricted to the Leninist left. I am curious about the hostility to moves to make the SWP more democratic from outside the organisation. Of course there are those who feel democracy=talking shop, and looking inwards. I happen to believe the reverse is the case. Perhaps it reflects a general hostility of those at the centre of campaigning to those doing political work on the ground that goes wider then the so-called Leninist left.
Comment by johng — 21 December, 2009 @ 12:31 pm
#83 John E said”…no doubt big credit to Salma for holding things together initially but later her lack of politics meant she came unstuck, and was drawn to more right wing politics”
What on earth are you on about?
Comment by Sparky Hill — 21 December, 2009 @ 12:41 pm
I’m not sure Salma has moved to more right wing politics. She is to the right of the swp, and would prob argue that this is because the swp is ultra-left, but I don’t think she’s shifted much since Respect was founded. It should also be noted that while Brum SWP have had big rows with her, she has a good record on supporting trade unionists in Birmingham when they’ve gone into struggle eg single status.
However, it is mighty amusing to listen to Ger using the last 10 years of Brum SWP as a talking point. It is in fact exactly 9 years since Ger arrived, in Birmingham, to take up his new job as… Birmingham SWP organiser. He held the job for about 2 years till the cc sacked him, so, how much of the fate of Brum swp is Ger’s fault i wonder?
Comment by swp member — 21 December, 2009 @ 12:48 pm
“Ha ha John says the SWP Jimlotto sounds like a nark or police - hes not a million miles away. If they arent paid by the British state the SWP are doing it for nothing. Twice in my experience of the SWP at Stop the War demos their members have actively aided the police in trying to get me and my comrades arrested for burning a US flag.”
Oh I remember that incident. It was right before the demo went through the wardrobe and entered Narnia.
Comment by Ray — 21 December, 2009 @ 1:01 pm
After 9/11 meetings were held in Edinburgh and Glasgow. The Glasgow meeting unilaterally declared itself the Scottish Campaign with Alan McKinnon - CP & CND - as Chair.
Comment by Anonymous — 21 December, 2009 @ 1:36 pm
#3 . How come when the SWP get involved in a campaign they are taking it over
its what they do friend its what they do.
Comment by doom and gloom — 21 December, 2009 @ 1:40 pm
John wrote: ‘The antiwar movement has been a timid and disappointing affair. The fact is it failed to have any meaningful impact on the British government’s policy in Iraq or the prosecution of the war. The reason for this is largely the political failures of the movement’
I think this is a tad unfair. I think many people, yourself and the SWP included at the time overestimtaed the impact of the Iraq war as a means of radicalisng the population and reversing the fortunes of the left. I also think that to blame the movement for failing to stop the war is daft. The problem is that the movement did not have enough representation in mainstream politics to influence that decision-it completely highlights to me why any serious left strategy has to take the question of elecotoral representation very seriously.
I’m no fan of the SWP but there contribution to the anti-war movement was important. One of the advantages of Leninist organisations is that they are able to have an impact on affairs which is dissproprotionate to their actual size and influence. In single issue campaigns centralist organisations like the SWP will always play an important mobilising role. I have seen this in practice so many times.
Comment by Owen — 21 December, 2009 @ 2:36 pm
As people here may know, “Respect - The Unity Coalition” has been removed from the Register of Political Parties from December 2009. The name cannot be used on ballot papers as a result .
http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/63167/Renamed-or-Deregistered-Parties.pdf
Comment by Passing Leftie — 21 December, 2009 @ 2:36 pm
#92 “As people here may know, “Respect - The Unity Coalition” has been removed from the Register of Political Parties from December 2009. The name cannot be used on ballot papers as a result.”
…in the north of Ireland
Comment by Sparky Hill — 21 December, 2009 @ 2:43 pm
Ger - the SWP is a failure? Interesting. If the SWP is a failure, are you then arguing that their existence or not is irrelevant to the left and the struggle? In which case would StWC and even Respect have existed without them? In fact, many of Respect’s leading lights were SWP, such as yourself. So, this seems a tad disingenuous.
I think that you often take the success of Respect and turn it into a point of political arrogance. It’s important to keep it in perspective - you have one MP (elected in no small part because of the work of SWPers) out of 646 and 14 councillors (out of 22,000) in parts of two cities. This is no small feat and should be the basis for greater successes but you should be a bit humble in your judgment of others, particularly your alma mater. The salad days can come and go and come again and those who are too arrogant when things are good can not only facilitate their decline by missing opportunities that are deemed beneath them - and, in retrospect there may have been some of this in the SWP’s response to the crisis in Respect - but such arrogance can also prevent any recovery.
Comment by redbedhead — 21 December, 2009 @ 4:12 pm
Derek (78.) I’m not at all opposed to putting energy into left candidates’ campaigns, this certainly includes imo Salma Yacoob and Caroline Lucas. (Btw I obviously can’t speak for the SWP not being a member and not even being in the UK.) My point is, one, that you are openly hostile to those groups who you simultaneously demand work for your candidates. This just doesn’t go together. And two, it’s a fact that members of SWP, SP and CP are heavily invested in various campaigns and you can’t just expect them to drop everything for this election. Activist energy is, sadly, finite.
I notice that we still have people blathering on about the supposed failures of leninism, but they are unable to explain then the utter failure of different organizing models. I’m not saying this for score keeping (I’ll leave that to Ger), it’s a serious question. How can you possibly blame leninist practice for the weakness of the UK left when non-leninist groups aren’t doing any better?
Comment by christian h. — 21 December, 2009 @ 4:19 pm
#90
“My point is, one, that you are openly hostile to those groups who you simultaneously demand work for your candidates. This just doesn’t go together. ”
Shouldn’t you expect socialists to actively promote what is in the best interests of the working class and progressive politics, even where that means working with people with negative attitudes towards us?
the SWP talk of the united front, but surely that involves working with other political forces who may be actively hostile to its core political objectives?
Comment by Andy Newman — 21 December, 2009 @ 4:34 pm
Yes Andy thats true. Who said different? Its just not usual to combine demands for co-operation with political abuse. Or, lets just say, not very sensible. If most of us want more unity (which I think we do) there is a need to think a bit more sensibly about how that might be achieved.
Comment by johng — 21 December, 2009 @ 4:43 pm
Didn’t the SWP spend the last several months trying to get a united left slate off the ground, including talking to Respect and the SP? Doesn’t the SWP work with Labour MPs in UAF, StWC, et al? That the united left slate failed is not the SWPs fault and both yourself and, very publicly, Galloway, Yaqoob, Ger, et al have opposed this effort. I’m not even saying that your strategic perspective isnt’ the right one here but you can’t really criticize the SWP on this account given Respect’s stand.
Comment by redbedhead — 21 December, 2009 @ 4:43 pm
Andy, I agree. How does this imply those negative attitudes can’t be challenged?
Comment by christian h. — 21 December, 2009 @ 4:46 pm
“Didn’t the SWP spend the last several months trying to get a united left slate off the ground, including talking to Respect and the SP? ”
NO they haven’t done that. they issued a statement saying they were going to do that, but they didn’t in fact do it.
Comment by Andy Newman — 21 December, 2009 @ 4:48 pm
Also there’s a difference between working with people, and working for people. Working for people who oppose one’s core political beliefs does, to an extend, mean to undermine these beliefs. This can be justified, but it isn’t as clear-cut as you make it out to be.
Comment by christian h. — 21 December, 2009 @ 4:50 pm
Andy (95.), as reported in various comments even on this site, the SWP did invite people to meetings in a number of locations to discuss a unity slate. Now you may all have your brilliant reasons not to talk to the SWP (or it seems each other either) but you can hardly claim this didn’t happen. Oh wait, I guess you just did claim that, even though it’s in fact wrong. My bad.
Comment by christian h. — 21 December, 2009 @ 4:54 pm
#97
Christian.
When did the SWP contact respect? When did they contact the SP? When did these meeting take place?
I know of meetings that have been taking place with the NO2EU project involving the SP, CPB and RMT, but I have no knowelde of the SWP actually approaing the other organisations, certainly not at a national level.
Comment by Andy Newman — 21 December, 2009 @ 5:04 pm
Andy (98.), I’m just repeating what I read on here, in the form of “we attended this meeting” or “haha, Socialist Worker didn’t report on the meeting they called, guess it must have gone badly”. I’d guess the SWP gave up quickly for lack of positive response. (I was a bit flippant which i’m sorry about, but I wasn’t accusing you of lying btw - just that I read different info, on this very blog.)
I’d still like the take of the proponents of “pluralist” organizing on (a) how the weakness of their organizations is caused by leninism and (b) how they intend to ensure that the leadership is in any way responsible to the members, given historical experience shows this to be a problem. Surely a serious debate of organizational forms - which Derek for one claims to want - can’t restrict itself to a discussion of only the weaknesses of only one form.
Comment by christian h. — 21 December, 2009 @ 5:16 pm
#99
I still don’t know what you are referinig to.
which meetings? who made these comments?
As far as I know, there has been no approach by the SWP to other organisations, nor had they last time I checked replied to approaches made to them by Respect following teit open latter.
please provide deatils of what you claim hapened, and if ou read it here please provide details of what you read and where.
Comment by Andy Newman — 21 December, 2009 @ 5:22 pm
Apologies for my earlier post. I did not see that the only de-registered Respect was the party’s “holding name” in Northern Ireland.
Comment by Passing Leftie — 21 December, 2009 @ 6:27 pm
Just a point of clarification.
A formal meeting was scheduled to take place in mid October,to which Respect amongst others, the Barrow Peoples party if I’m not mistaken, were invited.
However, the meeting did not take place. One of the reasons being that one of the suggestions put forward as how to proceed would have not been possible under UK Electoral Law, and therefore not sensible to pursue something that wasn’t going to work, nothing more sinister than that
Following this, Respect has offered the SWP the option of its members standing in elections using the Respect electoral name (pretty generous considering the recent history, but then there is new management in place). This has been declined up to now.
This offer was also made on a local level at meeting in south Manchester very recently, again declined.
This offer I understand still stands.
This is more about the difficulties of actually pulling these things off, and not the desire to see them work.
Comment by Richard Searle — 21 December, 2009 @ 6:43 pm
The Paul Kellog article from Links (which Derek cited) asserts that the ‘revolutionary’ left has applied, as universal organisational principles, methods which were applicable in Russia in the early 20th Century but not elsewhwere & in other times. This is an assertion which has previously been made by Louis Proyect.
—
I haven’t read Kellog’s article carefully but this is not what I say at all. I actually *insist* that the Bolshevik party’s principles and methods should be emulated, but that is not what has happened with the so-called “Marxist-Leninist” parties. Unlike the British SWP, or the American SWP that I used to belong to, Lenin’s party never expelled anybody–except Bogdanov. Even after members of the Central Committee broke discipline in 1917 to oppose the seizure of power, nobody was expelled. If you read John Reed’s “10 Days that Shook the World”, you will discover that the Bolsheviks debated each other in public that year about whether to shut down the Czarist press. This is the kind of party I advocate, not the travesties carried out in Lenin’s name.
Comment by Louis Proyect — 21 December, 2009 @ 6:45 pm
“One of the reasons being that one of the suggestions put forward as how to proceed would have not been possible under UK Electoral Law, and therefore not sensible to pursue something that wasn’t going to work, nothing more sinister than that”
Seems a bit of a thin reason to pull out of a meeting but perhaps I’m missing something. Anyway I hope there are more successful ones.
Comment by johng — 21 December, 2009 @ 7:03 pm
Incidently just glanced through Kellog’s article (will read it properly later) but it seems like a re-statement of the attitude towards the ‘ideology’ of Leninism which can be found in the Hallas speech I referred to, and which is at least the formal position associated with the IS/SWP tradition linked to that tradition’s critique of Stalinism. In other words its a critique that emerges out of the theoretical tradition associated with the SWP.
Comment by johng — 21 December, 2009 @ 7:08 pm
#104. John, I shall let others fill in the missing bits
Comment by Richard Searle — 21 December, 2009 @ 7:09 pm
johng - As I said on Liam’s blog, Paul was a member of the IS Canada Steering Committee (ie. CC) for over 20 years. And I worked closely with him for the better part of a decade. You are certainly correct to see our politics in there because, unless he has suddenly changed his views, he has actively promoted those politics for a very long time. It makes Derek’s attempt to use Paul’s article as some sort of reinforcement for his own attack on the SWP rather bizarre.
Comment by redbedhead — 21 December, 2009 @ 7:18 pm
Yes it is a bit odd. One reason I’m confident that the SWP can overcome whats been, lets face it, a pretty disasterous period, not unconnected to matters under discussion, is that there are pretty powerful conceptual resources in the tradition which provide the possibility of resolving them. Does’nt make it inevitable of course. One lesson of the last period seems to be that good politics does’nt protect you from serious mistakes or indeed from political degeneration. On the other hand I found the fashion for a return to traditions which in some ways incubated the very worst features being discussed amongst many who, faced with these problems, quit the organisation, a bit puzzling. A kind of baby and bathwater problems. I still mantain that the kind of arguments put foward by Kellog (and indeed by Hallas, the meeting I referred to containing one of the best and most concrete critiques of Zinoviev’s ‘bolshevisation’ I’ve ever heard) are very much part of the solution: but they’re not new. They’re the IS tradition itself.
Comment by johng — 21 December, 2009 @ 7:38 pm
Having good general politics is not a guarantee against mistakes or degeneration I should have said natch.
Comment by johng — 21 December, 2009 @ 7:42 pm
104 John
Respect didn’t pull out of a meeting but declined to attend it as we felt the proposed agenda was not in line with our agreed national policy and to attend would have simply spent time reiterating what was public policy - that Respect would be standing under its own name at the General Election. Those that did attend the meeting would therefore have a clear run at discussing the items on the agenda without having to worry about Respect. I’ve no idea who did attend the meeting.
We did however request another meeting with the leadership of the SWP to discuss practical cooperation for left candidates already declared or to be announced. This was delayed by the sad death of Chris Harman but did take place late November.
The outcome of these discussions on ‘practical cooperation’ is still in the air as I believe the SWP were to meet the following week with Bob Crow - the outcome of which would determine elements of their election strategy. I’ve no idea what happened at that meeting.
For Respect, we remain committed to supporting credible candidates of the left where they arise in appropriate constituencies.
Comment by Clive Searle — 21 December, 2009 @ 7:44 pm
Thats clear and to the point Clive. Thanks.
Comment by johng — 21 December, 2009 @ 7:53 pm
The rules changed somewhat after October 1917, especially as the Russian Civil War descended. Bolsheviks in the Red Army were executed by their comrades during the Civil War, for offences like getting drunk or dereliction of duty. This was part of a certain militarisation of Bolshevik discipline under war conditions, which continued even after 1921.
Comment by Mark Victorystooge — 21 December, 2009 @ 7:55 pm
Andy - “NO they haven’t done that. they issued a statement saying they were going to do that, but they didn’t in fact do it.”
Clive and Richard have answered this very well.
By the way, I did think your points on Liam’s blog were very measured, non-sectarian and intelligent. Kudos.
Comment by redbedhead — 21 December, 2009 @ 8:02 pm
Thanks for clarifying Richard, Clive. To reiterate I see nothing sinister in not attending a meeting if you decide the agenda won’t allow you to participate in a fruitful fashion. But it should be made clear that the meeting did, indeed, happen.
Comment by christian h. — 21 December, 2009 @ 8:24 pm
I stand corrected as to whether the meeting actually went ahead.
Comment by Richard Searle — 21 December, 2009 @ 8:46 pm
Mr. Newman: ‘ “Didn’t the SWP spend the last several months trying to get a united left slate off the ground, including talking to Respect and the SP? ”
NO they haven’t done that. they issued a statement saying they were going to do that, but they didn’t in fact do it.’
Well your assumptions have already been showned to be misfounded - to add to this, yes, discussions with Bob Crow and others have been underway for sometime now. Interestingly, Crow himself was initially interested in SWP involvement - I don’t know the latest however. (He amusinginly is supposed to have said, ‘Yeah… the Communist Party and the SWP, just like Die Linke in Germany!’) The Socialist Party were quite irritated at the talks however, as they and their members on the oh-so-democratic, de-facto ‘Steering Committee’ for ‘Son of…’ had hoped to keep the SWP out but Crow simply went over their heads.
Comment by Rev9 — 21 December, 2009 @ 8:52 pm
Every time this debate surfaces, it strikes me that there’s a strange asymmetry about it, which goes something like this: the SWP is told by someone that Leninism is crap, always has been (or may have been ok for about a year in a far-off country that isn’t relevant etc), but definitely is no good now, as evidenced by failure of SWP, failure of all Leninist groups, constant attempts by SWP to takeover organisations and campaigns. Ex-SWP members then chip in and tell horrific stories of being drummed out of town, or dressed down by someone who came from central office. Then some SWP members appear and tell all preceding to fuck off, saying that the SWP helped organise x, y, and z and no one else seems to be on the block. Then Respect members appear and say, we’ve got George, Salma and three councillors so you fuck off. Then SWP membs say, well, that’s partly down to the sweat we contributed. This is all interesting, and I read it between bedtimes (mine or my children’s or both), but I do have the sense that I’ve read it before. But hell, I’ve read ‘Great Expectations’ three times and it’s always brilliant.
Someone occasionally asks what seems to me an important question: if Leninism/vanguardism/democratic centralism is crap, what other models are there? what other kinds of left organisation are there that are better? If so, how and why? What evidence do we have that such methods of organisation are better?
Perhaps I scan the threads too quickly and miss the post that answers all this. Perhaps there’s an article I could read, that won’t be thousands of words long and be all about 1918. (I’m not against reading about 1918). It could be very short, and lay out a constitution, pointing out exactly how this or that clause of the constitution makes it better than the constitution of eg the SWP or for that matter of the old CPGB or whichever. I’d be up for that.
Then we could argue about quite concrete stuff, but each bit of the concrete (as it were) would be embedded within some kind of theory, and, we could hope, backed up a bit of empirical evidence from this or that campaign.
Comment by Michael Rosen — 21 December, 2009 @ 9:48 pm
That’s what I was trying to ask, Michael, and getting nowhere. Maybe you will have more joy.
Comment by KrisS — 21 December, 2009 @ 9:52 pm
Sorry, KrisS, I called you ’someone occasionally’. Not very precise, I concede.
Comment by Michael Rosen — 21 December, 2009 @ 10:03 pm
it seems to me, (one bottle of wine to the worse so apologies in advance) but that real revolutionary mobilisations are more often than not leasd by parties that have combined different radical/socialist/communist/ forces, and that whatever the final result short term victory/long term/ or quite rapid degeneration, the first task is that almighty mobilisation necessary to change society. though obvioulsy, change does garuantee success.
The FMLn in El salvador, the FSLN in Nicaruagua, the July 26 movt in Cuba, the New jewel Movement in Grenada, there are also tragic failures, the fedayeen in Iran, succesful natioanl liberation movements that could have gone further the NLf Algeria,
the ANC who were always an alliance rather than party. OK you see the point.
You see, i do think the methods of organisation, largely drawing from what we undersdtood as leninism (and yes i was a part of this, for over over 30 years) have been part of the problem. its no good asking what other org methods have achieved- The LP have achieved mass party
so have (compared to the left) the tories and lib dems, thats not the point, the point is how much more could we have achieved with our politics and a more productive method of organisation.
organisation on its own will never achieve anything, so can we point to a more productive method?
the point is we have all been operating for decades on a more or less comparable model, and while there are successes. We are not able to point to revolutionary mobilisations with the power to change society, and yet society has been changed many times in many places over the past 30 years….
117 and 118 a modest starting point i hope
Comment by non-partisan — 21 December, 2009 @ 10:14 pm
@ Louis Proyect (#103)- my apologies for mis-stating your views. Nevertheless you have come to conclusions which are not dis-similar to those of Paul Kellog.
Comment by Noah — 21 December, 2009 @ 10:18 pm
#117 Mike R
Hello again.
How about ‘down the plughole with new labour, the tories, lib-dem or anyone else ism, in order to get a foot in the door Green oppprtunism’ ?
Shorten to Green opportunism.
Sorry Derek, I’m sure the ‘Green Left’ are sickened by what has gone on with some other ‘Greens’ when they get elected as seems to be a trend, but isn’t this beggining to seem like pots and kettles?
I’m not at all convinced that the SWP can reform itself enough to root out the top down deformities that have become solidfied over the so long.
Besides their antics over the Respect debacle will take a great deal to regain their cred.
I regret that as all the ‘Left’ will continue to suffer as a result.
Comment by Halshall — 21 December, 2009 @ 11:10 pm
Halshall, you don’t have to address my post if you don’t want to, but you’ve just reproduced in miniature exactly what I’ve been describing. So,can I pick up from your post? If,what you call ‘top down deformities’ are bad/useless/dangerous/shite, what alternative structure(s) do you recommend, for what type of organisation and why? And why now? where? how?
Comment by Michael Rosen — 21 December, 2009 @ 11:58 pm
“If Leninism/vanguardism/democratic centralism is crap what other models are there?
Try reading Marx and Engels, Rosa Luxembourg and Nicos Poulantzas, you might find some clues.
Comment by Miloronic — 22 December, 2009 @ 12:01 am
I’m not looking for clues, Milo, or references and citations. I’m asking the specific people who say here that what’s on offer is crap, to suggest what would be better. In detail. With reasons.
Comment by Michael Rosen — 22 December, 2009 @ 12:11 am
#124
Michael
it is a very good question, it rather depends on what you think the purpose of socialist organisation is; what aims are we hoping to acheive, and what is the appropriate form of organisation to acheive it.
Bearing in mind that any form of human institution will have its own social dynamic, and its own institutional interests, the the “vanguard party” does have particular dangers, an well as certin advantages.
Comment by Andy Newman — 22 December, 2009 @ 12:48 am
re your first sentence, agreed. But, I don’t mind where you start. If that’s the method: determine the purpose, what you hope to achieve, why and how. Then step 2, what kind of organisation(s), campaign(s), are needed to achieve that? who’s up for that? A couple of preliminary paras…
Comment by Michael Rosen — 22 December, 2009 @ 12:56 am
Johng writes that “It’s just not usual to combine demands for co-operation with political abuse.”
For someone who regularly comments on blogs like this, I’d say you haven’t been paying attention.
One problem with discussing whether ‘Leninism’ is crap or not is first defining what it is, given that the real flesh and blood Lenin changed all the time. Do you fancy 1903 or 1917 Leninism? And which part of 1917 do you prefer? Maybe all you can say is that if there is a core of ‘Leninism’ it lies in a fierce commitment to the self-emancipatory potential of the working class with an extreme organisational flexibility.
In emphasising the ‘discipline’ of Leninism the danger is that you throw away or suppress much of the dynamism and critical thinking that socialist politics also needs. Sorry to use a citation but, as Rosa Luxemburg pointed out, socialist organisation has to be about more than “a mere transfer of the baton from the hands of the bourgeoisie to that of the central committee.” Why has the SWP expelled more people over the last few years, in conditions of legality and relative freedom of movement, than the Bolsheviks did in their entire pre-revolution existence?
The truth is, times are very hard for socialists whatever organisational model you adopt. What we really need, rather than endless back and fourth discussions like this, is some real, tangible successes. RATM beating X-factor to no.1 was a start, but if BA workers had expressed a similar sentiment to the courts and walked out anyway that would have been even better. Getting a socialist elected onto the GLA would have been something, too. Objective conditions are tough, but that doesn’t mean that the SWP, along with the entire left, doesn’t need to examine its own stuck-in-a-rut ways of relating to the world. Michael Rosen is right, though. Solutions are difficult to come by
Comment by dennis — 22 December, 2009 @ 3:13 am
I did correct myself Dennis. I said it was perhaps better to say not very sensible. And I agree that most understandings of Leninism are based on an ideological notion of Leninism which probably has its origins in the period of the bolshevisation of the comintern. That understanding probably has two prominant sources, the one being Hal Draper the other being the IS tradition. But yes, understanding things in theory is not the same as being able to carry them out in practice.
Comment by johng — 22 December, 2009 @ 3:23 am
You know you can also leave comments about the Kellogg article at the actual site of the Kellogg article, which is http://links.org.au/node/1407
Comment by Terry Townsend — 22 December, 2009 @ 7:18 am
No clues on the renegade Thornett then?
np - I missed your #33, apologies. I think my problem was much better explained by Michael Rosen, if that helps. I do think things are worth examining and discussing.
Comment by KrisS — 22 December, 2009 @ 7:45 am
#123 Mike R
If I knew the answers Mike [which I certainly do not]then I’m sure that others would too!
My point starts as a former long-term supporter (and sometime member) of IS/SWP, that I had hoped that there was the nucleus of a mass party to be there.
Now after the nonsense of the collapse of the former Respect project I have serious doubts as to whether that can ever be acheived.
Nevertheless I see within the SWP [vis IB3] much more mutterings of dissent with the way the party has been going for many years.
If this does translate into substantial change that will enable SWP to regain enough cred so that it can take things forward, then fine.
Comment by Halshall — 22 December, 2009 @ 9:59 am
I have been thinking that there could be a sustained critique of Leninism based upon analogy with the ideas of ibn Khaldunm and his analysis of how the group feeling of “asibiyya” declines as a tribal group differentiates as it adapts to the differing role of state power.
Ibn Khaldun observed that in segmented societies of strangers and brothers that there was this feeling of group identity, which is similar to the collective network of affinity groups like the Socialist Review Group, and early International Socialists, but as the tribe takes state power in the city, then the “asibiyya” is replaced by relationships of patronage.
Following machiavelli we can see that in a group aspiring to power the prince has a vested interest in allowing all his followers to identify with success, but once the prince takes power, then all prestige of sucess must be abrogated to the prince, and the “asibiyya” is replaced by realtionships of deference.
the interesting thing about ibn Khaldun’s analysis which was based upon analysis of institutional dynamics, is that he observed this was both a protracted and a cyclical process. the shift from relationships of asibiyya to patronage, and from patrionage to defrence is a protracted one, and leads to the degraded system being challenged and replaced by new more vigorous groups based upon asibiyya itself.
Comment by Andy Newman — 22 December, 2009 @ 10:02 am
#133
This wins first prize for the esoteric post of the month.
Comment by John — 22 December, 2009 @ 10:34 am
#133
Ah ‘asibiyya’
is this the key to the golden gates of socialist paradise ?
Comment by Halshall — 22 December, 2009 @ 11:04 am
Andy, no offence but there are times when you are so full of it.
Comment by swp member — 22 December, 2009 @ 11:17 am
#117: “what other kinds of left organisation are there that are better?”
(only partly sarcastically, and aware of all the bots will immediately boot up into auto-response mode): could we just have the old IS back - sans the pseudo-militaristic sense of group loyalty that developed subsequently - when it had a sense of proportion and, as a result, a sense of it’s own fallibility, a sense of humour, and an awareness that building the party is a delicate process that requires many hands and cannot simply be read off from Cliff’s terrible books about Lenin? All I ask is that the next time one of the CC is driving the wagon over the edge of a cliff, when I point this out to a party member I don’t get screamed at for twenty minutes, and that they at least be able to consider the possibility that the leadership might have gone awry before the leadership admit it themselves. ie. can we have a party where the leadership essentially work for the members, and not the other way about? you can still call it ‘democratic centralism’ if it makes you happy (I see no reason not to) It would be nice if members felt able to criticise their party publicly (even if only implicitly by, proposing alternative perspectives) rather than behaving as if the wagon-train was permanently encircled by injuns.
it’s not much to ask, and the only people it wouldn’t suit are those who would feel threatened by that kind of open accountability: ie., ultimately, people whose opinion I don’t care for anyway.
You ask for suggestions about a possible constitution, etc., but I think that is a practical matter of ensuring the right balance between unity in action and freedom of debate and influence. You don’t have to be an anarchist to see that no particular constitution or arrangement can reliably produce the required outcome. Ie. I see this as a practical question to be solved concretely by, in this case, members of the SWP. I pick on the SWP not out of solidarity with its habitual critics on this blog but out of a belief that the IS tradition, unlike any of its brand competitors I know of, actually has the political resources to solve this riddle.
For a bonus point, can we expunge all talk of ‘decisive leadership’? I am utterly fed up of ‘decisive leaders’, who invariably turn out to be nothing more than gobshites whose cover has not yet been blown.
Comment by Andy Wilson — 22 December, 2009 @ 11:36 am
# 133 Andy
Strangely Andy’s theme of ‘asibiyya’ or in more modern parlance ‘group solidarity’ reminds me somewhat of the notion of ‘class solidarity’.
At times of heightened class struggle this is strong, but as of now [and for a long time] of low or dormant class struggle it is exceedingly weak, like jelly without a mould.
So what’s required to make this mould without the strength of the class ?
Why party discipline ?!
Perhaps in the shape of Cliffite democratic (read bureaucratic) centralism.
Correct me if I’m wrong but when I was member I didn’t know that banning permanent factions included all contact between members in different branches/districts. Maybe because years ago it wasn’t such an issue, and that mere contact between branches by phone (or now e-mail)could hardly be known or controlled anyway.
It seems that things have become far more febrile and paranoid and that such contact, even if innocent is pounced upon and sometimes even sought out.
Wouldn’t it be far better to admit that suppression of factions is unworkable, undemocratic and undesirable?
The final control should be for policy to be decided at annual conference and then only to be challenged and altered by a majority at a subsequent conference.
Draft policy to be argued at aggregates, and discussed at mini-conferences (if sufficient demand) and if the need arose but not at the expense of carrying out existing policy?
Factions could be ‘permanent’ in these circumstances (with certain safeguards against known entrists).
At present,(and for many years due to the low level of struggle and constant fluctuating membership in the SWP) it seems to me that the apparatus has become a substitute for effective control by the membership.
This leaves the party at a distance from where the class, or those most active in it, are at and hence leads to it to become more inward looking and self-serving.
I say this in the spirit of an ex-comrade still close to party members, in the hope that this can encourage an open and non-sectarian exchange.
The recent Democracy Commission (DC) bulletins never really got to grips with the ‘Factions’ ‘F’ question, which was stamped on the moment it arose.
Comment by Halshall — 22 December, 2009 @ 11:58 am
Well my reading is a little less cyclical then Andy’s. I think what happened was that the SWP (with its strengths and its weaknesses) was just too small when the anti-war movement broke out. This meant that pressures towards substitutionalism and voluntarism overcame what had been a genuine attempt at re-alignment on the left. These pressures came overwhelmingly from the outside world but accentuated existing internal weaknesses rather then boosting existing strengths.
The present internal conflict is between those that recognise this and those that don’t, who, in my view, think that the only problem is that people lost their nerve. Hence the strange combination of talk of united fronts combined with sectarian attitudes towards most existing organisations and a wierd kind of hyper-vanguardism that seems alien to the whole IS tradition (and which makes these discussions rather difficult).
I think this argument needs to be got through to make it possible to play a role in what ought to be the on-going process of re-alignment given the on-going crisis of Social Democracy. So I think the stakes are quite high in current arguments and don’t see them as an apolitical blamegame for the Respect debacle (if this was the case why has it taken so long?).
In terms of vanguardism itself, my understanding has always been that in modern Britain the aspiration is to organise the already existing layer of the most militant activists into a single organisation, ie a revolutionary socialist party, in conditions were the actual vanguard in the class is actually fragmented and far from cohesive. This is to be contrasted with the belief that ‘the vanguard’ is a set of people with access to sacred texts and a particular reading of them (as opposed to those who think that some texts contain useful hints about how to go about trying to pull togeather the actual vanguard of activists that exists independently of us), or a belief that the existing organisation is, through some sort of magical process, already the vanguard. It is also to be contrasted with the old Social Democratic model which seeks to represent the entire Class and therefore see’s militants who in the day-to-day lead struggles as rivals to be tolerated when grudgingly doing canvassing.
I see the recent electoral formations as a space which ought to bring togeather the most active militants with many disillusioned with existing social democracy to open up a national space for those whose response to the crisis is to move leftwards.
Comment by johng — 22 December, 2009 @ 12:29 pm
‘For a bonus point, can we expunge all talk of ‘decisive leadership’? I am utterly fed up of ‘decisive leaders’, who invariably turn out to be nothing more than gobshites whose cover has not yet been blown.’
Sorry Andy, no can do. For all sorts of reasons, our side does need ‘decisive leadership’, its just that that leadership has to be coupled with a whole load of other things: willingness to listen, acute sensitivity to what is actually possible in a given situation, an awareness of the difference that individuals can make with an understanding that we all ‘make history, but in circumstances not of our owb choosing’. Not a complete list…
I know how damaging decisive and BAD leadership is, but the books I read 25 years ago (as a teenage anarchist) about the Spanish Revolution in particular still tell me that our class does need decisive leadership (plus a lot of other things).
Comment by swp member — 22 December, 2009 @ 12:41 pm
Just like to say ‘hear, hear’ to post #137
Comment by dennis — 22 December, 2009 @ 12:43 pm
#140: dear swp member, I called for an end to all talk of decisive leadership. there’s a subtle difference. If you really provide decisive, effective leadership it will be obvious to all no matter what you say. What we tend to get instead is people talking of the need for for decisive leadership as a cypher for letting the leadership make all the decisions, thank you very much. It’s the latter that pisses me off.
Comment by Andy Wilson — 22 December, 2009 @ 12:52 pm
#142 a wierd kind of hypervanguardism complete with references to sacred texts.
Comment by johng — 22 December, 2009 @ 12:58 pm
re 142: fair enough.
However other problems include anarchists in which leaders deny that they are leaders, and the reformist one of leaders refusing to lead when the going gets tough.
I remember a meeting during the pit closure crisis in 1992 where a labour MP refused to call for a general strike because some ppl might gte vicitimised, and it would therefore be wrong for him to call it as he was safe. We all know what happened to the pits. That’s what i call poor leadership
Comment by swp member — 22 December, 2009 @ 1:09 pm
#144: I wouldn’t call it poor leadership. I would call it social democratic betrayal and abdication.
But there are other ways of abdicating that we could consider: the criticism of democratic centralism I meet most often hereabouts is a bourgeois individualism that is horrified whenever the/a party exercises any degree of discipline or centralism since it violates the individual’s god-given right to exercise consumer preference even in the matter of politics. The problem with ‘actually existing revolutionary leadership’ is that what is often counterposed to bourgeois individualism is just bourgeois centralism, the centralism of the factory or the military (John Rees was surprising candid in his meeting at Marxism 2009 about the extent to which he interpreted Lukacs through a pair of military binoculars.) State Caps of all people should understand that capitalism exists through an interplay of freedom of consumer choice (often largely notional, I admit, but an ideology powerful enough to convince even leftists that this choice is very the essence of their freedom) and direct authority exerted by management or the state. My belief is that those who share something like a State Capitalist understanding of class society ought to be in a particularly good position to understand that proletarian collectivism does not consist merely of an abstract negation of bourgeois individualism in favour of bourgeois collectivism, but describes instead the ideal outcome of a careful process in which a collective subject is formed partly by way of it’s constitutive elements (it’s members and factions, formal or otherwise) contributing their criticism constructively to the whole. This is a matter than cannot be resolved by deputising the task of leadership to your leaders, so to say.
Comment by Andy Wilson — 22 December, 2009 @ 1:30 pm
#145: I should have added: consequently ‘democratic centralism’ is not a form of organisation or constitution but an ambition, all too rarely realised.
Comment by Andy Wilson — 22 December, 2009 @ 1:38 pm
To change tack slightly, the problem with the ‘revival of Lenin studies’ that you cite Dereck is that people like Slavoj Žižek are not Marxists at all. His material, full of interest nervetheless, is based on a very specific reading-mixture of Hegel, Lacan and what he considers to be some kind of revolutionary break. His views have obvious links to religious estacholgy as indeed do Badiou’s.
I see no revival of Lenin studies in that sense.
What perhaps is needed is a revival of the democratic Marxist tradition of Rosa Luxemberg, and what the Trotskyists call ‘centrism’ - democratic Marxism.
As for the religious ‘Marxist’ revival - from Eagleton to Slavoj Žižek etc - see TC’s statement.
http://tendancecoatesy.wordpress.com/2009/11/09/against-marxist-messianism/
Comment by Andrew Coates — 22 December, 2009 @ 1:39 pm
Mr Wilson have you been reading MacIntyre you deviant?
I will read Coates piece which seems more substantial then his usual concessions to French chauvinism.
Comment by johng — 22 December, 2009 @ 1:47 pm
#147: I don’t mind you knocking Zizek or Badiou - they are asking for it - but lay off the gnostics
I’d be interested to hear how you think your critique of eschatology actually maps on to the debate about democracy, since I would consider, eg., a revival of Luxemburgism and excellent thing, but on the other hand bow to no man in my respect for escatologists, chiliasts, millenarians and the like. Of course, Norman Cohn’s criticism of millenarians in, eg., The Pursuit of the Millenium (subtitle: Revolutionary Millenarians and Mystical Anarchists of the Middle Ages) is aimed against Bolshevism. Is that your point? I preferred the defence case argued by the Situationist Raoul Vaneigem in The Movement of the Free Spirit, and suspect that Marxism without similar moments wouldn’t add up to much more than Social Democracy.
Comment by Andy Wilson — 22 December, 2009 @ 2:02 pm
148: “have you been reading MacIntyre”
slowly, reluctantly, fearing some new indoctrination and further confusion on my part
Comment by Andy Wilson — 22 December, 2009 @ 2:05 pm
Rev9 (post 116) is wrong on almost every count. Perhaps it is advisable when arguing so strongly about the truth of things to talk to people with direct knowledge and experience of them, rather than to those without (but possibly with an axe to grind).
If the SWP approached others on the left about united front electoral work a couple of months ago, they certainly did not approach the CPB.
In the past, the CPB has held bilateral discussions with the SWP and therefore, I think it is right to assume, would have had no objection in principle to meeting them again.
Secondly, Bob Crow is free to talk to whoever he wants, at their request or his. If he has had any conversations with leading SWP members, this has not been a case of ‘going over the heads’ of the post-No2EU election coalition steering committee.
The fact is that the SWP has not attended, or been invited to attend, any steering committee meetings to date. Their request for discussions will be considered at the next SC meeting in early January.
The SC currently comprises a number of organisations and prominent trade unionists who have agreed to meet and work out an initiative for the General Election. It makes no great claims to be uniting every section of the left, or to be open to everyone regardless of their political stance or record. However, three more left organisations have asked to join in, and that is also being considered urgently. The SC is also making approaches to some local political and trade union organisations about participation
There is no reason why the SC, or its discussions, should be open for every sectarian wrecker to attack from outside or undermine from within. Especially when the British far left seems to excel in producing so many of them.
Therefore, the SC is not failing to be ‘oh-so-democratic’, but it is patiently engaging in a constructive unity process based on consensus with those who are willing and able to engage in it.
Putting together a serious, targeted initiative while respecting the traditions, policies, democracy and independence of all those involved is a difficult task. Previous failures on the electoral front confirm this. Another poster on this thread also pointed out that those involved (SP, CPB, AGS etc.) are not mainly electoral parties, and so are heavily involved in other initiatives.
I understand that the project is almost certainly going to be in a position to publish its intentions in detail next month. Then everyone will be free to comment, favourably or not, and to look to participate if they genuinely support it.
Comment by Party hack — 22 December, 2009 @ 2:17 pm
redbedhead: “johng - As I said on Liam’s blog, Paul was a member of the IS Canada Steering Committee (ie. CC) for over 20 years. And I worked closely with him for the better part of a decade. You are certainly correct to see our politics in there because, unless he has suddenly changed his views, he has actively promoted those politics for a very long time. It makes Derek’s attempt to use Paul’s article as some sort of reinforcement for his own attack on the SWP rather bizarre.”
Not so bizarre if one bears in mind that “the formal position associated with the IS/SWP tradition” (in johng’s words) may bear little relation to the actual practice of organizations in that tradition in recent years. In fact, rereading some of Duncan Hallas’s fine writings from the early 1970s gives some ironic insight into the decline of the SWP (including significant loss of membership, isolation on the left, and internal feuding and expulsions). For example:
“The root cause of the sort of sectarianism that has plagued the British left is the isolation of socialists from effective and influential participation in mass struggles. The isolation is rapidly diminishing but its negative effects – the exacerbation of secondary differences, the transformation of tactical differences into matters of principle, the semi-religious fanaticism which can give a group considerable survival power in adverse conditions at the cost of stunting its potentiality for real development, the theoretical conservatism and blindness to unwelcome aspects of reality – all these persist. They will be overcome when, and only when, a serious penetration and fusion of layers of workers and students outside sectarian circles has been achieved.” (http://www.marxists.org/archive/hallas/works/1971/xx/party.htm)
Comment by Anonymous — 22 December, 2009 @ 4:11 pm
Yes I think Duncan’s output is very relevent. However I also think that you can’t just read off the present problems from them. I don’t think the present problems can be seperated from the particular problems of today. You have to be able to read and think at the same time (not suggesting you don’t!). And thats also true of course when it comes to Lenin or any other important figure in the history of left politics.
Comment by johng — 22 December, 2009 @ 4:40 pm
Anonymous - I don’t disagree that the cure for sectarian practice is engagement with mass movements generally and the working class movement specifically. But I don’t think that the failure to do this or theoretical conservatism etc etc are/were the problem. It seems strange to me to claim the SWP are theoretically conservative given their unique analysis of Islamism, which was important to their ability to play an initiating and leading role in the StWC, for instance and, later, a similar role with Respect. If anything, the attacks on the SWP and IST, more generally, around this question resembled semi-religious fanaticism, repeating partial quotes about “opiate of the masses” like an incantation.
And you may disagree with Rees’ formulation about a “united front of a special type” but many attacks on it were exactly that it didn’t fit the orthodoxy of what was understood to be the character and nature of united fronts.
I agree with johng and, I suppose, the SWP majority on this - the problem was not engagement, it was that the dispersal & neglect of many basic party structures made it difficult for there to be a collective, ongoing analysis of activity and to provide correctives and accountability to the party leadership - ie, there was an interface with the mass movement but no way to properly assess and adjust that relationship. Again, the SWP found itself in this difficulty not by being “organizationally conservative” - on the contrary, they were willing to radically transform internal party structures, including dissolving the branches. If anything the SWP went too far for too long until it reached a crisis point. And if there was a failure of “serious penetration and fusion” it was because there was nothing for those layers to fuse with or to penetrate - no branch meetings, no branches, no paper sales, no study groups, etc.
Comment by redbedhead — 22 December, 2009 @ 4:40 pm
On the nose.
Comment by johng — 22 December, 2009 @ 4:54 pm
redbedhead: “the problem was not engagement, it was that the dispersal & neglect of many basic party structures made it difficult for there to be a collective, ongoing analysis of activity and to provide correctives and accountability to the party leadership…”
But what lay at the root of this? Surely in part a dogmatic adherence to the idea that the 1990s were the “1930s in slow motion” (in retrospect, they look like the 1920s on steroids) and a huge overestimation of the global justice movement that emerged in the late 1990s. There is no doubt that the movement was of great significance, but if you regard it as on the same level as, say, mass working-class movements in the 1930s, then you are asking for trouble. That has led to many of the problems the SWP faces today. And despite the democracy commission, it seems that the space for open debate and discussion remains very limited. I have enough sympathy with the SWP’s general politics to wince every time I read about the latest expulsion. As Hallas wrote, “unless, in its internal life, vigorous controversy is the rule and various tendencies and shades of opinion are represented, a socialist party cannot rise above the level of a sect. Internal democracy is not an optional extra. It is fundamental to the relationship between party members and those amongst whom they work.” I fear that the SWP’s current internal regime has Duncan rolling over in his grave.
Comment by Anonymous — 22 December, 2009 @ 5:06 pm
Anon, I don’t think the things you point to where of any great significance. Much more significant were the problems posed by what turned out to be a very real (and not fictional) political upturn in relationship to the relative size of the organisation. On the other issues you seem to be pre-judging the justice or otherwise of disciplinary action which it will be up to conference to dispute. I don’t think matters are as straightfoward as you think, and if the regime was really as you suggest, do you seriously imagine that there would be discussions like those above going on on-line?
Comment by johng — 22 December, 2009 @ 5:15 pm
johng: “…if the regime was really as you suggest, do you seriously imagine that there would be discussions like those above going on on-line?”
Why would a discussion on an independent website tell us anything about the SWP’s internal regime? I think the number of expulsions and resignations of prominent members is a better indicator of that. As Louis Proyect noted above, the Bolsheviks “never expelled anybody–except Bogdanov.”
Comment by Anonymous — 22 December, 2009 @ 5:36 pm
Good god Anon, read between the lines!
Comment by johng — 22 December, 2009 @ 5:39 pm
“never expelled anybody–except Bogdanov”
his brother-in-law Lunacharsky would have got expelled too if he hadn’t jumped first
Comment by Andy Wilson — 22 December, 2009 @ 5:41 pm
“1930s in slow motion” “1920s on steroids”. Look, this has been such an over-flogged statement that it has become banal. The original point - and I was around for the discussions about this - was that the 80s were over and the crisis of the system was coming back as a central feature of political life. I can’t speak for the SWP at that time but certainly in the IS Canada there was not the problem of “dogmatic optimism” but its opposite - dogmatic pessimism. I can remember, post Gulf War 1991, sitting in a branch meeting discussing this new feminist group that had launched with about 200 people in attendance (WAC, it was called). Our attitude was that in the period of the downturn movements will sometimes arise but will tend to immediately shift to the right, into identity politics, lobby politics, away from unity and mass mobilization, etc. Cliff’s formulation was like a bolt of lightning and for those of us who were the “young turks” of the time, coming out of the anti-war movement, a real shot in the arm to push forward.
I’m convinced that if there hadn’t been a push outwards, a recognition of a return to instability in the core of the system, we would have missed the general strike movement that began in Ontario in 2005 (for instance) and, later, the anti-capitalist movement and the anti-war movement. Did we sometimes overstate the amount of potential or the appropriate response? Yeah, of course. People went back and read about the CP organizing in the 1930s and sometimes tried to apply it a little too directly. But it was an important process of experimentation, of learning new models for a new period that has mostly paid off in positive experiences and learning. And by the time Seattle came around, I think that adjustments had been made in our understanding of the period - nobody thought it was the sit-down strikes or akin to the arrival of industrial unionism in the US. However, it was exciting and it was important to fight to engage with it as much as possible. And, again, mistakes were made - but they were the mistakes of trying to engage, rather than ones of trying to insulate ourselves.
Comment by redbedhead — 22 December, 2009 @ 5:44 pm
I am deeply suspicious of people who try to model either the hardness or permissiveness of the Bolsheviks in some sort of direct way. And I’m quite fond of John Molyneux’s article on party democracy in the ISJ for putting some of this in perspective. The Bolsheviks did all kinds of things we’ll never do and we’ll do all kinds of things that the Bolsheviks never did but a scholastic reading of their history provides no basis to determine the correctness of actions. Expulsions are always regrettable and hopefully uncommon - but they happen.
Comment by redbedhead — 22 December, 2009 @ 5:50 pm
AUTOBIOGRAPHY OF A FORMER STALINIST
Please share this link with those who might be interested.
http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/mybook2.html
Comment by Ludwik Kowalski — 22 December, 2009 @ 5:54 pm
On both points Redbedhead, Kudos. Molyneux’s article in International Socialism (which also provides a useful potted history of our traditions discussion of such things):
http://www.isj.org.uk/index.php4?id=586&issue=124
Comment by johng — 22 December, 2009 @ 5:57 pm
Well Ludwik that has little relevence for those who have been in an anti-stalinist tradition which has its roots in about eighty years of debate, discussion and disagreement. Some think that this tradition can simply be written off because it never held power. I’d dissent from that judgement.
Comment by johng — 22 December, 2009 @ 6:01 pm
All the SWP replies to my comment that sent this thread off on its current tangent set up false arguments and fail to address my central point.
I did not say Leninism should be confined to the dustbin of history. I did say that the record of its application in the English speaking world, and the UK in particular, is one largely of failure as set against the task such organizations set themselves. That is, all aspire to build mass parties. Yet, despite decades of practice, all have demonstrably failed in that task. The question is, why so poor a rate of return for all the toil expelled?
I believe the reasons are threefold. One, objective. Two, subjective, including politics which harbour delusions of grandeur. (Le Blanc neatly summaries the pitfalls and deserves a rereading, ‘The primary condition preventing the formation of a revolutionary vanguard party is the fact that a revolutionary vanguard layer of the working class does not exist…Those who claim to be members of a revolutionary vanguard party — independently of a revolutionary vanguard layer of the working class — are pretending to be members of such a party, creating a little organizational universe of their own, disconnected from the actual lives and struggles and consciousness of the working class. This is a definition of a sect and of sectarianism — “estrangement from the working class,” in the form of a so-called Leninist party.’) Three, a failure to theorize the challenges facing Leninists operating in conditions radically different to that of Russian in the early part of the 20th century, and a consequent failure to develop strategy and tactics required to best advance in societies where capitalists classes rule ‘democratically’.
Comment by ger francis — 22 December, 2009 @ 6:20 pm
if the effort the left devoted to sectarian back biting was devoted to analysis and engaging with the masses on key issues of the day eg the world economy, climate change http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=5017 ; stopping the fascist BNP; defending really progressive regimes like venezuela and cuba; learning from real economic successes and what they really show about an alternative economic model like china!
-come on guys-engage with the present-’leninism’ is important-but let us not be infantile-can you imagine lenin and marx spening hours on this thread? -defneing or attacking the swp is not a class struggle issue-fighting for the oppressed of the world is
Comment by sylvia ebberly — 22 December, 2009 @ 6:24 pm
Except Ger I referred explictly to these points above (although I was not replying to you). I think the notion that these questions have not been thought about is simply false. Much of the IS tradition was based around explicitly confronting these questions (in particular the problem of the absence of an actually existing cohesive working class vanguard). Of course, as I also noted, simply having thought about things is no guarantee that you will get these things correct. But in a period when the left needs to think hard about these questions its not helpful to throw the baby out with the bathwater. We need to go through all available resources.
Comment by johng — 22 December, 2009 @ 6:24 pm
Sylvia, please explain exactly how the defence of China would help in the here and now building resistance to capitalist neo-liberalism with the resources we’ve actually got. What would it mean for actually existing activists? Should we perhaps argue for the setting up of Special Economic Zones and the banning of trade unions? Perhaps this would indeed lead to a revival of a vibrant global left. I’m not convinced, but it I’m more then happy to listen.
Comment by johng — 22 December, 2009 @ 6:26 pm
In relation to the SWP, it is emerging from the end of a decade in which we have seen mass radicalization and political fracturing over the issue and war, and the ideological bursting of the neo-liberal bubble. Hugely favourable objective circumstances for Leninist parties to grow. Yet, the SWP emerge from the decade weaker than it entered it, with its reputation damaged, key personal lost and incredibly, possibly even more politically peripheral to politics in the UK than before these massive upheavals began. Johng at least has the honesty to describe the recent period as ‘a disaster’ for his organization, but against all evidence thinks the IS tradition have resolved all the ideological challenges concerning Leninist models for the 21st century. Christian h seeks to deny there are any, and ‘swp member’ just seeks to blame me for the mess in Birmingham. Which is flattering, if somewhat desperate. Like a catholic priest in uncertain times Redbedhead accuses me of ‘political arrogance’ for having to audacity to question Leninist infallibility and infers I counter pose Respect as ‘the alternative’. I don’t. It is not a Leninist organization, although it has members of Leninist organization within it. What largely passes for ‘Leninism’ in this country has failed, and will continue to fail, without more rigorous accounting of why it’s influence is so marginal.
Comment by ger francis — 22 December, 2009 @ 6:32 pm
Well Ger I certainly didn’t say anywhere that I thought the IS tradition had all the answers for the 21st century. What I suggested is that it is wrong to write off the rethinkings of Leninism which have occured. I think amongst some people writing on this there is a lack of seriousness about the conceptual resources on this question which do in fact exist (so it is that an important and justly respected figure on the Green Left can reproduce a piece written about Leninism which emerges from within the IS tradition, apparently unaware of its ideological provenance). In terms of the marginality of the Leninists. I think we have to be careful here and perhaps a little more modest. For a certainty without the SWP something like STW would have existed. However it is unclear that it would have taken such a strong line on Islamophobia and Imperialism (one simply has to compare the forms taken by anger at the war in other countries). Equally certain though is the fact that Respect would never have existed without the SWP. These are not in themselves mean feats, and would hardly have been possible if the left was really as marginal as all that.
The performance of the SWP inside Respect turned out disapointing. I have always respected your view on this, if, I have also disagreed quite substantially on the political conclusions you drew. But, it follows, if the SWP is marginal, so is everyone else. You, with some justice, once berated me on the acres of webspace I’d taken up defending certain things which perhaps I shouldn’t. But I also remember you suggesting that some of the vitriol of these arguments were preparations for who was to be held responsible for the split. Its possible that your side won on that one in the movement. But the consequences were very serious for all concerned. You also suggested that one reason to pursue the split in any case was that the sooner it happened the quicker could more productive relations be established. I think that is a desirable end, but I also think there is a problem with constantly going on about how marginal and irrelevent the left is. Truth is such accusations can turn into a downward and unproductive spiral. All of us have messed up to a degree. But the left still exists in Britain. To return to Michael Rosen’s question: how do we move foward?
Comment by johng — 22 December, 2009 @ 6:53 pm
“In relation to the SWP, it is emerging from the end of a decade in which we have seen mass radicalization and political fracturing over the issue and war, and the ideological bursting of the neo-liberal bubble. Hugely favourable objective circumstances for Leninist parties to grow.”
The trouble with this reading of the period is that pretty much nowhere did the organized left outside of Labour Parties - never mind the Leninist left - grown in a sustainable way. As I recall, part of the reason that Rifondazione went into coalition was as a result of its frustration at having not grown substantially out of the important role it played in both the anti-globalization movement and the anti-war movement. In Germany the establishment of die Linke wasn’t so much about the politics of this or that group but of a conjunctural opening that appeared as a result of the failures of the SPD and the Greens. Certainly Galloway’s politics are not worse than Lafontaine and can’t provide the basis to explain why die Linke has had a greater degree of success than Respect.
So, it has nothing to do with arguing that Leninist groups are infallible. It is the rather high horse you rode into the conversation on when you make such sweeping statements as:
The same, of course, could be said for left of Labour pluralist projects, from the ILP to Respect. In fact, no tradition, no model, no experiment has managed, in any sustainable way, to displace Labour in any significant way as the hegemonic party inside the working class. Does that mean a root and branch rethink of the whole “left of Labour” idea? After all, it should be easier to win support for a program that isn’t revolutionary, since the majority of the working class has never been revolutionary in Britain - and rarely has even a significant minority identified as revolutionary. But I don’t think, fundamentally, this has been the result of a failure to have the right model in place. Outside of key crisis moments, the opportunity to launch mass left of labour parties has not existed.
Comment by redbedhead — 22 December, 2009 @ 7:32 pm
‘What I suggested is that it is wrong to write off the rethinkings of Leninism which have occurred.’
I haven’t John. I just don’t think they are sufficient. I will return to Michael’s question later, but first want to explore some of the issues about the SWP experience in Respect.
For a time before my expulsion I had great hope the SWP was going to reinvent itself, and become a different kind of Leninist organisation than it had been up to then. It grasped the magnitude of the period post 9/11. It had the ambition to fight for the leadership of the emerging anti-war movement. It wanted out of a far left ghetto and envisaged swimming in much broader waters while retaining its core principles. It recognised that in order to do, huge internal change was inevitable. The person who theorised this was John Rees, and he outlined the challenges well:
‘Revolutionary organizations do not adapt their principles according to the circumstances in which they find themselves, but they do and should adapt their perspectives, strategies, tactics, forms of organization, habits of mind, and even turns of phrase. For a period, sometimes for a long period, such perspectives and methods of organizing become almost synonymous with the revolutionary organization. They may be all that many members know of the organization. Members may never have shared in any other way of thinking and acting in the class struggle. Any sharp turn of events, for better or for worse, will throw these received notions into question. New conditions require new methods, new perspectives. Argument, discussion, experimentation will be necessary to replace the old ways of working. Not all the arguments in support of a good cause will themselves be good. Not all that is old will prove a failure in new circumstances. And not all experiments will be successful, nor will their results always be clear. As a result such periods of change in the balance of class forces are always periods of intense discussion in revolutionary organizations. Trotsky summarized this process:
Every party, even the most revolutionary party, must inevitably produce its own organizational conservatism; for otherwise it would be lacking in necessary stability. This is wholly a question of degree. In a revolutionary party the vitally necessary dose of conservatism must be combined with a complete freedom from routine, with initiative in orientation and daring in action. These qualities are put to the severest test during turning points in history.’
http://pubs.socialistreviewindex.org.uk/isj90/rees.htm
I took these words very seriously. One of Rees’s errors was, in my view, that he did not take his own words seriously enough, and was not bold enough in following through on the logic of his own arguments. It would have entailed much more of the old being dumped. It may well have split the organization. I know from my own experience as an organizer how difficult it was to get people to actually engage, in a consistent manner, in the anti-war movement. Most were weighed down by political baggage from the past and reduced political hegemony to winning people to membership of the SWP. But the prize was something much bigger than that. It could have been a Leninist organization at the centre of something much broader and capable of more effectively forging resistance to imperialism and neo-liberalism, when the wheels are coming off both. That’s a prize worth the inevitable pain. Unfortunately, the SWP blew that chance and got the worst of both worlds. Lots of pain with nothing to show for it. It now smells like a poorer and much less attractive version of the organization I was a member of in the 1980’s. Maybe it will reinvent itself afresh but, to be honest, I don’t think so. To do so would require a rigorous and critical appraisal of method and practice. In view of the fact the current leadership have not, to my knowledge, even fully admitted their errors of political assessment over the Respect debacle, (and I’m thinking of Harman’s ISJ article in particular), what hope any greater self reflection and criticism? None. Nevertheless the challenge, and the opportunity, still remains. But to even begin to realize them requires facing up to, and trying to answer, why the latter day British Leninist experience has been largely a disappointing one.
Comment by ger francis — 22 December, 2009 @ 7:32 pm
172. ‘The same, of course, could be said for left of Labour pluralist projects, from the ILP to Respect. In fact, no tradition, no model, no experiment has managed, in any sustainable way, to displace Labour in any significant way as the hegemonic party inside the working class.’
Well, yes. But I am not even talking in such terms. I am referring to the way Leninist organizations in the UK have simply next to no purchase on the public imagination. Why? You obviously don’t think there is any cause to reflect about that fact. I disagree.
Comment by ger francis — 22 December, 2009 @ 7:46 pm
“Well, yes. But I am not even talking in such terms. I am referring to the way Leninist organizations in the UK have simply next to no purchase on the public imagination. Why? You obviously don’t think there is any cause to reflect about that fact. I disagree.”
As opposed to in what country? France? I don’t think, fundamentally, the higher profile has something magical to do with the way that the LCR organized (though I’m certain they did lots of good work - this isn’t disparaging them). For a while LO’s Arlette L had a big profile viz the presidential elections, etc. even though LO is certainly a much more staid and orthodox organization than the SWP ever was.
But I don’t think that the problem for British Leninism is separate from the problems for British left of Labour organizations more generally. However, I’d be interested in hearing specifically what you think would be a more fruitful way to organize. You’ve hinted at it but not said specifically what you mean in terms of concrete policies/structures.
Comment by redbedhead — 22 December, 2009 @ 8:05 pm
john g ,as usual do not distort what i said:
i said: ‘learning from real economic successes and what they really show about an alternative economic model like china..’
lessons: nationalise banks-controling investment; control of economy key sectors-investment and for more see below:
so let us understand some serious economics-not pathetic swipes and straw men- that is what real socialists would want to engage with now- imagine what lenin and marx would ahve been studying-not petty comments
eg conclusion about economic growth of china:
Conclusions from a serious economic analysis
http://ablog.typepad.com/keytrendsinglobalisation/2009/09/the-issue-of-whether-chinas-economic-stimulus-package-and-the-asian–growth–model-in-general-is-correct-and-therefore-its.html
We may therefore now summarise the conclusions of modern econometrics for study of the Asian and Chinese growth models.
1. In all economies the growth of inputs of capital and labour, in particular fixed investment, is decisive in economic growth. The difference between the Asian and advanced G7 economies in this regard is simply that the rate of growth of investment, and other factor inputs, in the Asian and Chinese economies is much more rapid than that in the G7 economies – itself sufficient to account for the much more rapid economic growth rate of Asia and China.
2. Growth due to technological change, or total factor productivity, in the advanced G7 economies is slow, centring on 0.5-0.6% a year and, therefore, if economic growth were dependent on total factor productivity it would be equivalently slow. There is evidence that the growth of total factor productivity is more rapid in the Asian economies and China than in the G7. Nevertheless the rate of growth of total factor productivity in all economies is far slower than the 7-10% a year growth rates achieved by the rapidly growing Asian and Chinese economies due to their high level of factor inputs. Therefore, a strategy based on very high rates of factor accumulation, and in particular very high levels of investment, is entirely rational, and indeed the only possible, route to rapid economic growth for any economy including those of China and Asia. A lowering of the rate of factor inputs, in particular a lowering of the rate of investment, would necessarily lead to a rapid slowing of economic growth.
3. Increasing participation in (a necessarily international) division of labour remains fundamental to economic growth, and maintaining factor productivity - as division of labour is the most fundamental force in the development of economic growth. The Asian economies, including China, are therefore entirely correct to orient to high levels of trade in their economies. Criticism of ‘export led growth’ is misplaced because the term systematically confuses a high and increasing level of trade, i.e exports and imports, in the economy, which is desirable, with a large trade surplus – which is not necessary and, in the case of China, has only existed for a relatively short period during its reform period.
4. The ‘Asian model’ of high levels of investment and export led growth is therefore not only practically successful but is in accord with economic theory and the findings of modern econometric research.
It is evident, therefore, why critics of China’s economic policy, and of the Asian growth model, do not refer to the findings of modern statistical research on economic growth. Because it would disprove their arguments given such work demonstrates that in all economies the division of labour and the accumulation of factor inputs, in particular investment, is the decisive factor in growth. The export led growth and high investment levels of the Asian economies is an entirely correct economic strategy.
Comment by sylvia ebberly — 22 December, 2009 @ 8:23 pm
Sylvia have you strayed on to the wrong thread? I think we are debating party organisation and after the initial shouting its getting quite interesting!
Comment by Derek Wall — 22 December, 2009 @ 8:33 pm
apologies Sylvia can see your comment relates to a distant comment I missed!
Comment by Derek Wall — 22 December, 2009 @ 8:35 pm
derek
i undertand yuor frustration-i know my point is a diversion-except it is trying to address the fact that the more some people spout about leninism-the more they seem to miss the point-its basis in marxism-dialectical and scientific materialism-based on the real world etc and not abused as a chance to throw mud and distortions-which johng seemed to do quite easily-
tactical issues are important
as are organisational issues-but let us not fetishise them as an alternative to class struggle
the errors of most left groups are i belive a product of their poor anlysis of the situatin they are in and what can be achieved concretely then (the weak link of the chain) combined with often very difficult objective situation-revoutionary situations rarely come
obviously a half decent organistion should be able to steer around these-but it is a massive challenge for us all given the power of the beourgoisis to divide the left-on key issues as seen on this blogeg islamophobia, sinophobia
let us start with the correct economic and political assessment of the global situation- organisational navel gazing plays little good roles in history-and gives too much space for those who have ’sectual fixations’- often due to their own personal past history-
let us move on-work together- and discuss the poltical situation first and last-finding the weak link of the chain or mounting the best defensive campaign which may the best next step-and alliances with the masses and those to the right is what is needed-not navel gazing on the left-organisation cannot substitute for politics-although i do recognise good sensible tactical organisation is crucial and follows from the correct assessment
Comment by sylvia ebberly — 22 December, 2009 @ 9:02 pm
Hi Sylvia,
while I suspect I have political disagreements with you, I was mistaken about your post, I didn’t realize it was a reply to a point about China, sorry for any confusion.
Comment by Derek Wall — 22 December, 2009 @ 9:53 pm
Ger (170.): Christian h seeks to deny there are any [challenges concerning Leninism in the 21st century],
That’s just a flat-out lie. To quote myslef from comment 72.: “It’s all well and good to point to problems with leninist practice (ad god knows there are many”.
What I am insisting on, but what Ger’s somewhat weird triumphalism about the apparently revolutionary prospect of up to three MPs makes it impossible for him to address, is that we look at the whole picture: how have different organizational models fared, what strengths, weaknesses do they have? As opposed to discussing only the weaknesses of only one model - this seems to me a waste of time.
Comment by christian h. — 22 December, 2009 @ 10:04 pm
Redbedhead, as I said already, it is Leninism in the English speaking world, particularly Britain, that I am talking about. And no, I don’t think you can reduce Leninist failings in the UK simply to objective conditions. As regards more ‘concrete policies/structures’, that is a secondary issue for me. More important, as I put it earlier, is theorizing the challenges facing Leninists operating in conditions radically different to that of Russian in the early part of the 20th century’ and the consequent ‘strategy and tactics required to best advance in societies where capitalists classes rule ‘democratically’’. Unless someone can illustrate otherwise, I think the body of theoretical work developed by latter day Leninists is thin on the ground, and what’s been done, has not been up to the task. I feel this is a major factor to contributing factor to the failures of modern day Leninist practice in the UK.
Christian, I have not been ‘triumpalist’, I said specifically I am not holding Respect up as ‘the alternative’, (it is not a Leninist party!) nor am I much interested in discussing other models. I am interested in specifically the balance sheet of Leninist practice particularly in the UK. You apparently feel this is a ‘waste of time’, presumably because you don’t think it is necessary, which underscores my original point. Now, that is weird.
Comment by ger francis — 23 December, 2009 @ 12:31 am
New SWP website online, if you want to take a gander…
Comment by DM — 23 December, 2009 @ 12:38 am
Still interesting but I’m not sure there’s been much progress since my post 117. I could posit a theory that one of the reasons why the marxist left/left of labour movement doesn’t develop is because very intelligent participants keep getting waylaid with trying to make sure that they deal with all the arguments and theories and history of the guy they’re arguing with as if this somehow clears the air. But it doesn’t.
So, I’ll try again: if people here would like there to be a (or improve an existing) left of labour organisation, what would its ideal structure be? if people here would like there to be a new or improved marxist revolutionary left party, what would its ideal structure be? if people think that even if you think you’re a marxist and a revolutionary but there isn’t any point in trying to have a ‘democratic centralist’ organisation, then just say so, and posit the alternative and explain why and how that will be the vehicle for your ideas. (I’m reminded of the IMG’s move decades ago, where marxist revolutionaries said something along the lines of ‘there’s no point in trying to organise a marxist party, let’s all join the Labour Party’).
Comment by Michael Rosen — 23 December, 2009 @ 12:45 am
If we were in any kind of organisation that had ‘real’ work to do: digging a road, planning a health centre, getting a show put on etc etc, we couldn’t have the luxury of having conversations like the ones on this thread. We just wouldn’t be able to do the work. Very nearly all the above is a conversation about what we could do or might do or what’s wrong with what someone else is doing. What’s going on here is that no one has any ‘vested’ interest in talking with anyone else with a view to getting a job done, which in this case, I would identify as ‘inventing an organisation that can take the ideas of socialism and marxism forward’. I’m not against talking about talking. I’m not against ifs and buts and wouldhaves and mighthaves. But at some point, if people are serious, it has to move on to, ‘now what do we do about creating an organisation?’ If people here think that either the SWP or Respect or SP or CPB has cracked it, that’s fine. But a lot of the comments here, say that one or all of these haven’t cracked it. In which case, formulate away. Come up with the goods. Or at the very least, suggest some goods.
Comment by Michael Rosen — 23 December, 2009 @ 1:18 am
Ger (182.): presumably because you don’t think it is necessary,
You can presume all you want, but all it means is you are making shit up. Or maybe you’re too dense to understand that studying leninism in isolation from the experience of the left in general and objective conditions in society is simply pointless.
Comment by christian h. — 23 December, 2009 @ 1:22 am
Calm down Christian.
Comment by ger francis — 23 December, 2009 @ 1:27 am
Look you may just not have read a hundred something comments carefully, fair enough it’s one of the inherent problems of blogs (they move too fast). But to insist on an outright falsehood when it’s pointed out to you is rather bad form, to put it as neutrally as possible.
Comment by christian h. — 23 December, 2009 @ 1:39 am
Jesus, Christian. Lighten up. Ok, you are more perplexed about the crisis of latter day Leninism than I gave you credit for. But your reaction is still OTT. I made a very fleeting reference to you, and I think you have done your own fair share of evasion and misrepresentation of what I am saying. Whatever. I’ll get over it.
Now, quickly moving on…
I am not ducking your question Michael, I just don’t think it is the right starting place. I am more interested in analysis’s as to why the building of mass Marxist currents has failed in the UK. I believe one reason to be a failure to theorise more fully the nature of the breast we are fighting, and the strategy required accordingly. The structures and forms of organization would flow from such analysis. Now, maybe someone out there is aware of some good stuff already written, other than what Perry Anderson wrote in the 1970’s, in which case please forward the links. Johng normally plays the role of IS archivist, maybe he might be able to highlight something from that tradition.
Comment by ger francis — 23 December, 2009 @ 2:12 am
“Ok, you are more perplexed about the crisis of latter day Leninism than I gave you credit for.” - This just struck me as a terribly funny thing to say/write.
And then I laughed out loud: “I believe one reason to be a failure to theorise more fully the nature of the breast we are fighting…”
On a more serious and dour note, in keeping with all such discussions of Leninism, I just find it odd to conceive of thinking about the “failures” of Leninism in abstraction from looking at the rest of the left, of which it is a part. If other left currents and orientations were doing resoundingly better then we should look at those currents and see what it is that makes them so successful compared to Leninism; determine how much is contextual vs integral (if that is the right word), etc. But I don’t think there’s any sort of consistent record of success - outside of conjunctural particularities, like Germany - that allows us to say “ah ha! This is the way to go” - though there are things, of course that we can take from the German experience.
But if you look at the UK - and the same applies to North America - it is not the case that there are other, alternative leftist models that have established themselves as stable mass currents. In fact, there has been no stable mass radicalization in a generation or more. The sixties produced significant radical organizations, mass movements and a mass consciousness of the possibility of radical social change that hasn’t existed since. Part of this has to do with the nature of the 60s radicalization and the general, almost naive, confidence that youth felt having grown up in an era of prolonged economic boom - a boom that transformed the character of the working class, leading to the Civil Rights movement, the 1968 explosion, etc. That optimism is gone. There is no mass affluence for working people that could sustain it, just a long slow, grind downwards. And without the optimism/confidence generated by the strength of the system itself, there is an even greater need for class based revolts to sustain and develop radical organizations - including those of Marxists. But while the last generation has seen some magnificent struggles - here in Canada we had a general strike movement in Ontario that went from city to city in the mid-90s (and the anti-capitalist and anti-war movements). But nowhere has any movement really broken through and until one does, I’m convinced - all the theorizing in the world won’t solve what is fundamentally a material problem. That’s not an argument against theory nor am I saying that we shouldn’t try to do things better but the size of the objective barriers so dwarfs the feeble forces of Marxism (or any radical ideology) that the best we could do (and it was often pretty impressive) is to work through alliances - ie. to be the small wheel that turns a bigger wheel.
Comment by redbedhead — 23 December, 2009 @ 4:26 am
#185
The point is Michael that most of the comments posted which are critical are born of the experience of having worked and been involved in campaigns and United Fronts with members of Leninist formations. It isn’t for many people merely an exercise in having a go for the sake of it. A mistrust now exists as a consequence of those negative experiences which has had the effect of making people reluctant to work with certain groups again.
#190
I think redbedhead that without perhaps realising it you’ve summed up the problem with vanguardism when you write ‘to be the small wheel that turns a bigger wheel.’
The problem with this outlook - i.e. that in any given campaign or such like a vanguard group should see itself as that small wheel turning a bigger wheel made up of those not in the party - the problem here is the lie which sits at the heart of this. People are not wheels to be turned at the instigation and whim of others. They like to be treated with honesty and with respect. So when you have a small group of activists, dedicated and hardworking though they may be, who arrive at the table with an agenda - i.e. the aims and objectives of their party - at a certain point down the road it can and does alienate others. A prime example is when you have a platform of speakers at a meeting, say an antiwar meeting, and one speaker is introduced as a member of Stop the War, another as a member of the PSC, and another as a trade union rep. The fact that all three happen to be members of another organisation is never mentioned. This is a lie. And it pisses people off when they find out they’ve been lied to because it changes the dynamic of the meeting and casts doubt about the intentions of those involved.
Do you see what I mean?
In my opinion the entire theory of the United Front by Trotsky is fatally flawed for this basic reason. For it advocates the creation of an inbuilt tension and contradiction before the tasks at hand can even begin.
Comment by John — 23 December, 2009 @ 5:13 am
‘A prime example is when you have a platform of speakers at a meeting, say an antiwar meeting, and one speaker is introduced as a member of Stop the War, another as a member of the PSC, and another as a trade union rep. The fact that all three happen to be members of another organisation is never mentioned. This is a lie. And it pisses people off when they find out they’ve been lied to because it changes the dynamic of the meeting and casts doubt about the intentions of those involved.’
John - that would be an extremely poor united front meeting, with a totally unbalanced platform. Such abominations have happened of course (and sometimes people pull out of meetings and you end up with a platform yoiu never planned for) but noone would defend such practice.
Comment by swp member — 23 December, 2009 @ 8:42 am
190. ‘That’s not an argument against theory nor am I saying that we shouldn’t try to do things better but the size of the objective barriers so dwarfs the feeble forces of Marxism’
Yes, yes, the world is such a tough place. Except, here in the UK, its not. We have seen mass radicadaisation over war, political fracturing of traditional voting loyalties, and the ideological bursting of the neo-liberalism, conditions much more favourable for the growth of radical left parties this decade than anytime since the late 60’s. Yet, we go into a general election with the main Leninist current more irrelevant than ever. Once again, you refuse to examine whether Leninist theory have compounded objective conditions and significantly contributed to the fact that the forces of Marxism are so ‘feeble’, as you put it. Instead, you are more comfortable donning priests robes and pronouncing all truth already exists. That ‘feebleness’ cannot be reduced to this years fall guys in the SWP. It is rooted in something much more fundamental, a failure of method. One indicator, is that the organization simply has no long term strategy. Everything is reduced to the immediate challenge of ‘building the party’, with engagement in this or that campaign completely subordinate to that objective. As to how socialist currents can win political hegemony, its all hold your breath till some 1968 style explosion. Or some re-run of 1970’s trade union militancy. As if afterwards, by some process of permanent revolution for sects, decades of irrevelence will be overcome in one shift jump. They won’t.
Comment by ger francis — 23 December, 2009 @ 9:18 am
This is exageration:
‘conditions much more favourable for the growth of radical left parties this decade than anytime since the late 60’s.’
The ‘much more’ in that sentence seems particularly inappropriate. Much more favourable than the ’70s? Similarly, the description of Leninist politics as being characterised by ‘decades of irrelavance’ is contradicted by your own accounts of the SWP in STW above. A small organisation found itself playing a key role in a mass movement. That’s not irrelevance. It may not have been built on but its not irrelevance.
NO radical left current has grown in a way that is consistent and broad based in the UK. The SSP fractured, after achieving a level of representation for the hard Left unparallelled in UK history post WW2. Respect achieved great things, but also fractured (and yes I’d accept that the swp was part of the problem). However, even without that fracture Respect has unfortunately yet to show that it can grow outside of one community.
So while Leninism clearly has not provided perferct solutions for the contradictory opportunities of the last decade, neither has any other tradition that I can see. And in my city, if we see the kind of ructions there have been in Ireland or look likely in Greece, I can’t see people better positioned, however unsatisfactory the SWP’s strength might be. Respect for example has got lots of votes and serious representation, but what capacity to act in a determined manner when the issue is not one that is a traditional part of the Respect agenda?
On another topic, the new SWP website is up now, and in a historic shift, party notes is now available for all to see, not just to ex-members who’ve slipped under the radar or got some clandestine email forwarding arrangement.
There is even, shock of shocks, a link to news about ‘Viva Palestina’ under the STW bit. On the front page. Who’d have thought it?
Comment by swp member — 23 December, 2009 @ 9:41 am
Only in Britain could a thoughtful discussion on Leninism become a pro/anti SWP haranguing match.
The first point to note about Leninism is that it was succssful- it threw off the yoke of Tsarist imperialism and initiated the first ever entire State in the hands of the toiling masses. For that reason alone it deserves serious study by anyone wishing to emulate that achievement.
The second point is that other organisational forms and perpectives have achieved the same, in China, Vietnam, Yugoslavia and Cuba. But not, yet, in an advanced capitalist country (although their share of factory workers in the population s declining towards pre-1917 Russian levels).
It is also the case that the organisational form of the Boslheviks underwent serial transformations prior to the Revolution (and indeed afterwards). AND that Lenin advocated the same for Western European communist parties, even when they were basking in the reflected glow of the Russian Revolution (eg. his advice to British Communists and their approach to the Labour Party).
Therefore, it cannot be the case that there is ‘Leninist’ organisational blueprint for revolutionary activity in any country. But we can argue that one of the many achievements of Lenin was to provide a series of organising principles of the revolutionary party.
Removing the filth of his bourgeious detractors and the pollution of his Stalinisnist ‘emulators’, and rediscovering the principles of Leninism remains a key task for socialists.
Among these we might include; the utmost tactical and organisational flexibility, an unstinting connection to the masses, a determination to achieve the objectives of the united front above all other considerations (remember, he wrote joint pamphlets with pacificists at the outbreak of WWI), an openness in debate both within and without the Party, a rigourous analysis of the motion of all classes in society, a genuine internationalism without fetishing organisational forms (he jumped for joy at news of the 1916 rebellion, British sociaists did not), a promotion of the separate organisation of oppressed minorites, most especially the oppressed nationalities of the Tsarist empire, and many more.
The objective conditions for the creation of a mass Leninist Party in Britain do not currently exist. But the subjective failures of self-styled Leninists are related to failings which at best are a charicature of Leninism.
Comment by krupskaya — 23 December, 2009 @ 10:09 am
Ger just briefly. I don’t disagree with your assessment of John Ree’s contribution during that period, and, remarkably enough, I share some of your assessment of where things went wrong (I think in many ways other things I’ve said on this thread should make that obvious).
In terms of re-assesments of the period and your complaints about the absence of such, I think thats partly what current discussions will allow.
But all this does leave out of account what the left as a whole should do now.
Comment by johng — 23 December, 2009 @ 11:15 am
What the left should do now is unite in a broad organisation, call it a party if you like, and attempt to put up some alternative to neoliberalism and New Labour. It would need to do that following the best example of the SSP and Respect - by building local roots, consistent and imaginative campaigning, etc. Tragically, that moment may have passed. There’s too much mistrust and cynicism. Many good activists or potential activists who were enthused by the prospect of a united approach may have been to scarred by the experience to want to come back for more.
I think there are ‘two souls of socialism’, notions of change being driven fundamentally either from above or from below. If you like, reformism and revolutionary politics. I don’t think that divide has dissapeared or is unimportant. I think revolutionary socialists do need to organise together. However, the SWP does also need to accept that it will not become a mass revolutionary party as a result of its own quantatitive growth. It made a move towards regroupment on the left with the SA and Respect, but refused to follow the logic through. If it is to be part of a broader party or coalition, it must bend every effort to build it rather than simply see it as another united front from which to recruit people to its own organisation. It should put forward its arguments within it, but at the same time seek to avoid any perception that it is seeking to control or manipulate it.
Even if all this were done, it would still come up against the fact that the majority of people, although pissed off with the system, generally do not see far reaching social change as a realistic possibility, and that working class organisation is still weak after suffering years of defeat and the near collapse of the traditional areas of strong trade unionism. And yet, despite the doom and gloom about how useless the left is going on here, it has scored successes over the past few years, and groups like the SWP do have a wealth of experience to bring to any united left initiative.
Comment by dennis — 23 December, 2009 @ 11:58 am
Oh I would inject one note of disagreement. I don’t recall at all comrades being chary of involvement in STW. Perhaps Birmingham was different. However I think one of the lessons from the sharp turns of those years, is that, whilst they must be made, how you make them matters. Failure to understand this can result in simply driving off a cliff rather then making the turn neccessary to stay on the road. It is very important to make every effort to carry people with you.
Comment by johng — 23 December, 2009 @ 12:01 pm
Michael Rosen: “I’m reminded of the IMG’s move decades ago, where marxist revolutionaries said something along the lines of ‘there’s no point in trying to organise a marxist party, let’s all join the Labour Party’”
That’s a caricature Michael and you know it.
The IMG argued then, and many of us still believe now, that the process of building a marxist (revolutionary) party will be uneven, and that it will go through a series of splits and fusions in both the left organisations and the traditional organisations of the working class, including the Labour Party.
What it certainly won’t be achieved by is by individual numerical growth of one party that believes it has all the right answers. That is the British (or more accurately the English) model of left sectarianism, and unfortunately it has become endemic since the 1960s, with first the SLL/WRP, then IS/SWP and then Militant/RSL all giving it a go with varying degrees of success and failure.
One of the strengths of first the SA and then Respect was that an alternative perspective was tried that showed some considerable promise (and still does), despite the subsequent blockages and damage created by a retreat to the old method by firstly the SP and then the SWP. No2EU had some potential also but is also precariously placed.
Compare the success of the models elsewhere, particularly those led by the european sections of the Fourth International such as in Portugal (Left Bloc), France (NPA) and Denmark (Red-Green Alliance).
Interestingly though, although the IMG practised deep entryism in the Labour Party for the 1980s, the process of splits and fusions within the organisation was significant with a shedding from the ways of the sectarians and those who did want to liquidate the marxist party (such as the ‘Socialist Action’ group) and a regrouping of people from different traditions, including those with experience of Healyite, Lambertiste and other organisations. The subsequent failure to make a breakthrough was more to do with the objective situation, a decade of thatcherism and the massive move to the right in the Labour Party, rather than any failure of specific tactics.
It is noteworthy that those who continue the IMG tradition, based on the perspectives of the FI, ie those now in Socialist Resistance, were among the first to recognise the importance of the SSP, SA and Respect and are still making a major contribution to developing both left unity and a wider process of creating a socialist alternative. It’s a hard road with ups and downs, but there are no short cuts.
Comment by Prinkipo Exile — 23 December, 2009 @ 12:11 pm
I don’t disagree with your broad perspective Dennis. I would say that it is entirely false to imagine that the SWP in its involvement either with STW or Respect believed that the main priority was to recruit to the SWP. Mistakes were made but that was’nt one of them.
Comment by johng — 23 December, 2009 @ 12:36 pm
#200
I think John G is correct here.
the paradox of the SWP, and what actually distinguishes then from the SLL/WRP tradition, is that depsite formal politics of party building that are quite similar to the WRP, there is a culture (that is actually embedded in the SWP’s DNA) of genuinely throwing themselves into building the social movements and single issue campaigns. Often with real success.
the essntial tragedy is that this tradition is in a rather under-theorised way not fully compatible with the routine party building; and the full timer infrastructure sort of rewards the conservative bums on seats model of measuring success; so when the SWP does really good work in the movements, it is also on a piece of elastic that is likely to yank it back again.
Also good and constructive engagement in the single issue campaigns also bears with it an again under-theorised legacy of how athe relationship between the decision making structures of the campaigns and the decisions making structures of the SWP should interact. The stuff in IB3 recognises this issue as a problem, but does what Cliff would call “using an organisational solution to a political problem” - putting comrades into causcues to discuss trade union or “united front” work only formalises the current political uncertainty into a structure, it is not a political theorisation of the how to work.
Comment by Andy Newman — 23 December, 2009 @ 12:44 pm
Mike Rosen’s questions at #184 and #185 remind me of a conference I took a bookstall to in Brighton some time back, which featured among others Hilary Wainwright delivering her “it’s time the left did some new thinking” speech. Packing up afterwards, the organisers were chatting about how it had gone, and one of them yelled in frustration “I’m tired of hearing people talk about new thinking - whay don’t they *do* some?” It’s still a good question.
Comment by chjh — 23 December, 2009 @ 12:50 pm
“I’m tired of hearing people talk about new thinking - why don’t they *do* some?” It’s still a good question.’
Of course it’s a good question, just not the one the rest of us are trying to discuss. And to illustrate the point further, ‘swp member’ evades the real issue. Again. The exact relevance between now and the 60’s or 70’s is irrevelant to this discussion. What is revelant, is that this decade has been a hell of a lot more favourable for Leninist politics than previous ones. Yet as we approach the end of it the largest Leninist current is in a weaker state arguably than it was at the beginning. Is not some reflection on why that’s the case, that goes beyond denouncing this or that person as ‘renegades’ and abusive Shakespearian quotes, not in order? And it should be possible to do so with reference to the experience of the SWP as the largest Leninist current, without those SWP members on this site getting all defensive and avoiding the argument. Le Blanc, who recently joined the ISO, provides a good antidote and example of someone who has the self confidence to critically evaluate his own experiences, without obviously rejecting or denying them.
Looking back on my own 20 odd years inside the SWP Le Blanc’s comments about the dangers of ‘pretending’ to be members of such a genuine revolutionary as opposed to being in essentially one of the larger propaganda groups, and of ‘creating a little organizational universe of their own, disconnected from the actual lives and struggles and consciousness of the working class’ rings true. And that’s even with being active in a trade union branch and involvment in anti-fascist, DCH and STW campaigns. If there is one thing that electoral politics does it is to disabuse you of any illusions about who you are, and what you actually represent. It is simply brutal in that regard. And the general election results may well further illustrate how brutal. But even if we ultimately fail in what we are trying to do, at least we have attempted to establish, as Krupskaya puts it in a very helpful contribution, an ‘unstinting connection to the masses’, and in order to even survive we are forced to constantly aspire to that goal. Her comments contain the beginnings of some wisdom on the real issue we should be discussing.
Comment by ger francis — 23 December, 2009 @ 1:34 pm
Ger - I don’t think anyone is trying to avoid the discussion. But it feels like you’re being sphynx-like, throwing out the question repeatedly and then responding to various answers with “no, that’s not it” but not really putting forward concretely what you mean by “errors” and “failures.” So far, the only thing I can recall you saying is that the SWP lacks long-term planning and that electoral work is key to maintaining an “unstinting connection to the masses”, which provides a corrective to one’s political perspectives.
Now, the second point is clear enough, though I’d say that electoral work is only one means of maintaining that connection and not even the most important one since most of the connection is measured through anonymous and atomized voting practices. But it certainly gives you “brutal” feedback.
I’d be interested to know what you meant by the earlier statement about a long term plan. To my mind there is a long term plan but there is a flexibility, driven by context and opportunities that determines the path. Sometimes those opportunities last several years - as in StW - and sometimes they are more short-lived, like the Criminal Justice Bill stuff from the 90s.
As for missing opportunities this decade, I stand by what I said viz the 60s but I do think that, also, you are right on something and Andy points to this. The SWP - and I would include us in Canada - threw everything into the anti-war movement. I can remember saying to someone that the SWP could move hundreds of thousands or they could have recruited thousands - they chose to do the former. In retrospect, I’m not sure that we had to make that choice. I’ve mentioned more than once the general strike movement we had in Ontario in the 90s. We didn’t dissolve branch structures during that movement and we still managed to focus people on mobilizing for those in a big way. We put on buses and filled them to take people to the cities where the general strikes and demonstrations were happening. We helped in our small way to organize picketing. At York U we were central to organizing students to set up picket lines when Toronto went out on strike in 96. If we hadn’t had meetings, poster runs and paper sales on campus we would have gotten nothing out of that movement. With the anti-war movement and even the anti-capitalist movement, we dropped the “routine” to try to interface directly with the movement but all we really did was become part of the movement with no means to develop the organizational expression of our particular politics. We could go for a long time in that mode - and did - having a significant political impact in the movement around forms of mobilizing, tackling Islamophobia, etc. But ultimately, it left us in danger of depletion and dissolution with no way to replenish, let alone grow, the natural attrition one gets of members.
Comment by redbedhead — 23 December, 2009 @ 3:17 pm
I also think Ger’s implication that current discussions can be reduced to the sharper end of polemics is jaundiced to say the least. We certainly need some rethinking and thats what we’re attempting to do. I really don’t understand constant accusations of defensiveness. I’m really unsure that I have been.
On more general issues though. I’ve just read about plans for higher education which will involve reducing undergraduate courses from three to two years: in other words a gradual slide towards simply abolishing higher education. I think we’re going to see the same thing right across the board in terms of public services. We really are entering uncharted waters here.
I’m all for frank discussions about past mistakes. I think I’ve been more then frank, not just here but elsewhere. But we also need to open our eyes to the fact that we are entering as turbulent a period as most of us have ever experianced politically.
New thinking is needed for sure. But it needs to involve a bit more then simply recycling discussions we’ve been having about 2007 for the last couple of years.
Again, I’m not being defensive. Its just that all these frameworks may be dead and gone in six months.
Comment by johng — 23 December, 2009 @ 4:17 pm
The problem with this thread is that it’s really an attack on the Trots from those who place their hopes in reformism and electoralism. It has very little to do with a critique of Marxism and as such doesn’t require much of a defence.
Ger mentions that this decade should have seen a revival of the SWP. Well that would be a very odd phenomenon considering the fact that the left as a whole is far weaker than it was. As this is the case it begs the question whether this is to do with so-called “Leninism” (the latest euphonism used for trot bashing) or other factors.
If it has been just a problem with the Trots then why have all Trot organisations across the board suffered the same fate? This seems rather strange considering that each organisation operates differently. It’s not like any other left current has taken advantage of this decade considering the moribund state of the numerous non-Trot left organisations around.
The SWP has gone through changes but it’s not fundementally different to what it was at it’s inception. So this theory that Leninism has failed ties in with the level of class struggle. When it was much higher the SWP grew and now it is much lower the SWP has lost members. Hardly rocket science and definitely not the basis for a reformist theory that the Trots are out of touch.
Comment by Ray — 23 December, 2009 @ 4:59 pm
Re some very quick thoughts, got a meeting of Hall Green Respect supporters to attend and Christmas shopping to do beforehand!
Fair enough John, I was not thinking about you in my comments about defensiveness so should have been a bit more careful and less sweeping in my replies. Apologies for that.
I am going to ignore Ray because, frankly, I just think he always lowers the level.
In relation to redbedhead’s point, I am not just saying the SWP lacks long term strategy, which it simply does not have in any meaningful sense of the concept. I am saying that the Leninist tradition in total, in the English speaking world, has under theorised the nature of capitalist rule in advanced capitalist societies, and its enduring ability to ability to rule by ‘consent’, while essentially reducing the challenge of winning influence and hegemony to ‘building the party’.
If that is a crass caricature please forward me some references to theoretical work to illustrate the contrary, and which outlines a richer, more detailed analysis, and the corresponding strategy and tactics required. It is impossible to provide a blueprint, but not impossible to provide some broad-brush strokes. And certainly not impossible to illustrate a method. I suspect the SWP’ers will be hard pressed to find what I am asking for. But, I am happy to be proved wrong. The little that does exist that grabbed me was the final chapter of Harman’s book on 68. I have not read it for a while but from memory he attempts to apply some Gramsci. Callinicos has some provocative fleeting hints in a recent academic book which I have quoted a few times on this blog. I have not read Harman’s ‘Socialism in the 21st Century’, so maybe there is something there. We’ll see. But speak to any SWP member about what do they think they are building, how do they conceive a mass socialist current developing, and you’ll find yourself having a very short conversation. It is pretty much reduced to some ‘big bang’ theory of revolt with a revolutionary party mystically emerging. That’s not Leninism, it’s religion! You might as well take up prayer.
This is not to say, as I think somebody might have inferred I was saying, that everybody’s effort has been futile. Of course not. That dominant practice has proved effective up to a point, and in one very important sense. It has kept alive a tradition, however inadequately. It has inspired resistance. It has helped create important networks, education, caderise etc etc. All essential ingredients for building resistance.
But it has also proven to be incapable of going much beyond that, especially when it comes to contesting capitalist parties on the terrain which the vast majority of people engage in politics. That work, is much more complex, challenging and fraught with pitfalls, yet absolutely essential. Redb says, to paraphrase, ‘yeah, electoral work is important, but one of many important areas’. Wrong. Because it is the medium by which the vast majority of people engage and understand politics, it is more important than most. He reflects a general attitude, certainly within the SWP, which has critically hindered its own, and our collective, advancement.
Both times the SWP attempted to engage in this area of work, they failed. Most dramatically and revealingly in terms of method, with the Respect experience. And the failure was not down to bad luck, or objective conditions, or personality glitches of key people, or this or that poor decision, (and I really do not want to go over again the he said/she said stuff around the split). Ultimately it is down to method. It was down to the limitations of the Leninist model it has created. In short, it is down to the fact that their own method disables them, despite their better instincts, from adhering faithfully to Marx’s guide for communists, that we have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole.’ And that is the beginning and end of all wisdom in the topic.
Comment by ger francis — 23 December, 2009 @ 5:45 pm
Actually the point Ger makes about electoral politics is I think one-sided. Given what is actualy happening on the ground at the moment, I think a left with a real base in the trade union movement would be important. I’m still committed (as best we can) to finding electoral expression for a wider mood of political discontent, but the idea that this is the only thing that matters is I think, on the part of some in Respect, to turn a neccessity into a virtue. The notion that it does’nt make a difference what happens in unions, or that the only thing that is important about unions is which way they might jump in terms of electoral projects is really a serious, and, quite unneccessary mistake (in other words recognising the importance of electoral work should not lead to the view that its the only thing that matters). Especially not given the political situation we’re all going to find ourselves in very soon.
On this business of throwing ourselves into movements and it being in our DNA. I take Redbedheads point on board, but, you know what? I think thats a good thing. I think Andy’s argument about pulling out of movements because of conservatism is over-stated (although there are of course dangers here). The crisis around Respect was, in my view, not caused by these kinds of factors at all.
There are wider issues of how some of the earlier turns were made (ie SA to Respect etc), but I really don’t think that part of Andy’s analyses is correct. The SWPs position on movements its involved in rarely have anything to do with ‘how many people are recruited’. They have to do with the ups and downs of movements themselves. There can be mistakes about this of course. But I think its a canard (really) to believe that the reason why, for example, the ANL was put on ice during the 1980s was because of ‘a low level of recruits’.
One could go through other examples.
When it comes to electoral work, the one thing I do believe is that some of the arguments about local consistancy from other sections of the left are things the SWP could learn from. But, again, I think its a mistake to believe that elections are the only thing that matters to the left. Which is not at all to say they don’t matter, lest anyone misunderstands.
Comment by johng — 23 December, 2009 @ 5:48 pm
sorry ger posted the above before I saw your larger response. Will have a little think…actually it is the holidays! may get back later.
Comment by johng — 23 December, 2009 @ 5:57 pm
Ger
Could you point me to the texts from Respect members or elsewhere which gives us the theoretical basis for this long term strategy. I have noticed in practice that Respect did nothing around the postal workers dispute, vestas, visteon occupations. Respect crumbled in the face of the edl opposing a demo and de facto let the fascist occupy B’ham city centre all for electoral expediency. Why hasn’t Galloway visited one picket line. One of the key hegemonic devices of the ruling class at present is the use of racism- anti immigrant and islamaphobic etc. So Respect and much of the left when faced with the British Jobs for British Workers argument decided that the way to respond was pretend it didn’t exist. The fact that the BNP spoke on workers picket lines in west wales was down played. What did Respect do? well it didn’t go to the picket lines for starters, Galloway kept away. The SWP yes for all its faults attempted to take on the argument.Ger wants to attack Leninism but is not clear what to put in its place.
Comment by jj — 23 December, 2009 @ 6:31 pm
@ Ger (and anyone else who’s intrested)
Here there is an interesting discussion of Leninism. http://www.socialiststudies.com/index.php/sss/article/view/84
I don’t agree with all of it,and its one contribution to a debate which includes one really rotten assessment of Leninism.
However, it does address some important realities, notably the tendency of latter-day European ‘Leninist’ currents to adopt (unconsciousy) organisational forms which are actually a product of (one period) of Stalinism. In Britain, without even a domestic tradition of a mass Stalinist party to emulate, the ‘Leninists’ are emulating a Stalinism from a farawy country, of which they know little.
Comment by krupskaya — 23 December, 2009 @ 6:41 pm
Seconday point, I know, and I accept the possible charge of diverting this thread.
But when I said earlier of Lenin “he jumped for joy at news of the 1916 rebellion, British sociaists did not)”, I neglected to point out that neither do the overwhelming bulk of modern British ‘Leninists’, who all argue that Connolly was a great socialist and all, but, boy he just lost his head getting mixed up with all that Green stuff.
That is, of course, an entirely legitimate, if completely wrong-headed view. But it was not Lenin’s view.
A long-winded way of saying Leninism is a political perspective, not an organisational form. Sadly, not a perspective shared by (say) 90% of British ‘Leninists’.
Comment by krupskaya — 23 December, 2009 @ 7:10 pm
to the unpleasant JJ,
http://www.gmrespect.org.uk/articles2009/lindsey_220609.htm
http://www.gmrespect.org.uk/articles2009/vestas_210709.htm?p=4207
http://www.gmrespect.org.uk/articles2009/vestas_250709.htm?p=4207
http://www.gmrespect.org.uk/articles2009/edl_071009.htm
http://www.gmrespect.org.uk/articles2009/post_021109.htm
Comment by JFK — 23 December, 2009 @ 9:04 pm
“I am going to ignore Ray because, frankly, I just think he always lowers the level.”
Of course, because your substitutionist reformism has to be taken seriously for it to have any relevance.
You’re echoing the argument going on in the SWP at the moment between the Left Faction and the rest of us. It’s ironic that you are backing the LF with your complaint that we should have done better. Except that like them you either ignore or downplay the conditions in which the left has had to contend with.
No amount of cajoling or unrealistic perspectives will propel Respect any further than the SWP and that type of political moralism will ultimately damage your own organisation. It’s a shame that you have to project your own dilemma onto the SWP when we are actively debating these issues within our own organisation. Perhaps that’s because, unlike us, you aren’t having the same debate in your own organisation.
“Both times the SWP attempted to engage in this area of work, they failed. Most dramatically and revealingly in terms of method, with the Respect experience.”
Comments like this from Ger are revealing because he states a premise that is untrue. It was with the SWP’s support that Galloway was elected MP but the dilemma for Respect now is whether they have the support to return him as MP. That’s why I think this thread is not about Leninism but another attempt to rewrite the substantial contribution the SWP has made to the Left over the last decade and replace this with an insipid form of reformism where electoral politics are the focus of intervention. JJ points this out giving concrete examples.
Comment by Ray — 23 December, 2009 @ 9:31 pm
Ray #214 “It was with the SWP’s support that Galloway was elected MP but the dilemma for Respect now is whether they have the support to return him as MP.”
So will the SWP no longer support Galloway electorally ?
Not trying to be clever, just seems a very strange thing to say.
Surely you don’t think it was SWP members with the vote that got Galloway elected ?
Comment by Eddie Truman — 23 December, 2009 @ 9:55 pm
#210. The trouble with getting into pissing contest JJ is that after the first relief all you end up with is damp cold feet.
I could add to your list Viva Palestina, or Jerry Hicks’s Amicus/Unite election campaign and result. the point being……..
Surely the point is that each different organisation brings a different aspect and focus to the same struggles.
Comment by Richard Searle — 23 December, 2009 @ 10:02 pm
Ray says “That’s why I think this thread is not about Leninism but another attempt to rewrite the substantial contribution the SWP has made to the Left over the last decade and replace this with an insipid form of reformism where electoral politics are the focus of intervention.”
Well you may say that Ray - but that would assume that you know the mind of Derek Wall (Green Party) who posted initially. But let’s get away from the I know best - regardless of what people actually say and write.
So let’s be clear.
The SWP were central and a vital part of building the Stop the War Coalition. For much of the decade the SWP were utterly principled in resisting the scourge of the age - Islaamophobia. The SWP have given solid and excellent support to many and various campaigns over the last decade. The SWP contain within it’s ranks some of the best socialist militants within the British working class and progressive movements. All true. All uncontested.
The issue here is whether the very theoretical underpinning of the SWP - a English-speaking view of ‘Leninism’ - is the best way to build left organisation and rebuild a popular socialist conciousness in the second decade of the 21st Century. Mow surely it should be a badge of honour with the SWP that as the largest and most successful organisation people - especially ex-members and those who have worked closely with the SWP - think that this tradition is the benchmark by which success can be measured.
So rather than impugn the motive of the posters why not engage with the substance Ray. The SWP is weaker now than at any time since before the miners strike - yet have lived through a period where their own perspectives suggested ever greater possibilities for growth - in both size and influence. Can it all be put down to ‘objective circumstances’ or is there something wrong with the model itself.
A view of the world where carrying an argument against war, Islamophobia, racism, cuts and for the Palestinians to thousands of people (and in places winning that argument), is decried as an ‘insipid form of reformism’ is surely even a little too jaundiced for even you.
Comment by TLC — 23 December, 2009 @ 11:31 pm
‘The notion that it doesn’t make a difference what happens in unions, or that the only thing that is important about unions is which way they might jump in terms of electoral projects’
C’mon John. I never said that nor believe it.
‘Could you point me to the texts from Respect members or elsewhere which gives us the theoretical basis for this long term strategy.’
No jj. I can’t. These are just some musings from me, although they have been a regular theme of discussions among of a number of us in the Respect leadership. Do I want to attack ‘Leninism’? Well, it should not be above attack, but nowhere have I done so. I am critical of much modern day imitations. There is a difference.
Ray, if I thought I was echoing an argument going on inside the SWP at the moment I might try repent to get back in! I know there is a more than a whiff of witch-hunt about, but try not let it distort your sense of smell. It would be a shame if in my broader criticism of the SWP’s failed endeavors in constructing broad left parties, it came across that I thought the SWP’s contribution was entirely negative. I don’t believe that, nor do I want to come across as denying the good, because there was lots of good. (If I come across has retaining a positivity about John Rees, despite everything, it is because I remember well the positivity of the SWP’s role under his guidance in Respect early on. I accept others in Respect more north of Birmingham take a different view on this.) The point I am trying to convey is that the SWP model of Leninism entraps it in a practice which ultimately hinders its ability to sufficiently rise to the challenges in hand, which I believe the failure of its involvement in Respect is one example of, albeit the most dramatic.
Krupskaya, thanks for the link. I share your view about Leninism, but would reword as first and foremost a political perspective, with organized expression, but not tied to a specific organizational form.
Now, I am off to Ireland first thing in the morning, so this will probably be my last tuppance worth. Happy Christmas!
Comment by ger francis — 24 December, 2009 @ 12:10 am
“I accept others in Respect more north of Birmingham take a different view on this.”
Indeed, but it was a matter of timing rather than substance.
Comment by TLC — 24 December, 2009 @ 12:53 am
Hello, if anyone still reading this thread I’ve one last comment regarding whether or not the SWP has been seriously and critically re-thinking Leninism. I’ve just watched John Rees’s talk at Marxism 2009 on Lukas and Lenin on youtube, in which he talks about Lukas’s ideas on the ‘actuality of revolution’ and the point about the difficulty of maintaining evolutionary organisation if revolution is not seen as a possibility “in your era.” Rees goes into this, and decides that it doesn’t mean that revolution has to be just around the corner, but that we’re living in an ‘epoch’ in which the solving of the crisis in the system by means of proletarian revolution is on the cards. Lots of interesting questions arise out of this, not least what effect do long periods of relative political stability have on avowedly revolutionary organisations? What implications are there if in the fifty or so years of your existence as a evolutionary organisation there has not been a revolutionary challenge to the system and your organisation remsains marginal within the working class? It was a question the Bolsheviks and organisations born in the wake of the Russian revolution certainly didn’t have to face. The interesting thing is that it doesn’t even seem to occur to John Rees to address such questions. Its as if the problem just doesn’t even exist. As an aside, I couldn’t help but find it amusing that the first two contributions from the floor, in classic SWP style, were from other members of the central committee. The first from Lindsey German, not so much a contribution as another speech, and the other from Chris Nineham. Both delivered in that rapid-fire aggressive style, where you sort of feel like you’re being told off and the words start to wash over you in a wall of verbiage. What a great way to encourage critical debate! If this is a recent example of the SWP critically re-examining Leninism, it really must try harder.
By the way, I wasn’t suggesting something as crude as that the SWP initiated Respect simply to recruit people to the SWP. However, when it came to interventions in campaigns, demonstrations and so on, it was the SWP people were being asked to join. I know because I was still an activist at that time. That’s maybe ok if it’s a traditional united front, but not if you need to build what in effect was a political party that needed to establish itself, boost its own membership and activist base, and contest elections. That’s what I meant when I said that the SWP couldn’t follow through the logic of the initiative it had set in motion.
Comment by dennis — 24 December, 2009 @ 3:26 am
“The point I am trying to convey is that the SWP model of Leninism entraps it in a practice which ultimately hinders its ability to sufficiently rise to the challenges in hand, which I believe the failure of its involvement in Respect is one example of, albeit the most dramatic.”
I think that this is an interesting discussion and worth having: how can a leninist party (or any left party for that matter) be built in the modern world.
Ger, as I understand your point, elections are the key link in the chain because they are the central - and usually only - political expression of the majority of workers, certainly for the foreseeable future. And, secondly, you feel that the SWP (and, I presume, all leninist organizations in the English speaking world) lacks any sort of coherent theory or strategy as to how to build mass leninist, revolutionary parties of the working class in the modern period. Evidence of this failing is, in part, the SWPs “failure” to come through the past ten years of mobilization and radicalization strengthened and it is, in fact, weaker than at any point since the 1970s.
Starting from the role of elections, it seems to me apparent by looking at the history of Respect that electoral work is subordinate to mass movement building that involves working people in actively challenging aspects of the ruling class agenda. Respect didn’t create the anti-war movement but the anti-war movement created Respect. And it was the decline of the movement that was key to the fractures that opened up in Respect as different individuals and groups sought to find ways around the receding tide of the movement - regardless of how you estimate the role and mistakes of those individuals and groups. Perhaps you no longer believe that - I get the sense that your estimation of the role of elections has gone up considerably.
And that perspective shapes the analysis of party building. I said above where I thought there were weaknesses that led to the SWP (and the IST) not making the kind of membership gains you might hope to have occur coming out of a big struggle. (I will note that it puts the lie to any nonsense about the SWP/IST putting their own numerical growth ahead of building the movement). But there has been plenty of theoretical writing in our tradition about the method - both directly on party building, with articles and books on building the party. But also indirectly through analyses of historical events (you mention Harman’s book on 1968, for example, but also Revolutionary Rehearsals, which was edited by Colin Barker, et al), on contemporary analysis of the economy and different manifestations of oppression, on culture, etc. Just a look at the ISJ reveals there’s lots of articles on all these things in recent issues. The generation of contemporary analyses provides the foundation stones for shaping our political practice. So, I admit, I’m not quite sure what it is you’re looking for - but perhaps I’m misunderstanding you.
Comment by redbedhead — 24 December, 2009 @ 3:58 am
“Surely you don’t think it was SWP members with the vote that got Galloway elected ?”
The SWP was integral to getting Galloway elected. It was a response to Ger’s comment:
“Redb says, to paraphrase, ‘yeah, electoral work is important, but one of many important areas’. Wrong. Because it is the medium by which the vast majority of people engage and understand politics, it is more important than most. He reflects a general attitude, certainly within the SWP, which has critically hindered its own, and our collective, advancement.”
I think this sums up Gers position and if this is meant to offer a serious critique of Leninism then I’m afraid it totally misses the point of a revolutionary organisation.
“So rather than impugn the motive of the posters why not engage with the substance Ray. The SWP is weaker now than at any time since before the miners strike - yet have lived through a period where their own perspectives suggested ever greater possibilities for growth - in both size and influence. Can it all be put down to ‘objective circumstances’ or is there something wrong with the model itself.”
If I thought the debate was about how to organise a revolutionary party effectively then I would take it seriously but it’s not. So far a hodge podge of accusations and false premises about the SWP have been offered as the reason for why we haven’t grown or become the leading organisation on the left.
What I’m more interested in is what is being left out by many of you. Why focus on one strand of the left when, in its entirety, none of the the left has grown over the past decade? In fact, the SWP has faired better than many others on the left who have also shed members and seen their influence dwindle. Leaving this important fact out of the equation is, I presume, a requirement if the blame is to be placed on the SWP.
It’s revealing that the SWP and the SP are currently both the largest independent organisations on the left in the UK. And considering we are both rather small so-called “Leninist” organisations the onus is on the rest of you to explain why you haven’t done better than us if UK “Leninism” is so flawed.
The problem with your analysis is that it isn’t located in the struggle but in ill-conceived theory. Blaming the SWP for the failure of the left to grow is also part of the Left Factions analysis. The implication being that we haven’t substituted ourselves enough for the class. They won’t admit this of course because they know it’s turning Marxism on its head but that is underlying their analysis. In a similar way, Ger is blaming the SWP for not substituting itself electorally even though we contributed significantly to most of the electoral success the left has experienced this decade.
The problem is we have unfortunately made the mistake of substituting ourselves to a certain extent in StW and in Respect. That has been to the detriment of our own organisation and the rest of the left. So the last thing we need now is follow Derek and Ger’s advice and continue this failed strategy.
Comment by Ray — 24 December, 2009 @ 5:03 am
dennis - none of the three you mention were members of the CC during Marxism 2009.
Comment by KrisS — 24 December, 2009 @ 7:56 am
‘If this is a recent example of the (Dennis) critically re-examinining (the SWP, he) really must try harder.’
Well spotted by KrisS
Comment by swp member — 24 December, 2009 @ 8:27 am
krupskya: the kellog article is straight out of the IS traditions understanding of Leninism. The author stands in that tradition. None of this means the IS tradition is perfect, none of this means that the SWP does not have problems etc, etc. But most of the new ideas about Leninism, and informing ideas about Leninism with real history….stem from that tradition. There are others of course, Leh who seems to espouse a kind of second international Marxism. But it is curious that those advocating new thinking and denouncing the supposedly orthodox leninism of the SWP are reliant on the SWP for the texts they’re quoting.
And yes Dennis the meeting you saw was not by members of the CC. It was by those now in the leadership of the left platform rallying their troops. Thats why its all over the blogsphere.
And..Happy Christmas everyone.
Comment by johng — 24 December, 2009 @ 9:22 am
“There are others of course, Leh who seems to espouse a kind of second international Marxism.”
Does he? From reading his book on ‘What Is To Be Done?’ I thought that his point is that Lenin was at that point an orthodox Marxist, in the Second International sense, simply trying to apply that orthodoxy to the very different conditions of Russia.
Comment by neprimerimye — 24 December, 2009 @ 10:17 am
#221
“I think that this is an interesting discussion and worth having: how can a leninist party (or any left party for that matter) be built in the modern world.
Ger, as I understand your point, elections are the key link in the chain because they are the central - and usually only - political expression of the majority of workers, certainly for the foreseeable future. ”
Well, Ger can speak for himself, but i don’t think that is the point he is making; rather that the electoral terrain happens to be the one that Respect has most consistently engaged with; which is as much to do with contingent factors as choice.
But what electoral politics does do is expose you to the harsh reality if whether or not you have infleunce, where there is no room to hide. (Although, I would accept that electroal politics can under-represent certain importnat social trends)
What we need to recognise is that “the epoch of wars and revolutions” and the “actuality of the revolution” are perspectives that derive from a particular extraordinary period of history; and that we in contrast live in a stable liberal democracy where there is still mass identification with social democracy and labourism, notwithstanding the weakening of the institutional linkage bwteeen labourism and the labour party.
So perspectives of party building based upon a disjuncture within the current system that will open up possibilities for avowedly Leninist parties to acheive a mass membership are false, and indeed there is no historical precedent for such a perspective succeeding. Indeed, this was largely recognised by the Socialist Review Group, and International Socialism in the early years. even until the late 1970s the IS had a perspective based upon being only a component of the mass movement and saw the shop stewards movement evolving into a revolutionary force, within wich IS would be merely the most self aware component.
What is missing now is some conception of strategy for how radical politcal change occurs in advanced capitalist states with mature liberal democracy, and established social democratic institutions like trade unions with mass membership.
To a certain extent the party building of the SWP is orthogonal to the actual institutional and social infrastructure of working class politics, and this has adavtanges for rapid mobilisation in times like the war on Afghanistan starting, but has disadvantages as it leads to the party being inevitably incapable of playing a role uniting established activists and militants. this is especially true as the SWP is always suspicious of established militants or activists who already have developed political viewpoints of their own. In SWP speak debating those ideas is being inward looking, and what is needed is to push outwards, hence an orinetation on those who are completely new to politics.
these are difficlt issues to theorise, and the SWP’s persepctives for Respect were at the outst a bit ridiculous, beleiving that it was possble to replicate the success in areas where Respect had substantial backing from Muslims to areas where the war on Iraq had had much less impact; and where some of the community factors didn’t play.
There is a systematic tilt towards underestimating the power of social democracy, which is in a way bizarre becasue Cliff’s artcle the Economic Roots of Reformism is the potential starting point for appreciating the depth and resilience of social democracy not only as a layer of labour aristocracy and trade union institutionalism, but as rooted in the daily expereince of wage labour.
Comment by Andy Newman — 24 December, 2009 @ 11:28 am
Ger Francis raises some interesting questions about the SWP - its merits and demerits, in particular, and Leninism, its nature and applicability to the advanced late capitalisms, in general. Clearly his comments are coloured by a stronger appreciation of ‘electoralism’ (for want of a better word) as a key plank in socialist advance.
It is good Ger raises these questions but I do think he downplays the ‘objective factors’ that have shaped ‘marginalised Leninism’ in the post-war years and the wider left and that as a consequence, some of the criticism, lacks historical perspective. That does not mean, I think, that you cannot make criticism of the SWP’s understanding of Leninism but the state capitalist IS tradition certainly has the resources to address theoretical and political lacunae of its understanding / practice (eg. Hallas cited by johng).
Naturally people are right to point to the differences between the ‘moment of Leninism’ 1917-23 and the post-war years when revolutionary socialism was an isolated current attempting to reorient in the boom years of Pax Americana. One post mentioned John Rees Marxism 2009 talk on Lukacs and the ‘actuality of the revolution’ - without examining the usefulness of this notion, it is worth bearing in mind that the Third International were attempting to rapidly build mass based CPs with a perspectives that assumed it was the epoch of the decline of capitalism. Reformism scarcely had a viable future because in the imperialist heartlands where it had developed (during the ‘epoch of organic growth’ upto 1914), the crisis would erode the national accumulations that ultimately sustained it.
In the post-war years ‘marginalised Leninism’ was confronted by a renascent reformism and, of course, Stalinism in Eastern Europe which quite against Trotsky’s expectations had not only survived but reproduced itself in a number of different countries.
The return of crisis in the 1970s saw a working class vanguard begin to coalesce on the shopfloor in Britain in the shape of the unofficial shop stewards. The IS/SWP began to implant itself in this vanguard but sadly the process was arrested by a combination of factors - the dominance of Labourism, impact of the Social Contract, the role of the Communist Party etc etc.
The years of austerity and neo-liberalism since have had a severe impact on the working-class. Between 1978-1985 one in four manufacturing jobs in Britain disappeared in the shake out of industry. Then of course there was the defeats of key sections of the working class like the NGA and the miners in the 1980s. Today union density is about 28% (the highpoint of trade union membership was 1979 when it stood at over 13m) while density is higher among the public sector white collar workers than private sector manual workers. The 1990s saw a political upturn but it has not - so far - been matched by an industrial upturn.
The fortunes of Leninism - I would argue - depend on a major revival of working class struggle, organising the unorganising the unorganised, creating and recreating the horizontal links between workers and militants, beating back anti-union laws etc etc. Part of the stimulus for such a revival is likely to be the restlessness of capitalism itself ie. the continuing neo-liberal assault on working class pay, conditions, pension provision etc.
Admittedly I have not addressed the question of realignment, the place and nature of left electoral challenges as political expression of the working class desire to transcend the horizons of capital but I would argue this balance sheet / perspective - if a little schematically presented - does not really tally with the ‘big bang’ model that Ger suggests is held by the SWP and that it provides the necessary context when talking about the ‘failures’ (or otherwise) of the SWP (or the wider left).
Comment by julesa — 24 December, 2009 @ 11:57 am
Let me just say I had not read Andy Newman’s post and Merry Xmas!!
Comment by julesa — 24 December, 2009 @ 12:01 pm
An incredible amount of pointless waffle in this thread -
Mainly by people involved in organisations that have totally failed to recruit or retain any workers, but want freedom to endlessly “discuss” and write bulletins.
The main article is an academic distortion.
Anything that references that media clown Slavoj Žižek has to be regarded as suspect.
Comment by prianikoff — 24 December, 2009 @ 12:14 pm
I’ve mentioned this before so excuse me. I have several children, step-children and nephews aged between 20 and 40. Most of them are ‘political’ in one way or another, identifying with individual campaigns and/or cultural politics of one sort or another. Out of the eight, only one is a ‘joiner’ ie who has joined a left political party. Why is that? One way of answering the question is to say that it’s the left groups’ fault. Another way of answering is looking at the nature of their experiences since they were young, which has put them off joining something that offers the complete package ie a political party. At various times they will turn out on demos (with no cajoling from me, by the way), or sign things, etc etc but joining parties seems like a step too far.
I think we need to look at the legacy of ‘the Party’ when that meant the CP, the Soviet Union and how the dominant and persistent voice in the media has been and will go on saying: ‘If you join a left party, you’ll end up with Stalin’. I think this is of a much greater magnitude of importance than whether the SWP did or did not do the wrong thing in a smoked filled room on this or that day. Most people out there, including my eight offspring/nephews etc have no inkling of those wranglings. Left=Stalin=tyranny is hardwired into them, even though their grandfather was in the CP and was on hand till last year to explain why he was still a marxist but not a stalinist!
Comment by Michael Rosen — 24 December, 2009 @ 12:30 pm
oh - not just nephews - a niece as well!
Comment by Michael Rosen — 24 December, 2009 @ 12:31 pm
#231
Yes, but joining a party of the left is often not merely a matter of political consciousness or a desire to commit to a particular ideology.
It’s often motivated by an emotional or psychological need to interpolate, to forge social links, to fill an emotional vacuum, a search for an alternative family.
I think it was James P Cannon who warned against the party becoming an ‘infirmary for lost souls’.
This psychological and emotional aspect plays a huge role in many members of such parties going along with policies, decisions, etc., which they disagree with. Self censorship is a huge problem within any vanguard formation, a fear of disagreeing with the leadership or swimming against the tide in case it leaves you cast out or isolated.
Comment by John — 24 December, 2009 @ 12:46 pm
#233. The left dosn’t seem to recruit “regular guys” in great numbers.
Although an anti-communist bit of hack work in some respects, “The God That Failed” (1950) has some interesting contributions. The Black American writer Richard Wright mentioned going to a CP meeting where a new recruit denounced another as an agent. The infighting went on for a while, then the new recruit disappeared. It turned out he has escaped from a mental ward.
Comment by Mark Victorystooge — 24 December, 2009 @ 12:51 pm
I think I was trying to make a more social point than that, though this is not to contradict what you’re saying. I think it’s possible that those people who are left inclined, in the present context, are not ‘joiners’. To be left inclined now, is to join campaigns but not anything as tight or as organised or as regular or as disciplined as a political party. That’s the vibe I pick up from my lot. In their world (apart from the one exception), being ‘left’ is picking and choosing what to support and what not to support. If I try to look at the above discussion through their eyes, I read it as completely irrelevant - and that includes what I contributed to it too! And remember, these are young people who are sympathetic to many of the ideas expressed on SU, and in the various campaigns mentioned here.
Comment by Michael Rosen — 24 December, 2009 @ 12:52 pm
Sorry, I misunderstood the point you were making. In this you are undoubtedly right. As ever, both objective and subjective factors come into play here, I think.
Objectively, despite everything that’s going on in the world, the level of class struggle remains at a low ebb, certainly in relation to events. Subjectively, history shows that whenever this occurs the left starts to turn in on itself, blaming one another, leading to splits and fractures. I think it’s no accident that the split within Respect coincided with a sharp decline in the antiwar movement, for example, and that the setbacks that have enveloped the SWP thereafter correspond to its continued decline as well as the overall demoralisation within the class itself - a result of the confusion wrought by New Labour’s shift to the right and a concomitant degeneration within the trade union leadership.
It’s hardly an attractive proposition for a new generation of activists, I agree.
That said, it is they who will have to breathe new life into the cause and sort out the mess. I’m confident a new leadership will emerge sooner rather than later.
It has to.
Discussions such as these on SU are cathartic for those who’ve experienced the defeats, splits, and acrimony of the recent past. However, I think if conducted with a minimum of resentment and a willingness to listen to opposing views and analysis of what went wrong and why, they have to take place if we are to move forward and work with one another again.
When I say take place, this can’t be restricted to blogs and web forums though. Only when they take place in an organised fashion can they fully bear fruit.
Attempts to do so up to now have been disappointing in that they’ve ignored the mistakes of the past and focused only on what next. There has to be an honest and frank accounting before that can happen.
Comment by John — 24 December, 2009 @ 1:05 pm
Re 231 - But Micheal, a lot of people do join left parties, the problem is they don’t stay around. Some of this is becuase the left parties can’t deliver much and becuase movements inevitably implode, leaving many thinking what is the point in being active.
But to be blunt, a lot of the problem of poor retention by much of the trot. left is the result of a narrow political outlook which too often goes hand in hand with an authoritarian internal life. Not many people are thick skinned enough to hand around an organisation that orders them around, squashes or bullies dissenting members and/or adopts sectarian positions towards the movements or other left individuals or parties. All of these things happen, all are unnecessary, and all can be corrected, so the subjective space for improvement is massive.
Comment by kieran — 24 December, 2009 @ 1:14 pm
Warning. Demands for frank and honest accounting are becoming a bit of a cliche. Perhaps they deserve an acrynom. WNFHAPM (we need a frank and honest accounting of past mistakes. That way you could just type WNFHAPM. Then there could be the demand for catharsis. (DFC).
I think these and other slogans (not excluding ‘This is a sectarian distraction’ TIASD), could take the place of discussions of what we actually believe and how we think we should get there, solving all kinds of otherwise perplexing problems of that type.
Comment by johng — 24 December, 2009 @ 1:16 pm
#238
Well, Johng, if you prefer to continue to sweep everything under the carpet instead, then I predict for you another few years of engagement in reductionist abstractions on blogs rather than a serious attempt at realignment.
Your choice.
As for slogans, your contributions amount to the pefect example of ‘there’s nothing more divisive than a call for unity’.
Comment by John — 24 December, 2009 @ 1:22 pm
Re 238.
It is a cliche but the demand is still valid becuase ‘FHAPM’ almost never happens except in private, or by ex-members, or alternatively and still rarely by those who are about to or have split (these ’split’ accounts usually pick up on mistakes of opponents, but not those which make oneself look bad, and therefore are more like ‘Fantastic Hagiographic Accounts of Personal Magnificence’
Comment by kieran — 24 December, 2009 @ 1:26 pm
I don’t think so. Obviously its not the usual practice of organisations to behave like they are at confession. But I don’t see how anyone can look at the above discussion and think that people are’nt discussing these issues. FHAPM is not of course to be confused with ‘My account of the Past is to be accepted’ although Mapiba is sometimes related to Fhapm and indeed ‘WMPDAV’ or ‘Why mhy political decisions are vindicated’.
Comment by johng — 24 December, 2009 @ 1:50 pm
I’ve just watched the Lukacs talk by John Rees on YouTube and recommend it to all, with the following qualifications.
JR’s points [taken from Lukacs] about ’seizing the moments’ and not ‘inputing’ for the class are well taken, but need to be taken with a large shovel of salt as far as the SWP leaderships total mishandling of the Respect split are concerned.
[ JR himself in particular shouldn’t throw stones in this regard. But there were others as well on both sides now of the factional split in the SWP ]
Or indeed their initial response to the first Lindsey strke wave are concerned re: the disjuction between worker’s false conciousness and the objective nature of the dispute.
This focus on JR’s performance at this particular session at Marxism 09 has most probably been highlighted and edited for You Tube consumption by the ‘Left platform’ faction of the SWP.
Nevertheless it is of considerable interest to this thread’s dicussion. But there is still the question, as raised earlier, of how do you relate to the present terrain of well embedded reformist ideologues and conservative institutions / bureaucracies in a very long period of low worker’s confidence and struggle of more than a generation ?
Comment by Halshall — 24 December, 2009 @ 3:43 pm
This question of the long term is also relevent to the limitations of the Bolshevik expereince.
The total lifetime of the Bosheviks as a distict organisation was only from 1903 until becomeing the government in 1917, and much of that time was in circumstaces of police repression and semi-ilegality.
In contrast it is 33 years since the IS changed to the SWP, 42 years sonce socialist worker first appeared under that title, 50 years sinse the International Socialism group was formed.
Comment by Andy Newman — 24 December, 2009 @ 3:51 pm
Thats all true Andy, and as your no doubt aware, there has been some debate about this. However its not entirely inexplicable. The post-war period saw the most massive expansion of living standards in western capitalism ever seen. For those in the state cap tradition this followed directly on from the smashing up of the best traditions of revolutionary socialism in Victor Serges Midnight in the Century.
This meant, as Duncan Hallas was to put it, that revotionary socialist ideas took on the status of a fringe belief (when compared, for example, to the 1920s). Again, of all the revolutionary grouplets of the period the IS probably did most to attempt to theorise this.
This allowed for quite impressive growth, both qualitatively and quantitatively in the 1970s. By the late 1970s Capitalism had succeded in adjusting to the storms of the previous two decades. I think the SWP held up as well as could be expected in the following decade (better then any other current on the far left), and remained an important part of that left (hence all the discussion).
In terms of the challenges of the present, much to discuss, but I don’t really see that any section of the left is wonderfully placed at the moment. I find it hard to understand how the problems we face in probably the most politically serious times we have ever faced, can be reduced to a discussion about the SWP and its alleged failings.
I also simply don’t recognise the notion that the SWP does not understand the depth of Social Democratic consiousness. One irony of this discussion is that when it comes to attitudes to the forthcoming election the attitude is pretty much identical to that being issued by Respect.
Beneath the ‘catharisis’ etc, I suspect that many of those reading these threads not on the organised left would be a bit confused about what the differences are suppose to be…
Comment by johng — 24 December, 2009 @ 4:32 pm
Andy:
I think this is coming at my point from a bit of a different emphasis but nonetheless implies the same thing: that success is measured most accurately by electoral success (if there were mass strikes breaking out all over the UK, you’d probably downgrade its importance, is my guess). While electoral success can tell you something about your electoral influence that doesn’t necessarily translate into influence in the area of extra-parliamentary struggle, which is the key for leninist parties. The CPUSA, at its peak, had about 100,000 members. Somewhere in the range of 1,000,000 joined it during the course of the 1930s. It held sway in a number of unions and was deeply embedded in working class life. Yet it never really had any influence electorally (even where it didn’t subordinate itself to the Democratic Party). The same could be said - to a lesser extent - of the CPGB or the non-party shop stewards movement. Elections are a supplement and a tactic, whose purpose is to build the confidence to extra-parliamentary, in particular industrial, struggles.
A period of instability isn’t necessarily in contradiction with mass identification with social democracy, etc. as the 1970s demonstrates. But I think you understate the potential for explosions and “disjunctures” - which is not to say that 2010 will see a revolution in Europe or America. The long term molecular decay of workers ties to the institutions of our society (and to all ideas of collectivities - to refer Michael R.’s experiences) has up till now mostly manifested itself in social alienation, the disintegration of support for Labour, and a certain amount of mobilization - though nothing on the level of the 1960s. The apathy of disenchantment that characterizes our culture is, in my view, tinder waiting for a spark. Now, there are all sorts of ways that our rulers are able to suppress any sparks from occurring, or when they do occur, from taking hold, or when they do take hold, of suppressing the flames. And it may be the case that the ruling class ultimately resolves the long term disillusionment to their advantage with some, as yet, method to restore profitability and living standards. But, even with all those provisos, I do think that things aren’t as stable as you imply and that the job of leninists, revolutionaries, leftists, etc. is to try to fan the sparks and small flames. If that becomes subordinate to winning elections then, in my view, you’ve got the priorities the wrong way round.
First, I think it depends upon what you mean by disjuncture. There’s certainly lots of disjunctures short of revolution. The Immigrant rights movement and now the gay rights movement in the USA, the anti-war movement, the strike waves in France in the 90s through to this decade, the general strike movement in Canada in the 90s - these are all disjunctures, to my mind. And they all afford - potentially - the possibility for leninist parties (and other organizations of the left) to grow through realignments and through mass recruitment. Secondly, with regards to historical precedent: there have been a multiplicity of ways that far left parties have grown but it is certainly the case that some parties have largely grown through recruitment during periods of upheaval - the CPUSA in the 1930s being one and, more recently, the Maoist party in Quebec, En Lutte, which went from zero to about 4,000 members pretty much overnight. It dissolved itself in 1982 as a result of a number of factors, not least the post-Mao market orientation of China, but at their peak their May Day marches would bring out about 10,000 people and they nearly won the leadership of Quebec’s labour central (TUC). Quebec at that time probably had about 5-6 million people, so it was a small but significant party. There are others that I’m sure people could name.
I’m not sure I understand your meaning here. Orthogonal is to be irrelevant or outside of the equation, as I understand it. Certainly the SWP seeks to build within unions, etc. however as a clear, independent current and also to facilitate (as julesa notes) “horizontal links” between militants. The relative level of influence is certainly small but I think that’s a different point than saying the SWP maintains its independence.
I can’t speak to this kind of detailed point of SWP practice but it certainly surprises me. How does one build united fronts or strike support work without working with established militants? It is certainly the case that established militants are less likely to join the SWP in the short term for all sorts of reasons - having an established and different political viewpoint, the stakes being higher because of existing relations, positions, etc, et al - but this is not the same as saying that they don’t engage in debate and discussion with the militants with whom they work. I can’t imagine such debate being “inward looking.” In fact, as I recall, Cliff argued during the miners strike that comrades shouldn’t go to picket lines and talk to miners about the strike (at least not solely) - they should talk to strikers about world politics, the government, racism, etc. etc.
Were they? There was still a reasonable sense of euphoria coming out of the biggest mass movement in a very long time and an unprecedented alliance of the left and a section of the Muslim community. There were real tensions inside the Labour Party and it couldn’t be foretold in advance that absolutely none of that tension would lead to open fractures or greater numbers of departures. A few months after its creation Respect already had a decent showing in the polls. Even Galloway was talking about 10,000 members in short order. Better to have the momentum of optimism in the early days of something like this to carry it through the tough slog.
I find this a bit surprising. Certainly some strands of UK socialists hold such views. My sense is that the SP, for instance, and the SSP also, tend to view Labour and labourism as being dead and to equate reformism with the actually existing reformist political parties. I think this is something that the SWP/IST has never done and is one of its theoretical strengths - understanding the endurance of reformist ideas even where the traditional parties of reformism no longer deliver reforms (in the progressive sense of the term). That’s why we have always spurned “united fronts from below” for instance or, as in the SSP, arguments about building front groups under the auspices of the party.
Comment by redbedhead — 24 December, 2009 @ 4:59 pm
“Orthogonal is to be irrelevant or outside of the equation, as I understand it. Certainly the SWP seeks to build within unions, etc. however as a clear, independent current and also to facilitate (as julesa notes) “horizontal links” between militants. ”
No, orthogonal is a value neutral description, it means built on a different axis, so saying that the SWP builds orthoganally in the unions from the official machine is compatible with sayying that it builds horizonatl links beteeen miliatants. There are pros and cons to the approach, it means you can act quickly, but may find it harder to leverage the mass organisations when it counts.
Comment by Andy Newman — 24 December, 2009 @ 5:07 pm
“There were real tensions inside the Labour Party and it couldn’t be foretold in advance that absolutely none of that tension would lead to open fractures or greater numbers of departures. A few months after its creation Respect already had a decent showing in the polls. Even Galloway was talking about 10,000 members in short order. Better to have the momentum of optimism in the early days of something like this to carry it through the tough slog. ”
yes they were absurd, you should have read the boosterism in party notes at the time. As I showed at the time through extensive number crunching, Respects electroal performance had a very strong correlation with where there were Muslims; and our expereince with the socialist alliance in the 2003 elections had already shown that the war in itself was insufficient to make a significant breakthrough in the white working class. That is not a negatve thing to say about Respect, it is just realism.
If you were close to the Labour party at that time it was transparent that Galloway had little wider pull to take other people with him.
Comment by Andy Newman — 24 December, 2009 @ 5:12 pm
re: orthogonal
Thanks for clarifying. I kept thinking “octogonal” and wondering what Leninism had to do with an eight sided object…
Comment by redbedhead — 24 December, 2009 @ 5:14 pm
Sometimes I lack self awareness that what i know may not be obvious to other people.
Orthogonality is a term used in engineering, so I am acquainted with it that way.
Comment by Andy Newman — 24 December, 2009 @ 5:22 pm
#242 Agree with you there, I bought John Rees’s the DVD soon after Marxism and JR’s whole talk plus the contribution from the floor is worth listening to by anyone who wants answers to our predicament.But your comment below is what I find difficult to understand from those critical of the SWP: You say;
“JR’s points [taken from Lukacs] about ’seizing the moments’ and not ‘inputing’ for the class are well taken, but need to be taken with a large shovel of salt as far as the SWP leaderships total mishandling of the Respect split are concerned.”
Seven years ago, my understanding of Socialism, leave alone Leninism was zero. Not only have I benefitted from reading books from Bookmarks, but I have learnt a lot from lectures either at Marxism or SWP day school. Yes mistake were made in the RESPECT debacle and some people have paid for those mistake with their political careers. We are all faced with the economy that is in tatters. The SWP with its mistakes is still soldiering on trying to find solutions and building an alternative. Why is it so difficult for the SWP bashers to move on from RESPECT and put their energies in building an alternative with or without the SWP? Surely,if the SWP and its leadership have a narrow political outlook which too often goes hand in hand with an authoritarian internal life (#237), they must be the most difficult people to work with. I have disagreements with people I live with, I have disagreements with people I work with and I have disagreements with people I socialise with. The same applies in building a Party like the SWP. I don’t bash any of those people I disagree with at any given opportunity. If we don’t reach a consensus I walk away from them, and put my energies in something else that benefits me.
The only reason I will resign from a Party like the SWP is when members are not disciplined if they go against the Party policies. So far, the SWP is on track in just doing that. If I have a criticism of a member whether it is a CC member or a branch comrade, I deal with them democratically. It looks like those people who think like 237 either lack an understanding of why one joins a revolutionary Party. You don’t join a revolutionary Party to stand on the roadside. Those who join and stay understand what being a revolutionary means. After all, all those on the left claim to be highly knowledgeble on the subject of Leninism. I suppose some people just love to be theoretical tartars who will never know the difficulties of trying to build a Party like the SWP.
No one can stop people bashing the SWP, the Tories do, the Liberals do, New Labour does, the BNP do etc etc etc. But the fact remains, so far the SWP is the only Political organisation on the left in the UK that does not spend hours bashing other political organisations on the left.
Comment by florence durrant — 24 December, 2009 @ 5:53 pm
I have often found SWP members blissfully unaware that there in fact are other groups on the left. Rather than devote screeds to denouncing other groups, which is a hallmark of the smaller sect, the SWP simplifies some aspects of the world by simply ignoring them.
I recently talked to an SWP member, alluding to some asinine piece of AWL behaviour. The person I spoke to had not heard of the AWL until I mentioned them.
Comment by Mark Victorystooge — 24 December, 2009 @ 6:08 pm
One more contribution to the debate
http://www.rathergood.com/christmas
Comment by Richard Searle — 24 December, 2009 @ 6:09 pm
“recently talked to an SWP member, alluding to some asinine piece of AWL behaviour. The person I spoke to had not heard of the AWL until I mentioned them.”
And is this a bad thing lol
Comment by arch — 24 December, 2009 @ 6:19 pm
It is. It’s like being unaware bears shit in the woods until you step in some.
Comment by Mark Victorystooge — 24 December, 2009 @ 6:27 pm
To add to the foregoing, those unaware of the AWL’s existence may be ambushed by people posing as dogmatic Marxists who accuse you of being anti-Semitic. Forewarned is fore-armed, I say. Otherwise, exposure to Matgamnamania may be traumatic and do irreparable damage.
Comment by Mark Victorystooge — 24 December, 2009 @ 6:49 pm
I take it all back, when I read the initials ‘AWL’, I am inclined to see the imperfections of the SWP as virtues, seriously there are worse groups than the SWP.
any way happy xmass people
Comment by Derek Wall — 24 December, 2009 @ 7:04 pm
Yep. The AWL - an especially exotic way to love your own imperialist bourgeoisie.
Comment by Mark Victorystooge — 24 December, 2009 @ 7:16 pm
In terms of ‘orthonographal’ (hey a new word for johng to misspell!) relationship to the structures of the trade union movement (asymmetrical? says the ghost of chris harman impatiently) I think this may be a misnomer.
Many phrases regularly used in the history of the British trade union movement (rank and file movements etc) speak to the fact that aysymmetric practices constituted the lived experiance of the movement itself.
The SWPs analyses of the trade union bureacracy (which incidently I think was a step foward from Lenin’s idea of an ‘aristocracy of labour’, and was explicitly theorised as such: one way in which Lenin may have been confused by conditions in advanced democracies) was not some external piece of analyses grafted onto an uncomprehending movement.
In many ways it sought to theorise a set of ideas frequently articulated by workers. Here is an article by a famous British revolutionary and trade unionist in 1917 about much the same question, interestingly highlighted on the SWPs new site (which is really rather good):
http://trotsky.org/archive/murphy-jt/1917/xx/workers_committee.htm
On the question of the supposed ignorence of SWP members concerning the existence of other organisations: Yes the SWP, from about the late 1960s was more concerned with arguments in the movement rather then arguments between revolutionary groups.
This does not mean always ignoring other organisations. Where the arguments of other organisations have relevence, influence inside the wider movement we will take them up (or should do according to our own principles).
I think this is sensible rather then ignorent. So I think the interesting arguments on SUN are the ones which engage directly with tasks and problems we all face (as opposed to those who have a magical recipe which foolish people wrongly ignore and therefore GO WRONG).
Comment by johng — 25 December, 2009 @ 10:45 am
I do not think it is sensible. It often just comes across as arrogance, not unlike Militant’s tendency to dismiss the “sects” in its glory days. Also, SWP recruits or contacts may encounter smaller groups seeking intervention in things like Marxism.
Even claims that it is more a case of being interested in the wider movement rather than small groups are dubious, in my view. I mentioned the AWL for reasons, other than just because of dislike. First, it is not all that small. More importantly, its Islamophobia and pro-Zionism are things that will be encountered out there because they are present in wider society, from which the left is not walled off.
Comment by Mark Victorystooge — 25 December, 2009 @ 1:07 pm
I just disagree Mark. I think Socialists must orientate primarily on the movement. If other groups of socialists represent something significant in the movement, then, of course, those arguments become important. But the SWP has always had the principle that the mark of a cadre is an ability to intervene in debates going on in the movement, not on arguments about the in’s and out’s of a very small left mileu. Insofar as they become that kind of cadre they’ll be able to handle any of these other arguments with ease anyway. The philosophical point being that you can only work out the significance of any argument if your equipped to understand what it would mean in practice.
Comment by johng — 25 December, 2009 @ 2:45 pm
Comment by Mark Victorystooge — 25 December, 2009 @ 1:07 pm says:
“Also, SWP recruits or contacts may encounter smaller groups seeking intervention in things like Marxism”.
Mark, being a member of the SWP does not give one access to an Encyclopaedia with a list of sects. It took me a little while after joining the SWP to understand why there were other left sect organisations who were anti the SWP. Yet until today, 7 years down the line I don’t understand why sects think they have the right to form a group whose sole intention is to fight other groups on the Left who are not fighting with them. In Oct 2004, I recall a woman comrade from the Worker’s Power for example who told me not to join the SWP when we were at Ken Livingstone’s then office debating about the European Social Forum. I had joined the SWP in July 2003 and was still learning about revolutionary politics. That is sick, because as an adult, I don’t need an idiot telling me who to join and not to join. The enemy of the Left and the working class the world over is capitalism and capitalists plus the governments that protect them. As for the SWP, I can speak on its behalf by saying we have branch meetings and district meetings where new members can discuss their encounters with the likes of AWL. Branch and District meetings for the SWP are both for educational and strategic planning reasons. Anything other than that is sectarian.
Comment by florence durrant — 25 December, 2009 @ 3:01 pm
It ıs perhaps easier to notice the rest of the left, including small to microscopic groups, in a place like London where nearly all will have some kind of presence. However, the individual who had not heard of the AWL lived in London, and from what I gathered, was no new recruit. It may just be that people go through life oblivious to what does not interest them, in much the same way that I ignore the football scores.
The point about the “movement” is not really being answered, I think. For example, earlier in the year there was a kerfuffle about xenophobic slogans in workers’ disputes. Some left groups and individuals broke one way, some another, on this issue. And just as the SWP went one way on this, the SP, CPB, WP, AWL etc. all had their particular takes on the same issue, and their different actions in response to their interpretations.
Comment by Mark Victorystooge — 25 December, 2009 @ 3:48 pm
Yes but this was an important argument in so far as it was reflected in debates inside the trade union movement itself (and wider society). It was not an important argument because of differing positions of small groups.
In terms of the AWL you’d probably hear about them if you were involved in student politics or if you happened to be active in a union in which some of their members were active. But you don’t actually need to know anything about their particular politics to answer the kind of standard right wing arguments they make about the war on terror, or indeed the standard anti-palestinian solidarity arguments they make.
Some experiance of dealing with dominant ideologies in a real life setting is all you need to deal with their crap.
Comment by johng — 25 December, 2009 @ 4:13 pm
Perhaps you could deal wıth the AWL (for example) that way. I would be more inclined to link them to the politics of Max Shachtman, where he started, and where he ended up, and note the similar AWL trajectory which may have them trying to wave an Israeli flag at Sunday’s Israeli embassy demo, like last year.
I don’t know - has the average SWP member heard of Shachtman?
Comment by Mark Victorystooge — 25 December, 2009 @ 4:29 pm
“has the average SWP member heard of Shachtman?”
see cartoon half way down the page
http://www.marxists.org/archive/higgins/1997/locust/chap09.htm
Comment by Andy Newman — 25 December, 2009 @ 5:24 pm
Depends what your trying to do. If you are attempting to recuit an AWL member it might be worth taking that route. If on the other hand you are trying to win an argument about the war or Palestinian solidarity in front of a wider audience it would be futile. For that entirely different kinds of arguments are neccessary. An ability to win arguments in front of an audience uninterested in the history of American Trotskyism in the 1950s is a lot more intellectually demanding then an argument about Max Shactman. And in fact a grasp of these arguments allows one, when one reads about Max Shactman to actually understand the significance of those arguments. It was the tragedy of post-war Trotskyism that many simply misunderstood what a bolshevik cadre actually was (to return to the threads topic). This was not someone who was a walking encyclopedia of the history of the Trotskyist movement (although such things are fun down the pub obviously). My own belief is that from about the early 1960s onwards, much of what passed for trotskyism, represented a speices of historical re-enactment society. Contrary to the claims sometimes made on this blog, I don’t this is integral to organisations with a Trotskyist heritage nor neccessary. But it was a feature that the IS tradition made strenuous attempts to break away from (and this was a political break as well). On the whole I think this served us well. None of this means that knowledge of Shactman is completely irrelevent. Simply that the history of the trotskyist movement is not a core priority.
Comment by johng — 25 December, 2009 @ 5:31 pm
#266
“If you are attempting to recuit an AWL member ….. ”
under no circumstances would that be a sensible approach.
Comment by Andy Newman — 25 December, 2009 @ 8:36 pm
lol.
Comment by johng — 26 December, 2009 @ 12:44 pm
# 242, 250 Florence Durrant
I hadn’t intended to come back on the point raised as it seemed like reopening old wounds, however the point I raised about the role of (some) of the SWP cc in splitting Respect refers to the role played by JR [and others] in insisting on keeping control no matter what.
I don’t wish to labour it, it is well documented elsewhere and we are now where we are and have to rebuild.
Both the SWP and the rest of the ‘left’ have suffered greatly as a result.
What JR was saying about Lukacs makes sense, but it does not fit with his practice at the time of the Respect crisis.
Going ‘nuclear’ was the most stupid and self-destructive response to a crisis that could and should have been resolved by honouring an agreement that had been reached the previous day !
Comment by Halshall — 26 December, 2009 @ 1:24 pm
#267. I wouldn’t recruit one either, or try to. I’d put one of those 19th century bathing screens around them. Passersby would be mystified by the shrill cries of “anti-Semitism!” coming from within one of these contraptions.
Comment by Mark Victorystooge — 26 December, 2009 @ 2:21 pm
On Lukacs I think if one of his strengths was an attempt to develop a coherent account of the relationship between marxism and leninism (very different to what passes for ‘marxism-leninism’) this was also connected to one of his weaknesses: a tendency to present too philosophical a view of the history of bolshevism. In doing so, at points, there is a danger of a return to the early Marx’s conception of philosophy as the ‘head’ and the working class as ‘the body’. There is an absence of discussion of the conscious role of the cadre in a revolutionary organisation (Lenin for example would simply not have been Lenin without them).
Its a paradoxical legacy though. On the one hand his account in HCC is indeed an alternative to the orthodoxy of ‘marxism-leninism’. On the other hand there is a danger of precisely the same kind of re-ification, if from a different direction.
Great philosophical works are however, almost always, subject to contradictory interpretations.
Which is one reason why I think its ridiculous to place those interpretations at the centre of faction fights.
Comment by johng — 26 December, 2009 @ 2:35 pm
I put that all so much more eloquantly on splintered sunrise. Unfortunatey its boxing day and I am pissed as a fart.
Comment by johng — 26 December, 2009 @ 2:43 pm
#265 When Pluto Press published The origins of the International Socialists in 1971, Richard Kuper noted that ‘Printing has enabled some alterations in the style of the layout, the correction of obvious mistakes (of which the total inability of any writer to spell the name Schachtman correctly was the most recurrent)…’
Duncan Hallas’ excellent introduction to that collection is available here and Cliff’s critique of Shachtman here
#272 - already?
Comment by chjh — 26 December, 2009 @ 3:00 pm
duncan’s introduction is indeed wonderful (as is Cliff’s critique). I’m pissed as a fart because I was so abstemious yesterday. In other words its a kind of compensation. For cultural reasons my christmas’s don’t follow the usual ups and downs of inebriation. |
It all evens out in the end though.
Comment by johng — 26 December, 2009 @ 3:36 pm
#269 by Halshall
I agree with you there. Life is a learning journey for some us and it was after that lecture by JR that I went on and read on Lukacs. The fact is putting one’s theory to practice is testing for most people, and you are right that the SWP certainly suffered from this inability by some in the leadership of practicing what they preach. Therefore, what all of us who have a vision of a better world for all must do now is learn from our mistakes and move on to build a stronger movement as we cannot rewrite history.
Comment by florence durrant — 26 December, 2009 @ 4:05 pm
Nice link to the JT Murphy article on the rank and file and the union bureaucracy / labour leadership johng.
One minor caveat about the argument whether the SWP ‘rank and file’ should know who Schachtman is (yes!), or the ins and outs of the poltics of the AWL. I think johhg / Florence are essentially right about sectarian groups whose raison d’etre is what divides them from other revolutionary socialist groups. Their differences are shibboleths or a badge of honour and function like a perverse left variant of identity politics. Revolutionary cadre are not built / made in a day but only over time in the course of active involvement in the broader movement with all the arguments that are thrown (just as johng argues). So over time revolutionary cadre acquire the ”iron rations” of Marxism ie. revolutionary socialist politics (the expression belongs to Robin Blackburn who once saw this as Marx’s greatest contribution to socialism).
But people cannot know everything immediately - we all go through the ’school of class struggle’ so to speak. In other words, over time, revolutionary cadre should learn / acquire the tradition, critically digest it, come to be at home in it (this includes Shachtman who is an important part of that tradition) as an aspect - not the only aspect mind of building a strong independent cadre, able to think on its feet vis-avis the wider movement and its own leadership.
Comment by julesa — 26 December, 2009 @ 4:21 pm
Redbedhead unhelpfully distorts. I neither reduce all strategy to the electoral arena nor all left political advancement to some electoral measuring stick.
Parliamentary and extra parliamentary fronts are both critical. Which one furthers self confidence at any given time will vary. There will be times when an electoral victory furthers the struggle for socialism more than a victory for a strike or a campaign, and vice versa. And, it should go without saying, under certain conditions, mass struggle fast tracks socialist consciousness unlike anything else.
But Jules rightly notes, my views as ‘coloured by a stronger appreciation of ‘electoralism’ (for want of a better word) as a key plank in socialist advance.’ While the experience of the Leninist left in the UK is heavily weighted towards extra-parliamentary struggle, its engagement on the parliamentary front has drawn much less resources, and theorising. (And I doubt if even Colin Barker would make the claims for ‘Revolutionary Rehearsals’ that Redbedhead does, seeing as it is more a series of case studies, and historical retelling, of modern day ‘missed revolutions’ than anything else).
Respect is not the only experience of Leninists trying to apply their politics in this area. The Militant tradition had a much deeper engagement. But, beyond that, the experiences are few and far between. This seems remarkable in view of the fact that this is overwhelmingly the medium by which people engage in politics. And it is certainly not a mistake the fascists have made.
Ray sums up the reason why the SWP have not only failed in this regard, but why I believe it ultimately will never break out of being essentially a large propaganda group, without first dramatically breaking with its own tradition. His comments about the SWP’s engagement in Stw and Respect betray a flawed method. He writes, ‘The problem is we have unfortunately made the mistake of substituting ourselves to a certain extent in StW and in Respect.’
To me, this is mistaken for two reasons. Firstly, it grossly exaggerate and rewrites the actuality of the SWP’s practice, and simply does not accord with my own experiences in Birmingham where, for the period post 9/11 to Feb 15th 2003, we probably had the most dynamic anti-war activitism in the country, out of which Respect organically grew. (More’s the pity that the SWP did not have a problem of ‘liquidationism’ at the time, is my view).
Secondly, and flowing on from first point, it portrays an attitude to united front or campaigning work which in reality simply eschews serious long term commitment. If we take krupskaya’s point that central to Leninist method is ‘a determination to achieve the objectives of the united front above all other considerations’, than the SWP’s application, and record in this regard is seriously flawed.
The experience, invariably, is that as soon as such campaigns ebb and flow, which is inevitable, the SWP run back to safe internal ground, leaving some poor committeed soul(s) to continue flying the flag. To take one example of such work, the building broad left parties, how could anyone seriously believe it is possible to construct a mass radical party of the left without a long term strategy and corresponding commitment that would factor in advances and retreats and not be thrown by them? The absence of analysis of how mass socialist currents are to be constructed, allied to a method that ultimately reduces all strategy and tactics to ‘building the party’, disabled the SWP in this area and so many others.
I don’t disagree with Jules (228) succinct summary of post war objective difficulties. Nor do I even think that the stand alone model of a revolutionary party of the type synonymous with the SWP is in itself inappropriate to current conditions, if armed with a changed practice. I don’t have a definitive view on the issue at the moment. For me, these are questions of organisational form, and secondary to method, long term strategy and corresponding tactics.
Finally, the claim from Johng that most of the ‘new ideas about Leninism, and informing ideas about Leninism with real history’ stem from the IS tradition is, to put it charitably, a bit of an exaggeration. Paul Kellog’s article is a good one but, in essence, adds little to what Lieberman, Le Blanc and Harding had already said. (And in fairness to Kellog, I don’t think he makes claim to be saying anything specifically new). These are the best studies, and all decades old, written by authors who stood outside the IS tradition at the time of writing. If anything, there is much richer engagement with the challenges of constructing Leninist organisational forms in the Fourth International tradition.
Comment by ger francis — 26 December, 2009 @ 6:18 pm
“This seems remarkable in view of the fact that this is overwhelmingly the medium by which people engage in politics.”
Except that electoralism isn’t motivating workers as is evident in Griffin’s election. Traditional Labour voters didn’t bother to vote. That’s how Griffin got elected. This disillusionment with electoralism was replicated in the recent record low turnout during the election in Glasgow. There’s a national decrease in turnout for elections. Workers feel so disenfranchised because their illusions in electoralism have been shattered by Labour in government and the corrupt neo-liberal agenda.
That’s why it’s bizarre for Ger to claim that the SWP, SP etc. are not Leninist and he and Derek are putting forward the true representation of Leninism. When did Lenin advocate electoralism over any other strategy? At a time when voters have great mistrust in the electoral system it is the worst strategy to over emphasise its importance. The left has limited resources and we need to relate to the growing industrial activity as well as elections.
“,,,And by the way: the average SWP member, having nil Marxist education, will most certain;y *not* have heard of a serious Marxist thinker like Max Shachtman.”
Your patronising attitude gets in the way of correctly assessing the political knowledge of SWP members.
Comment by Ray — 26 December, 2009 @ 8:50 pm
I would remind Jim Denham that he is banned from here, and ask him to desist in making further comments.
And his veiled threats of physical violence are just pathetic.
Comment by Andy Newman — 26 December, 2009 @ 8:50 pm
#278
“growing industrial activity”
????
on another planet
Comment by Andy Newman — 26 December, 2009 @ 8:55 pm
Ray sums up the reason why the SWP have not only failed in this regard, but why I believe it ultimately will never break out of being essentially a large propaganda group, without first dramatically breaking with its own tradition. His comments about the SWP’s engagement in Stw and Respect betray a flawed method. He writes, ‘The problem is we have unfortunately made the mistake of substituting ourselves to a certain extent in StW and in Respect.’
Your experience in Birmingham is a selective one and does not reflect what was happening nationally. There is no doubt that in many areas Respect and StW groups consisted of predominately SWP comrades. This isn’t a problem initially at the inception of a united front but if there isn’t an influx of new non-SWP members as the movement develops then we ARE substituting ourselves. When Respect didn’t attract ex-Labour, TU and Labour Left members after Galloways election it took a dip electorally and this is at the root of why Respect split.
The essence of Ger’s argument is that if the left devotes most of its resources to electoralism and doesn’t adapt this strategy in relation to prevailing conditions it will succeed in building a electoral base. Unfortunately the fortunes of Respect after Galloways election contradict this assessment. What he leaves out is that in order for the left to offer an alternative to Labour, the Tories and the BNP it has to be rooted in the class. The only way to achieve this is to actively take part in local and national resistance whether that’s strikes or local campaigns. This can’t be achieved if the focus is predominately electoralism where the limited resources of the left are focused to this end. This is like building a house on sand where there are few local roots and the fortunes of the left are at the whim of voters.
The alternative is to build roots locally and nationally as part of as strategy that includes electoralism where it is advantageous to the left.
Comment by Ray — 26 December, 2009 @ 9:17 pm
#243 - a very good point Andy.
Comment by armchair — 26 December, 2009 @ 10:11 pm
If I can add a few comments…
(1)The complication of “Leninist Party” politics is that it is carried out by organisations who believe that they are indeed a “Leninist Party” without any reference to the actual living situation they may be at.They could be 5, 50, or 1500 members but they all presume they are working at Leninist best practice regardless of how embedded they are in the working class.They are “Leninist” because they say so.
(2)What’s happened through the sponsorship of Trotsky and the counterposition of “Trotskyism” to “Stalinism” is that programatic questions have been elevated to a level of some sort of Jungian archetype which only the ordained have access to.This idealist approach — one devoid of the living test of day to day struggle and roots in the class –is totally at odds with the approach of a dedicated Marxist materialism. It only leads to a cottage industry of boutique socialist patents competing with one another.
(3)In my experience of party organisations operating under ‘Leninist’ first principles there is always a sharp tension between being too tight and being too loose. This conundrum is always tied to the question of exclusivity and the overbearing pressure to maintain ‘party’ ‘norms’. I think this is real such that small parties tend to flip and flop between opening up and closing down/reaching out and returning to the bunker. One example I can think of is the response of the SP/CWI when it left the British Labour Party. Thereafter followed a relaxing of approaches to other currents and a dedicated reach out internationally.But in the wake of the loss of most of its Scottish section (which formed the SSP) and a dispute and falling out with its section in Pakistan (The Labour Party of Pakistan) the SP/CWI turned inward and retraced its steps to the bunker. Even the whole rationale of its “united front of a special find” melarky by the English SWP is premised on this tension — that there is a threshold and once passed you dilute/liquidate your politics and cease to be revolutionary. This spectral fear is what haunts almost all the parties of the far left. It is developed as a response to surviving the long haul and counterposing your politics to Stalinism in a position of isolation in the working class. This is, if you like, the conditions and responses that congeal as sectarianism.
(4)After years of surviving the long detour the conditions we now face — with the self evident deference of social democracy to neo liberalism, the world wide collapse of Stalinism in the wake of 1989, the biggest economic crisis capitalism has faced since 1929, and a major ecological catastrophe bearing down on humanity — the conditions under which we operate has changed greatly so that there is no reason whatsoever to believe that the comfort of ‘business as usual’ will suffice. Old habits die hard. Old cultures persist. The far left, in fact, becomes entwined in and entrapped by its own rhetoric. While there may indeed be more than one way to proceed, as socialists, Marxists and activists we must know that left unity is our most powerful weapon. But how we proceed to do that — regroup the left — requires not only reach out ways and means but a considerate re-formatting of our own internal perspectives. It is in this context that the study of Lenin has taken another course — away from just referencing his writings into a more considered and broader approach to the actual history of the Bolskevik party; and as Kellog (and Liebman) argues it is not what we may have thought.
(5) What divides the far left today — if we put aside the shibboleths born as they were in the context of the Cold War — are tactical questions.Essentially day to day that’s always tended to be the case.Nonetheless even with those differences in mind what divides us is very small indeed given what unites us. And what specifically unites us is that despite the rigors of the last few decades we collectively enter the 21st century as committed revolutionists with skills and savvy but without the large numbers adhered to our banner.
(6) That doesn’t mean we enter a mea culpa historical moment. What it does mean is that we shift our perspectives and open up our politics like no other time in our historical experience. And, if you like, our task is adapting what we know of “Leninism under Lenin” to the challenges of the here and now. Personally and theoretically this is a major challenge because the new conditions we may choose to embrace don’t lend themselves to easy schemata. NOR is it an excuse to embrace a free fall liquidation of our hard won organisational and political assets. The dialectics of this change are very complex and in each country they are likely to follow different paths as no one size is gonna fit all.We also face the complication that a ruling on early experiments in this new Left politics has not reached a consensus in the way that in the 1920s the far left wanted to replicate the experience of the Bolsheviks and , as Kellog points out, were encouraged to import it as a one size fits all party template.
(7) It is not our role to rejig the politics of social democracy and create a left-of-Labour Labour Party. Some on the left believe that and with the example of Germany and Die Linke as well as the rise of Green Parties internationally in front of us we should junk all the criteria of revolutionary socialism for the sake of a very much broader and very much softer political relevance buoyed up be a dedicated electoralism. But is that what we want — a sort of stage-ist approach to generating revolutionary politics? Marx via the route of practical reformism? A corollary of this perspective is the belief — that today dedicated broad socialist parties cannot be built and win mass support. This is the view of the SWP I’m sure (even if it is not stated)and is no doubt the standard response of most left orgs while en route back to the bunker. But if you check, the approach of Lenin was very different while still adhering to the core goal of socialist revolution. I remember one quote from whoever that tells us so much, ” You all know Lenin forged a great revolutionary socialist party, but you don’t realize what he had to forge it with.” And inherent in the outlook of the far left orgs is a elitist fear that straying too far from programatic purity etc only serves to dumb down our politics.
(8)While we are all familiar with the role of imperialism and the way the reformism gutted the 2nd International but really is that what we should allow to haunt us? The drowning of the 2nd International in competing jingoistic reformist currents occurred in a very precise context of world history. While similar conditions may prevail today, we are here requesting of currents who have survived the political challenges of the last few decades, and remained revolutionary, to lead this new process of broadening out. That’s a big difference. To not see it in those terms only encourages a certain functionalism — a belief that these new parties will arise because the space exists for them to do so. But then, taht space can be filled just as ‘functionally’ by outfits like the BNP. So who leads this process is crucial to what sort of party is created.
Comment by Dave Riley — 27 December, 2009 @ 3:23 am
Re 283- Excellent post Dave, will comment in detail when I have time.
Comment by kieran — 27 December, 2009 @ 7:00 am
#281 “the whim of voters” - so much political error encapsulated in those few words.
On the other hand frankly I am little bothered whether or not my or anyone elses’politics pass the lenin test, and therefore find the premise behind this thread off the mark, albeit that the thread itself appears to contain some very useful ideas.
Comment by armchair — 27 December, 2009 @ 8:48 am
Ger is wrong in claiming a) that I suggested the kind of re-assesments of Leninism or discussion of it we’re having uniquely pertained to the IS but also wrong that b) Marcel Liebman and others pre-dated that discussion. Within the Trotskyist movement perhaps these divisions are best captured as ones between those Trots who were prepared to play a role in the New Left and those who were not. The IS tradition certainly fitted into the former and from the 1950s onwards there were serious discussions of the relevence of Leninism in the contempory world within the IS tradition.
Dorothy Thompson apparently wrote an interesting article suggesting that most existing accounts of the New Left very much underestimate the role of Trotskyists within it.
For those Trots not seriously engaged with the new left these discussions and arguments about Leninism are seen as a set of heresy’s, contradictions, etc (sadly this also seemed to be the line taken by those like Higgens in his account). But if you go right back to Cliff’s articles on ’substitutionalism’ etc what you find is a set of arguments which certainly shift, but all of which leave their trace.
Arguments that those Trots who engaged with and were part of the new left have never thought about how “Leninist” politics fit with the contemporary period etc (as David claims above) are therefore false. This does’nt mean that such tendencies don’t exist, it just means, to return to my earlier bugbear, that to argue like this is to ignore the kinds of resources that we have.
People did not suddenly notice that there might be a gap between orthodoxy and reality in 2008.
Comment by johng — 27 December, 2009 @ 10:13 am
Cliff in 1960 on Trotsky and substitutionalism:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/cliff/works/1960/xx/trotsub.htm
Comment by johng — 27 December, 2009 @ 10:17 am
Oh I should say that I’ve just read Dave Riley all the way through. A much more interesting post then my own comments suggested.
Comment by johng — 27 December, 2009 @ 10:21 am
His contention about whether or not the SWP recognise the possibility of a broad socialist party is an interesting one. I think some of the arguments about the NPA are interesting. Back in the Summer Harman wrote this very interesting piece. Aside from clearly signalling the flaws in some of our practice viz Respect he also points out some of the other barriers to such a process of re-alignment we face in Britain:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/harman/2009/09/npa.htm
Comment by johng — 27 December, 2009 @ 10:37 am
As an ex SWPer (and Militant) member of Green Left I’d agree that the SWP are by no means the worst group on the `Leninist’ left. When people from the rest of the left critisize faliures of right wing Greens, to be honest I rarely disagree, I expect Respect members have has similar disagreements, but that’s what you get when you aren’t in a `democratic centralist’ organisation.
SWP members should read and engage with other currents on the left more, but they are not unique in a narrow conception of Marxism (or Leninism)- plenty of great stuff from other left traditions apart from Lenin/Trotsky/Cliff.
Some of the early posts on this thread seem like they come from a party low in confidence in either its own leadership, or its strategy - SWP members are working hard to stand still, at best.
Comment by ecolefty — 27 December, 2009 @ 1:50 pm
On the question of Green parties moving to the right: the real question in this country is whether its likely that the Greens will follow the same trajectory as that of other Green parties in Ireland and Germany. A real question for those contemplating left re-alignment but not one with any easy answers.
The idea that such questions can be dismissed with reference to the absence of democratic centralism strikes me as unserious. It may explain the desire of (some) to avoid any real engagement though. The phenomena of reformist sectarianism is probably under-studied.
We are in a situation where the organisational expression of reformism is fast disintergrating but the ideology associated with it remains (in many ways a good rather then a bad thing). Its a complicated situation and one of the major drawbacks on the left is a refusal to engage with this situation seriously.
The idea that this situation can be addressed with a spot of ‘leninist-bashing’, is somewhat unlikely.
As well as reading a lot about the New Left in Britain in the late 50s and 60s I’m also currently revisiting Broue’s masterpiece on the German Revolution. One reason to revisit these pasts is that they are both periods when the organisational structure of the left was being shaken up. The contexts are very different.
But the material is I would suggest much more interesting then the kind of sterile bashing which many seem incapable of going beyond.
Comment by johng — 27 December, 2009 @ 2:16 pm
“SWP members should read and engage with other currents on the left more, but they are not unique in a narrow conception of Marxism (or Leninism)- plenty of great stuff from other left traditions apart from Lenin/Trotsky/Cliff.”
Comment by ecolefty — 27 December, 2009 @ 1:50 pm
Ecolefty, let us put life in its simple context. The SWP does not claim to have all the answers to life on the left and as a member of the SWP I disagree with your claim that; “SWP members are working hard to stand still, at best.”
You are an ex SWP members for reasons best for you. I am an active member of the SWP for reasons best for me and the movement that I am part of. It is this negative criticism by ex SWP members who thrive on bashing an organisation that they either left or were expelled from, that I find a bit irritating in terms of building unity. We need militant cadres in our broad movement, we need Green socialists, we need the masses to build a broad movement and by broad movement I don’t mean the SWP. But as an SWP who engages in this broader movement I don’t need to read the whole literature out there to understand what being a revolutionary socialist entails and it does not mean that I have a narrow conception of Marxism or Leninism. As someone who has been reading one book after another since 2003 on revolutionary socialism I think I am ready to move on and put that theory into practice. As an ex SWP who is speaking from outside the SWP, be rest assured that we in the SWP are not working hard to stand still.
Comment by florence durrant — 27 December, 2009 @ 2:25 pm
Interesting though short article (link *289)by Harman. Implicit in it is an understanding the the way the SwP operated in Respect was mistaken. Has this been accepted anywhere explicitly? (rather thab just pointing the finger of blame at Rees for the debacle?)
Comment by non-partisan — 27 December, 2009 @ 2:37 pm
Its actually been a constant theme of re-assesments being made. I find it really hard to understand where this idea that its all about finger-pointing comes from.
Comment by johng — 27 December, 2009 @ 3:04 pm
Comment by non-partisan — 27 December, 2009 @ 2:37 pm
Short of standing on the roof top I don’t know any other way to explain why John Rees is no longer a member of the CC and why the Democracy Commission was founded. For most members of the SWP like myself, we held the whole CC responsible as they initially defended John Rees. These are the lessons the Party as a whole is learning; that there is no member of the SWP who is not indispensible. The fall out in RESPECT hurt many SWP members like myself just as it hurt none SWP members who spent a lot of money and time in building RESPECT. But we cannot dwell on bygones, especially in this climate of political and economical collapse. Surely the mistakes made in the RESPECT debacle are nothing compared to the mistakes made by the capitalist driven politicians.
Comment by florence durrant — 27 December, 2009 @ 3:10 pm
The problem is Florence that the SWP, being by far the largest Marxist formation in the UK, has played a role in every split, abandoned campaign and failure on the left over the past few years. Now you might well say that this is because the SWP has exerted more influence, been involved in more activity than any other party, and in this you would be right. But it still doesn’t get away from the fact that many non-SWP socialists, Marxists, and activists alike have had a bad experience working alongside the SWP within campaigns and united fronts and would find it hard to trust them again as a consequence. Continuing to exhort people to move on, to focus on the main enemy, etc., just doesn’t cut it. You can’t just expect people to unite because you say they should. Unity can only be achieved on the basis of trust. Unfortunately, I think you will find there are many who would refuse to work with the SWP again as a result of previous disasters.
Comment by John — 27 December, 2009 @ 3:44 pm
Absolutley agree florance, and thanks for your honesty. It’s a sign of maturity that lessons can be learned, its part of being able to face whatever comes without repeating them.
Comment by non-partisan — 27 December, 2009 @ 3:46 pm
Thing is John is that you be damned if you do, damned if you don’t. This site in particular made great play of the need of the SWP to address some of its own mistakes. In my view it took far too long (which is one reason why things are pretty fraught at the moment: as in life problems become bigger rather then going away if you leave them unaddressed). But when the SWP unquestionably is addressing these problems that too becomes a problem. However its right to acknowledge that one reason why the SWP has made mistakes is because its actually done things. A collery of this is that these mistakes were not uniquely authored by the SWP.
Comment by johng — 27 December, 2009 @ 4:05 pm
#295 Florence
Okay so the whole cc was held responsible for the Respect fiasco. However has the Democracy Commission DC come up with any real answers or was it just a way of kicking the: accountability / Democratic Centralism / relaxation of the ban on factions issues into the long grass whilst maintaining the status quo ?
Comment by Halshall — 27 December, 2009 @ 4:13 pm
“Unfortunately, I think you will find there are many who would refuse to work with the SWP again as a result of previous disasters.”
Comment by John — 27 December, 2009 @ 3:44 pm
I wouldn’t argue with you there johng because I suspect you have been around politically longer than me and hence your experience of this distrust between the left sects goes deeper than I know. I only know the RESPECT experience. What I can say though is that at this very moment the whole of the left stands to lose if we don’t learn to learn from our past mistakes and learn to trust each other in terms of not only building a United Front but of building a mass movement.
But I can also argue that to compesate for my lack of your vast experience in the fall outs I have a vast experience in international struggles as I have travelled with comrades in the past 7 years all over the world to intervene in international struggles. Where we have gone as an IST organisation we have been a diabolic failure, the first such for me being in Porte Alegro in 2005 where we had to be bailed out by our Korean sister group. In Caracus the following year the IST was slightly organised hence networked with other comrades from around the world, breaking the barriers of previous mistrusts. However, the best success for me nationally and internationally is where Globalise Resistance was the organiser on the left. When you look at the structure of the SWP, the IST and GR you will understand why it is high time we on the left cut the crap of licking our wounds from previous failures and got on with organising a mass movement which does not only include left sects who distrust each other. It is in such movements which are not dominated by one left sect that the left will learn to trust each other. By the way johng, no where did I say that my word is command. I believe in saying my own vision knowing that it may or may not be correct. My vision is of a united left which has left its baggage of previous failures where they belong. I think the SWP at this moment is just trying to do that.
Comment by florence durrant — 27 December, 2009 @ 4:21 pm
florence, John is not Johng. Only I am Johng. On the issue of distrust I think its real, but then I think these things are always real after that kind of political falling out. We are trying to address these issues and I disagree with John that we are not. I agree absolutely with your assessment of the need for the left to overcome their mutual antipathies. This is of course a two-way process.
Comment by johng — 27 December, 2009 @ 4:33 pm
Halshall, one feature of the arguments around DC was tension around how far it should go. But the pressure came overwhelmingly from the membership something which has been formally acknowledged, as was the fact that the reason for this pressure was that most thought the form the Respect split took would have been inconcievable had the cadre of the organisation been in a position to exert more control. Part of the reason for delays was the desire to avoid a split (I think quite understandable) and this was also connected to the failure to address some of the outstanding issues as promptly as they ought to have been. However they are now being addressed. Its worth saying that Left Platform were bitterly hostile and insulting about the DC from the beginning. They saw no need for it.
Comment by johng — 27 December, 2009 @ 4:37 pm
When I say Left Platform I obviously mean those comrades who are now in it, but held essentially the same assessment as now: that was that the attempt to hold the leadership accountable was ‘inward looking’ and ‘personalised’ whilst attempts to seriously look at how we do UF work was the same, as well as a retreat from it. All that was required was more elan and ‘leadership’ and all would be well. Most of the membership were unaccountably not too keen on this position. It recalls the dentist who after extracting half your teeth, suggests the extracting the lot would be a good solution.
Comment by johng — 27 December, 2009 @ 4:40 pm
Or as one comrade I know put it, confronted by another floamflecked diatribe: “Its like someone who knocked you on the head and stole your clothes trying to get you charged for public indecency”.
Comment by johng — 27 December, 2009 @ 4:43 pm
I love you johng - I have just finished a bottle of rose and have double vision. Kisses my darling!
Comment by florence durrant — 27 December, 2009 @ 4:51 pm
all that drinking business. its always a danger. But don’t go breaking my heart. How COULD you confuse my ramblings with someone else. How COULD you?
Comment by johng — 27 December, 2009 @ 4:54 pm
SCREEEEAAAM johng! I wouldn’t do such a thing if I was sober! Now back to business.
Halshall #299, I think you will find out that everybody wants answers where no one knows the questions. The reason I am confident of the direction the SWP is taking at the moment is because members are beginning to ask questions. That to me means we are not maintaning any status quo either in the leadership or in our vision. Our comrades out there are taking initiatives with others in fightback, whether for jobs, redudancy, racism, homophobia, climate change just to name a few. That doesn’t look like status quo to me. We learn as we go on and hopefully we will end up being a part of a bigger movement than the left sects put together.
Comment by florence durrant — 27 December, 2009 @ 5:13 pm
Re 308. I think Johng is not the only one who has been hitting the bottle…
‘That’s why it’s bizarre for Ger to claim that the SWP, SP etc. are not Leninist’
This is laughable. And typical of the way Ray tries to debate. Like a priest who presents a criticism of the Catholic Church as an attack on God, he tries to merge a criticism of the SWP’s method with a criticism of Leninism per say. Johng tries to pull the same stoke with his references to ‘leninist-bashing’. I don’t see myself engaging ‘leninist-bashing’. I do see myself offering some criticisms of SWP practice within the context of strategy required to build mass socialist currents in 21st century Britain. I know some of the SWP’ers here see themselves as the living incarnation of the Bolsheviks. You’re not. Please read again Le Blanc’s warnings about the dangers of delusions when Leninists create a ‘little organizational universe of their own’. Dave Reily quite rightly makes the same point.
In terms of strategy, there are different fronts. One very important one is the electoral. It would simply represent a big advance for the left if a radical party of the left could emerge. I think there are a million votes out there for such a party. I think Respect is best placed to harness that. I quite like the fact our leader is a hajib wearing Muslim women (in the same way that Cliff’s pitch about the leader of GLA one day being a black lesbian appealed to the romantic in me.) And contrary to Ray might think, it is simply impossible to achieve this task, or even win a single election, without being ‘rooted in the class’ (sic), as he puts it.
Will we succeed in our task? Depends on the general election. If we do well, we are in the game to build a genuine national challenge in the 2014 general election. If we don’t, well, life will be no doubt be a lot harder. Irrespective, strategically it is a key area. It is also one that the SWP will have next to no contribution to make. Now, that’s a failure, and one that simply cannot be reduced to John Rees.
Finally, and is this is very much a minor point Johng, but you actually wrote ‘most of the new ideas about Leninism, and informing ideas about Leninism with real history….stem from the [the IS] tradition.’ I think this is simply nonsense, but if you are going to try substantiate, you will have to do better than a link to a solitary, and not particularly original or significant piece from Cliff dating from 1960. And while you are at it, please explain what you think the relevance of the Harman link is. I have read it, and other than saying France is not Britain and has a different electoral system, it ‘signals’ nothing. I prefer it better when you don’t feel so compelled to try act like the SWP’s attorney.
Anyway, it feels like this tread has passed any political usefulness it had. And with Father Jack’s arrival, it is set to degenerate. Shame he is not so funny…
Comment by ger francis — 27 December, 2009 @ 8:34 pm
Ah Ger, the reference to Lenin-bashing was a direct response to another post not to you. I think I pointed to two dominant traditions on the trotskyist new left: that is the IS tradition and those around Hal Draper. This is probably an anglo-centric reading admittedly.
On Harman’s article surely you picked up the point of the problems of revolutionary organisations behaving like blocs and insisting on political orthodoxy? Others did.
But the main problem I have with your contribution (aside from the collapse into orthodox trotskyism signalled by the use of the ‘attorney’ jibe and repeated comparisons with catholic priests) is mentioning my name in the same sentance as Jim Denham.
This is simply a step too far!!
Comment by johng — 27 December, 2009 @ 8:49 pm
“It is also one that the SWP will have next to no contribution to make. Now, that’s a failure, and one that simply cannot be reduced to John Rees”
Who says it is?
Comment by johng — 27 December, 2009 @ 8:53 pm
#310 if it is not, where is the public retraction of the witchunt allegation?
Comment by non-partisan — 27 December, 2009 @ 9:02 pm
“Like a priest who presents a criticism of the Catholic Church as an attack on God, he tries to merge a criticism of the SWP’s method with a criticism of Leninism per say.”
It may have escaped your notice but Dereks thread is a disjointed and illinformed critique of the SWP and other revolutionary groups in the UK which claims that we are not following the so-called “true path” of Leninism. You then evangelise about the true path being electoralism. Now show me where Lenin advocated your distortion of Marxism?
I’m all for criticism but please don’t waste our time with your rehash of reformism.
“I know some of the SWP’ers here see themselves as the living incarnation of the Bolsheviks.”
Oh grow up! You sound like one of those right wing Labour hacks who go on about student revolutionaries all the time.
“Will we succeed in our task? Depends on the general election. If we do well, we are in the game to build a genuine national challenge in the 2014 general election. If we don’t, well, life will be no doubt be a lot harder. Irrespective, strategically it is a key area. It is also one that the SWP will have next to no contribution to make. Now, that’s a failure, and one that simply cannot be reduced to John Rees.”
Is this the level of your analysis Ger? We might do well electorally but if we don’t then we’re all in the shit. It really is pitiful. Even a five year old could hedge their bets more eloquently. You mistake hubris for strategy. The reality is that at best Galloway may retain his seat and Salma hers but that’s about it. Respect have little purchase electorally and nor has the rest of the left so making it the key area is not only foolhardy it’s irresponsible.
Why do all your critiques of the SWP and the rest of the left sound like another advert for Respect? Please use a tad more sophistication when hawking the company brand.
Comment by Ray — 27 December, 2009 @ 11:49 pm
Correction, it should say Salma might gain hers. Let’s hope so because it’s likely to be slim pickings for the left this election especially considering the trend of a low turnout of traditional Labour voters.
Comment by Ray — 28 December, 2009 @ 4:49 am
If I can draw the discussion back to the main topic, Lenin had this to say about getting parties to do right. I think it relates very much to Bolshevik practice:
I’ll spell out the main features of the Lenin quote that may apply , albeit in shallow form, to our current political circumstances:
(1) “The class-consciousness of the proletarian vanguard and by its devotion to the revolution, by its tenacity, self-sacrifice and heroism.”
There’s no argument there.To make a revolution you need revolutionaries. Let’s say that all the groupuscules can tick that box. So they get part of the business, and an important part too of course, correct.
(2) By the ability of that vanguard”to link up, maintain the closest contact, and—if you wish— merge, in certain measure, with the broadest masses of the working people—primarily with the proletariat, but also with the non-proletarian masses of working people.”
Lenin’s really into verbs in a big way here and what strong verbs they are too: “link up with” and “merge”. He also builds on that with the unambiguous phrase “maintain the closest contact with”.
There’s no talk here specifically about propaganda — of the ‘vanguard’ being respected for its innate ability to argue, talk up or write a ideological POV separate from some one else’s.
(3)”The correctness of the political leadership exercised by this vanguard, by the correctness of its political strategy and tactics.. ….(a) provided the broad masses have seen, from their own experience, that they are correct. ”
That’s the clincher surely — “the correctness of its political strategy and tactics” is judged not in terms of competing patents or shibboleths but by the broad masses who have seen ” from their own experience” that these “political strategy and tactics” are correct.
(4) And Lenin then offers a legacy to remind the post sixties left of what they face if they do not work to these principles: He says that “without these
conditions, all attempts to establish discipline inevitably fall flat and end up in phrasemongering and clowning.”
It’s one thing to say well we haven’t had “these conditions” to enjoy as we don’t have the same class conditions to work with. But it is another thing altogether to then argue that we will instead seek shelter in propagandizing and that we’re not quite up to merging with the masses just yet.
Isn’t the standard presumption advanced that in fact the masses need to come to us? You know, when they’re ready to finally listen to what we have to say…when our day will come…
Correct me if I’m wrong but Lenin suggests that that’s precisely the trap that will foster “phrasemongering and clowning”.We know that’s so true because we are not idiots and can recognize “phrasemongering and clowning” as a core activity of the maddest of the far left sects.
But we are free of it — how? Because we own a better program than they do ? That’s not what Lenin is saying.
He’s saying that if you don’t want to end up as dribbling phrasemongers you have to
I’m not suggesting that this is an easy navigation, but we need to face up to the sort of journey we need to negotiate and start to address it rather than defer the stepping out.
This journey I think was explained well by Rosa Luxembourg:
“They arise out of unavoidable social conditions. We cannot secure ourselves in advance against all possibilities of opportunist deviation. Such
dangers can be overcome only by the movement itself – certainly with the aid of Marxist theory, but only after the dangers in question have
taken tangible form in practice.”
Organizational Questions of the Russian Social Democracy
The core historical point here is , of course, that the dangers of opportunism that Luxembourg refers to were a major historical phenomenon accompanying the growth of imperialism in the late 19th century.
But she does advise us that we can’t get much succour from the fact:”We cannot secure ourselves in advance against all possibilities of opportunist deviation.”
Is she differing her POV from Lenin on this point? I don’t think so. I mean it’s a major issue,isn’t it — one that the Sixties New Left answered by seeking — or excusing — ever more intense focus on political differentiation and shibboleth detail to ensure it never fell victim to opportunism.
And the truth is that it did not and it has not. Has any group sold out the struggle..ever? Let’s be fair and candid on this point — despite our polemics.
So lets’ award ourselves all a Cupie Doll.
Tactical differences there are aplenty but really has any group done an Eduard Bernstein?
No — our problem is that we never really allowed ourselves to tack ” betwixt and between the two dangers” because we were primarily concerned about protecting ourselves from ” the abandonment of (our) goal.”
Thereby leaving our everyday existence prone to “the danger of sinking back to the condition of a sect.”
Comment by Dave Riley — 28 December, 2009 @ 6:34 am
And so?
Comment by KrisS — 28 December, 2009 @ 8:40 am
Would it be audacious to ask a few questions of the controbuting members of the S.W.P..I take it from this blog that your political philosiphy is founded on the philosiphy of Leninism,and that being so, is the Marks/Engels philosiphy of socialism the corner stone of your philosiphy, or is Leninism the foundation.
Secondly if you stand candidates in the coming election what are your policies on taxation employment health education law and order conscription censorship etc.Thank you.
Comment by howard — 28 December, 2009 @ 9:55 am
non-partisan have you been following the discussion? I don’t really understand the relevence of your point.
I’d echo KrisS’s question. I really don’t see why Dave’s latest is a critique of ‘leninists’. Most of the left are not ‘leninists’. They have’nt really done any better.
I really would recommend the broue incidently. For Ger’s benefit he is a non-IS Trot who’s book on the German revolution opened up a very different account of ‘Leninism’.
It turns out that much of what we now understand as ‘Leninism’ and how we read Leninist texts comes from Germany (the United Front originated with petitions from German metal workers). And in Germany this was a tradition which represented a merger (followed by many splits) between a ‘left’ and a section of the movement (the sparticists) who came out of social democracy.
They were involved in constant fights obviously. So the idea of an orthodoxy emerges out of a deeply contested terrain combined with attempts at compromise, and it does not really emerge from Russian conditions at all.
Of interest too is his account of what Stalin did to those who argued the kind of theses put foward by those like Leh (again its not new). He called them ‘archive rats’. And probably had them killed.
Hence the historiography of the German Revolution and the KPD was mostly bunk (as of course was the history of 1917).
Comment by johng — 28 December, 2009 @ 10:05 am
Johng, I blame the priest references to trips back to Ireland. There is always something about the experience that brings out hostility to dogmatism and denial. I take your point about Denham, though. Even a coincidental association is below the belt. Will be more careful in the future.
Most of my initial points should have been pretty uncontentious. I said that in relation to the challenges of building mass socialist currents in advanced capitalist societies contemporary Leninism has under theorised, and this has had a corresponding negative impact on strategy. (At root, I believe is a problem of method of most latter day adherents in the UK, which is obvioulsy a more contentious claim). In relation to the SWP the under theorisation is simply demonstrable. For example, if you tot up the entire column inches expended on say, the theory of state capitalism, and compare it to that on theorising about the SWP’s version of the British road to socialism, or revolution in the west, there is simply no comparison. Now, one reply to this could be to concede, and reflect on the fact that maybe, just maybe, that is a little bit odd, and explore why. Another approach is to deny.
Ray is a denier, a dues paying member of the flat earth society, given to deference to his political masters, whoever they may be at any given moment, and enthusiastic heresy hunting.(I won’t be the only one on this blog who remembers how much you embarrassed yourself, and let down your party, during the Respect split). He tries to reduce criticism of contemporary Leninist organisations like his own to criticism of Leninism, as if one is the living embodiment of the other. (‘That’s why it’s bizarre for Ger to claim that the SWP, SP etc. are not Leninist’ – he denies having said this without having the wit to remind himself first of what actually wrote. Never mind). He further contradicts himself by upholding the need for a strategy ‘that includes electoralism where it is advantageous to the left’, (where would it not?), while in the next breath stating ‘please don’t waste our time with your rehash of reformism’. Make up your mind. Either you think there are merits in a radical left party, or not. I do. And no, a one line comment about the general election is not the totality of a strategy. But it does give a fleeting glimpse of one in a critical front, the electoral, in which you have none whatsoever. And that is a massive failure. (One of the saddest things about the third IB is that Michael Lavellette is reduced to writing about social work, and has nothing to say about his own experiences of a councillor. What a waste.)
I think at the moment there are a million votes out there that a radical party of the left could harness. Such a development would represent a big advance for the left. And that task remains, irrespective of whether Respect fail in its endeavour. But if Respect emerges out of the general election with two MP’s we will be very strongly placed to go forward. Now, that would be a victory for all the left, wouldn’t it Ray?
Comment by ger francis — 28 December, 2009 @ 2:00 pm
Of course it would be a victory for the left and I think Ray says this. I have to say that I don’t think its very odd that the SWP has undertheorised electoral work nor that we didn’t do much in the previous period. What was new about the last decade was a) the fall-out of the war, b) the hollowing out of actually existing social democracy. One paradox produced was the combination of a) the absence of any viable reformist ideology to articulate discontent but b) that most wanted such an ideology rather then a revolutionary one (understandably enough).
Neil Davidson in his pieces on Scottish Nationalism spoke of the way this situation was likely to produce various umbrellas for reformist anti-neo-liberal politics which would not neccessarily express themselves in the traditional British way (the SNP being his preferred example, although there was also some discussion of the Greens).
Now we also have the global crisis to contend with which is accentuating these tendencies. Now this is an exceedingly complicated terrain and certainly calls out for new thinking. One argument which might be put foward is that the pressures towards the right on the old movementist politics no longer exist. This seems to be the burden of arguments suggesting that our comrades in the Greens are unlikely to repeat the process which occured in Europe.
However recent experiances in Ireland make the case a little less open and shut. But there are broader questions in terms of how we move foward in the situation. I think you are right that the recent experiance in Respect showed serious difficulties with the way the main far left organisation in Britain conceived of the United Front and how it was operated (I’m not sure how often I’m supposed to say this).
But I’m also pretty sure that there were other failures as well (for one thing difficulties in the way of other forces participating, not all of which were to do with the SWP). I’m not really persuaded by the idea that the experiance of the last thirty years demonstrates that the far left is entirely bankrupt.
If, for example, we had got some things righter then we did, the verdict would be entirely different. One could then draw imaginary diagrams pointing to the sacred correctness of every decision we had made since 1960. This would have been equally foolish however.
I think Ray did have a bit of a point with the curious resemblence between SOME of your argument and some of the more tedious SWP meetings I have experianced where it turns out that the conclusion of a meeting on the transition from feudalism to capitalism is the need to build a revolutionary party, or in this case, all roads lead to Respect.
I suspect the real situation is more complicated then that.
To concede one thing though. I think your points about the diagnosis of the tendency or danger of people inventing their own political world independently of reality are real ones. They are a persistant problem on the far left, and I think its true that for a period we were in danger of slipping into this (for me the worst moments of this were associated with the Left List iniative).
But its not the case a) that this is unique to the SWP or b) that organisations organised around elections are immune to this. I think the kind of discussion we ought to be having is what our goal as socialists in the present situation actually are.
Comment by johng — 28 December, 2009 @ 2:29 pm
The problem johng is that although it is recognised that the whole SWP cc fell in behind Rees at the time of the split, lessons claim to have been learnt since then. But ubless i’m mistaken the SWp has not retracted the witch hunt allegation made against fellow socialists, a pretty damning accusation wouldn’t you agree? and if the SWP has moved on, then why not admit the witchunt was a reation of rees to save his skin, and the SWp leadrship went along with it. The only reason this keeps oming up, is that you can’t call people witchunters then two or 3 years later claim to want unity - with those witchunters?
Comment by non-partisan — 28 December, 2009 @ 3:55 pm
Well I disagree non-partisan. If you think political differences are ever resolved by one side collapsing onto their knees saying you wuz right after all etc, I think you’ve got a strange view of the world. Its not how things go. Anywhere. Ever.
Comment by johng — 28 December, 2009 @ 3:58 pm
john was there a witchunt? all this bollox about collapsing on knees is laughable.
Comment by non-partisan — 28 December, 2009 @ 4:08 pm
#320, Does have a valid point, I would add to ‘witchunters’, ‘right wing moving’, ‘communalists’ ‘homophomes’ ‘ballotriggers’.
It would go a long way to draining away some of the genuinely felt anger directed towards the SWP because of these slurs, if someone from the CC said that these were untruths, even if said in the heat of the moment.
Comment by JFK — 28 December, 2009 @ 4:11 pm
Well I’ve said before, in my view, the petition (which I signed) was probably a mistake. But I think by that stage it was very late in the day and the situation was so inflamed that it was certainly a very nasty faction fight. But whats productive about all this stuff ‘non-partisan’. There is always the temptation to just turn around and say, ‘well go fuck yourself then’. I of course resist this because I am very saintly.
Comment by johng — 28 December, 2009 @ 4:12 pm
It is telling that what you are too saintly to say, by implication is what you think. The point of raising this is about honesty, political honesty, you waffle all you like. the petition was a mistake? grow a set of balls john. Say what you mean, was it a mistake to issue the petition? a rally, or campaign of resolutions, or some other way of protesting the witchunt would have been more appropriate? or was the petition a mistake because there was no witchunt?
we are not talking about people losing there temper in a heated situation, saying things they later regret, or misjudging an intervention. There was a campaign to brand galloway and others in labour movement as wtchunters and effectively scabs. The way you continue to gloss over this is insulting.
But sorry, i’m distracting people from your learned contributions on ‘lennism’ -
guess you don’t see the irony in this.
Comment by non-partisan — 28 December, 2009 @ 4:21 pm
John.
I’ve observed that over that last 2 years you have at least have attempted to engage with some of the problems resulting around the split in 2007, but I have disgree with the statement
‘the petition…. was probably a mistake’
No, the petition was a fraud, a lie.
Comment by JFK — 28 December, 2009 @ 4:28 pm
Oh for gods sake. I don’t think it was a ‘lie’. My reaction to the comments threads here were exactly that. Its why I signed it (despite being unhappy about the general situation). For most of us it was far less clearcut at the time then you are making it out to be here. Many, many who were not in the SWP who had been in respect were annoyed by what was going on (’the mutual suicide pact’ as one put it). I was’nt ‘lying’ when I signed the petition, and I suspect that whoever drew it up was’nt ‘lying’ either. It was probably a mistake though.
Comment by johng — 28 December, 2009 @ 4:34 pm
327* of course it was far less clear cut at the time, i think we all understand that, and it is with that in mind we are asking do you still (not did you at the time, at the time i respect that you did think there was a witchunt) but with the benefit of hindsight, was there a witchunt?
i guess you will just say, pretty nasty things happened on both sides and theres no point going over it now…
you just look foolish….or dishonest
Comment by non-partisan — 28 December, 2009 @ 4:41 pm
John
I’m not accusing you of lying, and yes, you signed it in good faith, end of,
But I suspect the individual who drew it up though was a one John Rees, now when it comes to lying…..well
Its probably one of the reasons why you’re going to ’shoot JR’ in January
Comment by JFK — 28 December, 2009 @ 4:45 pm
321 - Johng, am sober today boyfriend and I agree with you 100%. Remember the wise words Jesus told the sanctimonious buffoons who wanted to stone a woman because she had committed adultery? He said to the rowdy crowd of buffoons like those who want the SWP to bend on one knee and apologise for the part that Rees and the SWP CC played in the RESPECT fall out, ‘Let anyone of you who has not committed a crime cast the first stone.’ Clever stick Jesus Christ was because he pretended to be writing on the sand when saying these words and when he looked up all those who wanted to stone the poor sex starved woman were gone. He said to the woman, ‘Where are all those men who wanted to stone you?’ and she said, ‘They are all gone sir’.
For someone like me, a black woman whose lifetime is marked by wrinkles caused by fighting against injustices, but was witch hunted purely for joining the SWP whilst at the same time divorcing my white husband, I know the suffering one goes through when being witch hunted. So I don’t underestimate the suffering of those who were victims of Rees’s witch hunt at the split of RESPECT; because when these idiots witch hunt you, they don’t want to hear your side of the story for a start; just as the biblical sanctimonious righteous buffoons who were consumed by their misogynism were prepared to kill a woman for having sex with a man of her choice who was not her husband. The collapse of RESPECT was inevitable because it was not founded as a workers movement. It lacked the broadbase that we Marxist call the emancipation of the working class by the working class. John Rees, as someone central to building RESPECT took over and fucked up what most likely would have failed in the long run. In electoral reformist politics we on the left need not only New Labour MPs who are on the left of Labour, but we need militant Unions and militant workers like in Vestas et al. These are the people fighting against the ordinary day to day struggles. That is not reflected in RESPECT.
For those in RESPECT, the success of RESPECT in the next elections will be applauded by all of us. We need anti-war politicians like Salma Yaqoob and George Galloway just as we need union leaders like Mark Serwotka. So all this bullshitting of holding the SWP responsible for the crimes of reformist politics is crap. I can speak on this one because in the 7 years I have been active in the SWP I have suffered more than I have ever suffered in my life. I suffered in the hands of some SWP members and some sectarians. I believe that was because of my colour, my background and my attitude to pompous ignorant buffoons; but I stuck to the SWP because individuals are not the SWP. Let us all look to the future without blinkers from the past is what I request from those who want a broader movement that will challenge the current political status quo.
Comment by florence durrant — 28 December, 2009 @ 4:46 pm
There are worst things then looking foolish. Dishonest though I’m not. Florence, I agree with your broad sentiments. I’m not sure that the collapse of Respect was inevitable though. I remember the anger of many of the ordinary members of Respect about the way they were bounced into this fight, and I respect that anger. If I’m honest I’m still angry about it. I’m more angry about our own mistakes because we control those. We don’t control others mistakes.
Comment by johng — 28 December, 2009 @ 5:04 pm
Johng, I think it was inevitable in the sense that it did not attract the mainstream politicians apart from George Galloway. RESPECT was my first political experience from my experience of being a Freedom Fighter. But there are New Labour politicians on the left that I respect who in my eyes would have been the cornerstone of RESPECT had they been part of it. Their failure to get on board is what makes my argument that RESPECT was not build on a strong foundation. Apart from George G, who else did RESPECT have who was well conversant with reformist politics?
Comment by florence durrant — 28 December, 2009 @ 5:11 pm
Yeah on that your right Florence. Funnily enough Galloway said the same thing in his article on car crash on the left. Essentially it was the SWP and Galloway and it just was’nt enough. There are legitimate arguments about the way the increasing in-fighting led to serious figures being marginalised in an utterly unforgiveable way, above all Salma, but also I think some of our comrades in Preston: but this leaves out of account the fact that there were just too few of us all round. And this was the root of things. But it does’nt mean that there had to be such a ’spectacular’ though. That was just irresponsible on the part of those in responsible positions. And thats why I’m still annoyed about it.
Comment by johng — 28 December, 2009 @ 5:18 pm
John
The witchhunt petetion was not only a deliberate lie on the part of who ever initiated it, to bolster their own personal repuation at the expense of the whole left, Respect, and even at the expense of the SWP
But for those who signed it, it was like sawing off the bough of the tree they were siting on.
It did enormous damage to the SWp’s credibility in the wider moevement.
We have also had no real accounting of the Left list fisaco, which seem to have been a sectarian wrecking operation by SWp ju7st t try to deny gallwoay a victory in the London assembly elections.
If you can’t be honest about the sectarian track that the whole SWP took following John Rees at that time, then how are you going to rebuild your threadbare reputation?
Comment by Andy Newman — 28 December, 2009 @ 6:59 pm
“It is telling that what you are too saintly to say, by implication is what you think.”
It’s quite dishonest of you to downplay the split in Respect. Trying to put John on the spot won’t negate the seriousness of the political disagreements that occured during the split. To the extent that Galloway organised a seperate conference. But what that has got to do with whether the UK revolutionary left is following the so-called “true path” of Leninism is unclear.
Despite the thread being posted by a Green who is hostile to the revolutionary left, it appears that this whole thread is another excuse for certain Respect members to promote their organisation and has very little to do with debating Marxist theory and strategy.
What a dull and uninspired start to the new year for the left.
Comment by Ray — 28 December, 2009 @ 9:18 pm
“If you can’t be honest about the sectarian track that the whole SWP took following John Rees at that time, then how are you going to rebuild your threadbare reputation?”
That’s rich coming from someone in an organisation that didn’t even have elected leaders or allow a membership vote for nearly a year after the split. Please spare us the pontificating when your own organisation hasn’t even had an internal enquiry unlike ours. It’s the messianic tone of you and Ger in this thread that’s really disturbing. You’re emulating the very thing to claim Rees indulged in. How ironic! No one on the left outside your own little coterie is buying The Good News so why don’t you give it a rest and try to work together with the rest of the left with a little humility?
Comment by Ray — 28 December, 2009 @ 9:32 pm
It is a bit sad that this has returned to the subject of the Respect split, but I guess you are going to have to get used to it, because it will remain ‘the elephant in the room’ every time the SWP talk about unity. You can’t ignore that or wish it away, the best you can do is deal with honestly, and that has not happenend yet. btw i am not a member of Respect.
Comment by non-partisan — 28 December, 2009 @ 9:43 pm
‘Despite the thread being posted by a Green who is hostile to the revolutionary left’ well I think there may be better ways of doing left and revolutionary politics….for example today, I had a very useful meeting with Phil from the International Socialist Organisation, I have some discreet disagreements with the ISO but in a very difficult political climate a) They are the largest left group in the USA b) They are capable of working with others on the left.
Perhaps the SWP have something to learn from them, incidentally Paul LeBlanc recently joined ISO.
Comment by Derek Wall — 28 December, 2009 @ 10:30 pm
Name-dropper
Comment by Jota — 28 December, 2009 @ 10:46 pm
#336
Ray
The SWP are a more multi-facteted organisation than just being measured by their involvement in Respct, and people have experienne of the SWP over decades now, some of it good and some of it not so good.
So It was exaggerated f me to say that the SWP’s reputation is uttery threadbare; but over this spcific issue of the witchhunt petition, then your repuation is terrible and you should face up to it.
As to you complaints about people being “hostile to the revolutionary left”, there is a real sense of entitlement here, that you seem to think that the SWP should not have to relate to people critical of it.
Comment by Andy Newman — 28 December, 2009 @ 10:48 pm
Andy
The SWP relates to people critical of it every day.
Among all the people I’ve spoken to over this last year - friendly, hostile, critical,indifferent - this particular issue has only ever come up on here. And even then, raised by a tiny number of people.
Comment by KrisS — 28 December, 2009 @ 11:07 pm
The point of this thread is supposed to be a debate about Leninism and my criticism of it is that it is another attack on the SWP dressed up as Marxist critique. Google ‘Socialist Unity’ and you’ll find the top two threads advertised are about the SWP.
Whenever the Respect split is referred to on here it invariably involves little self-reflection on the part of those who left with Galloway. Now even if we were to accept that they were entirely blameless, which is a fiction akin to the stories of Tolkein (but not as sophisticated), then it begs the question why these innocents joined the SWP in the first place if we have such a poor record of joint work.
It also raises the issue of why Galloway responded so explosively during the split if he was putting forward such a measured critique. Surely he could have risen above us petulant, shrill Trots?
There may well be a number of people on the left who don’t trust the SWP. When hasn’t this ever been the case? The very nature of the varying and competitive political perspectives on the left is a prerequisite for this condition. But I’m willing to bet that there are just as many who are suspicious of Galloway and Respects intentions before and after the split and are probably not comforted by the rancorous missives from Ger in this thread.
The point is that dragging up our differences doesn’t solve anything. Especially when they are dressed up as Marxist critique. We agree to differ but that doesn’t preclude working together.
Comment by Ray — 28 December, 2009 @ 11:47 pm
Ray- why have you described Derek as hostile to the revolutionary left, given that he cites frequently and apprrovingly material from such currents as the USFI?
You descibe him in this way in spite of the fact that you clearly follow this blog regularly.
By hostile to the revolutionary left do ou mean critical of the swp? If not you are clearly wrong in your description of Derek, and I am curious as to the basis of your error.
Comment by armchair — 29 December, 2009 @ 12:01 am
Andy,
I’ve been very clear about the things you mention. Its also true that the SWP has had a massive internal re-structuring in relationship to these matters. I do sometimes think that some have some sort of an interest in us NOT addressing these problems. I can imagine that in the initial years Respect had to, to some extent at least in relationship to its memmbership, be to some extent a kind of ‘anti-SWP’. You should move beyond that really (as I know you have on a range of other issues). Its noticable to me that the more critical I am of the SWP’s behaviour during Respect, the more annoyed do some of you become. I genuinely find this a bit curious.
Comment by johng — 29 December, 2009 @ 9:33 am
John
As you are aware, describing left activists as orchestrating a witchhunt, i.e saying that we are scabs; and even persuading a general secretary of a major union to sign up to the fiction is not a minor matter.
Now the convenient scapegoating of John Rees et al for the Left List debacle is all very well, but the whole SWP publiclay went along wth an electroal adventure the sole purpose of which seems to have been a spoiler operation to try to deny galloway a victory
Internal reforms of you democratic processes are all very well, but some refelction on why your whole organisation endorsed such sectarianism is necessary.
P.s. I don’t think any one is annoyed with you personally over this.
Comment by Andy Newman — 29 December, 2009 @ 10:11 am
“some reflection”…actually there has been rather a lot Andy. I’m merely pointing to the fact that some seem almost as worried by this as the events themselves.
On the letter itself, I think, whilst a mistake, and I’m sure central for many in Respect, it was not as central as you are making out.
For me the mistake was rather a fundementally faulty model of the relationship between the SWP and its allies which exasserbated tensions which meant that in the then unfavourable climate a split became almost inevitable.
I also think that internal problems meant that none of these issues were subject to public discussion and were therefore not subject to correction. This continued even afterwards (I remember being utterly gobsmacked to hear that a leading member suggested that the Left List was a method of retreat in order not to demoralise the comrades: not only was this disengenuous but it implied a disasterous model of “leadership” in any organisation, let alone a revolutionary one).
The petition appears in retrospect as a last ditch measure to rally the troops in what was obviously going to be a large internal crisis, as ill-thought out as last minute emails about defecting councillers. But many signed it because they actually wanted to avert rather then cause a split (in the retrospectively naive belief that it might be possible to rally sections of the membership of respect against a premature split).
There was the sense of a leaders revolt as one comrade remarked at the time. The trouble was that this was going on inside our own organisation as well. Hence the murkiness on all sides about what was really going on.
And here it just does seem to me that the die was cast long before these tensions were visible to many members.
Now there is the legitimate and oft raised question about why this was not challenged by members earlier. Well one reason has, ironically enough, been alluded to by Ger. This was that those comrades most centrally involved in driving the car off the cliff had a very good previous record in getting the car started in the first place and were associated with an outward turn most were enthusiastic about.
My own feeling is that rather then theoretical arguments about Leninism or specific interpretations of Lukacs, the real problem was a model which increasingly involved smart people getting togeather to sort out large issues with the membership being seen as simply recalcitrant footsoldiers.
But this to me is much more reminicent of social democracy then it is of ‘Leninism’. I think what accentuated all this and made the shape of the crisis curiously personalised had to do both with a certain logic of electoral politics, and a faulty model of the relationship between the SWP and its allies, grafted in an unwieldy way onto a set of rather more banal manuevers which are the stuff of local politics rather then petrograd.
But personalities do matter in these things and it is neccessary that lessons are learnt.
Comment by johng — 29 December, 2009 @ 10:37 am
Incidently this is why attempts to reduce the debate in the SWP to an argument about being for and against wider political work (united fronts etc) are so misconcieved. One reason why comrades did not challenge decisions they should have done was because of this false polarisation. Part of correcting these mistakes is to break from it. Hence shrill attempts to re-introduce it: an essential alibi for those who want to continue in the same way.
Comment by johng — 29 December, 2009 @ 11:14 am
John
What you are saying here is not without some good sense; but for those of us actually described as witchunters, or in some cases described as ballot riggers, etc, etc, perhaps we still take that personally.
For example, the SWP persuaded mark Serwotka to sign a petition that inferred that some members of his own unions who supported George Galloway were witchhunters!
Back the time i was speaking with a left inclined full time official in UNISON who told me that he was much less inclined to defend Tony Staunton after the witchhunt petition.
So maybe you haven’t expereince of it causing bad feeling, but eople in the unions often have longer term memories; and the ballot rigger accusation was particularly damaging.
Comment by Andy Newman — 29 December, 2009 @ 11:55 am
I suspect Mark Serwotka signed the petition because he saw the split as fundementally damaging for the left: as did I. I don’t know who the UNISON official is your referring to (I don’t want to either!!) but given the mounting, and very real, witch hunt of the left in unions like UNISON, I really have little patience with those who would use that as an excuse.
Comment by johng — 29 December, 2009 @ 12:00 pm
oh I see so your mate unison official went along with the attacks on socialists. But of course Andy its the SWP’s fault. Don’t suppose it did your mates career any harm though. Pathetic
Comment by jj — 29 December, 2009 @ 12:00 pm
And this, I guess, makes me uneasy about these kinds of discussion.
Comment by johng — 29 December, 2009 @ 12:01 pm
Well JOhn, the existance of a real witchhunt in UNISON was and is all the more reason to tread carefully and maintain good relations with people whith politics quite different from yours or mine.
You write about the petition as if it were value neutral, wheras it was in fact a scurrilous attack on trade union activist and other socialists effectively calling us scabs.
To harness that to well intentioned desire for unity is cynical and machieveliean.
what we need to be clear about is that there was no withchunt; and thereofre those who signed up to agree that there was were making a very bad mistake.
That does not preclude the idea that mistakes were made on both sides. I am sure they were.
Comment by Andy Newman — 29 December, 2009 @ 12:05 pm
I don’t think it was an attempt to call people ’scabs’. It related much more to the view that what was involved was a ‘left-right’ split. About that I think there can be legitimate differences (partly because this does’nt preclude critical discussion about whether the split was a mistake or not).
One thing I do find worrying though (and found worrying at the time) was a lack of responsibility in the language comrades on all sides used. On our side its no secret that I was horrified by the exchanges here about Linda Smith. On the other side I think the use of language which very closely resembled the language used by those attacking the left in the trade union movement, muddied the waters considerably.
I think there were those on both sides who had really made the decision that a split was desirable. There was therefore no need to ‘take care’. Many of us felt (and still feel) differently.
Comment by johng — 29 December, 2009 @ 12:28 pm
I’m a UNISON member, and I’ve never had the Respect split thrown at me when I’ve been arguing against the witch-hunts of SWP, United Left and Socialist Party members with branch members or other activists. It’s used by online red-baiters like John Gray, but as part of a general red-baiting as much aimed at George Galloway as at the SWP.
I think both sides in the split made mistakes, and each side should own their own mistakes. I see no sign of Respect members who comment here coming to terms with any of their mistakes, and I thus can’t take very seriously the demands for the SWP to confess and accept our penance.
Comment by chjh — 29 December, 2009 @ 1:10 pm
“as much aimed at George Galloway as at the SWP”
Thats my experiance and why a lot of these discussions feel a little perposterous.
Comment by johng — 29 December, 2009 @ 1:27 pm
That is also why the language of “witchhunt” was so ill judged.
It is a bit rich claiming now that those of us who object to having been descibed as witchhunters are being ” a little preposterous”, especially in the context of SWP coomrades on here and elsewhere, jj in particular, smearing other trades unionists at the time as ballot riggers.
It was the claim of a witchhunt that was preposterous in the first place, and one that clearly carries with it the implication that those carrying out the “withchhunt” are either scabs or utter right wingers with whom socialists should under no circumstances cooperate..
Was it a witchhunt or not? If not, then wihy say that it was? Why even now defend it as merely an unfortunate forms of words, when actually the content of the witchhunt claim was trying to anathematise George galloway and his supporters as scabs in the wider movment. By signing the withchhunt petiation you were clearly puting the intersts of the SWP as an institution above the interests of the woder movement
Now I am quite prepared to accept that errors may have been made on all sides, but you haven’t actualy suggested what those errors might have been, so it is hard to discuss them
There is however still on the table a very clear error on the SWP’s part, the seriousness of which is still not acknowledged, that the majority of the SWP’s cadre went along with a narrative of a witchhunt. And therefore semeared us as scabs.
You also went along with an utterly irresponsible wrecking operation of the “Left List” that seems to have had no purpose other than to try to damage George Galloway’s elections chances in the London assembly elections; to the extent even of causing consternation among trade union allies in UAF by attempting to use the LMHR rally as an election boost for Lindsey German.
Where errors may have been made by those of us in respect they were not ones that sought to deliberately escalate the split into the wider movement. Our support for SWP members like Tony Staunton and Karen Reissman are clear examples of us putting the interests of the movement before the narrow concerns of the storm in the respect tea-cup.
Comment by Andy Newman — 29 December, 2009 @ 1:40 pm
I think this conversation has reached a terminus. It does show an absolute unwillingness to engage in any genuine dialogue that I must say I find quite disapointing. You endlessly repeat things I have already gone over and on the other hand seem to demand that everyone share exactly the same perspective as yourself on what was a deeply contested set of disasters which have damaged everyone. I’d suggest that that isn’t the best way foward.
Comment by johng — 29 December, 2009 @ 2:00 pm
Whether we acknowledge it or not, the elephant will stay in the room. This will be a part of a future reckoning in the SWP. These things don’t just go away.
Comment by non-partisan — 29 December, 2009 @ 2:07 pm
Just hope not too many good activists are put off left politics.
Comment by ecolefty — 29 December, 2009 @ 2:13 pm
JOhn
There can be dialogue over questions of interpreation and questions of opinion; but we are entitled to straight answrrs over what you consider the facts to be, not evasions.
It is a straight question: was a witchhunt or not; and if there was no witchhunt, then why launch a petition saying that there was? And why would someone sign it if they thought there ws no real witchhunt, unless they were putting the institutional interests of their left group as being more importnat than the interests of the wider left?
Comment by Andy Newman — 29 December, 2009 @ 2:28 pm
Andy I have answered these questions over and over again. You are entitled to precisely nothing as I am entitled to precisely nothing, in a conversation. This is not a court of law its a blog. If you are so defensive about a genuine conversation don’t initiate one. Its not compulsory. You are clearly now trying to accuse me of being a liar or a sectarian. I’m not minded to carry on such an idiotic exchange.
Comment by johng — 29 December, 2009 @ 2:34 pm
JOhn
It is not about you as an individual, it is about the SWP as an organisation.
The answer to the question - “was there a witchhunt” needs to be a simple yes or no.
Comment by Andy Newman — 29 December, 2009 @ 2:38 pm
You see JOhn , this is what you said earlier:
“rallying the troops” is clearly an effort to mobilise the SWP’s membership around a narrative that reflected the institutional interests of the SWP, the idea that calling someone a witchnunter might make them less inclined to split from you is not naive, it is literally incredible.
The attempt was to anathematise Galloway and his supporters either to retreat in good order as the SWP out of Respect, caterising the wound so that wavering people would beleive that there really was a witchhunt, or to damage galoway so much that the SWp retained control of Respect, without galloway and Yaqoob, so that you could kill it at your leisure.
In neither case can it be credibly argued that the SWP were considering the wider interests of the left, as opposed to their own institional interests.
Comment by Andy Newman — 29 December, 2009 @ 2:47 pm
I don’t think there IS a simple answer to the question. People signed the petition because they didn’t want to see a split which took the form of arguments that the SWP as an organisation had to be excluded from Respect for it to make further progress. I think the petition was a mistake. But I don’t think people signed it because they were putting the interests of the SWP before that of the movement. They signed it because they thought a split was not in the interest of the broader movement. And I would still mantain it was’nt. This does not mean I’m suggesting that the leadership of Respect put their own interests above that of the movement (although I would if I followed your own argumentative method). It was a split that resulted from a combination of objective and subjective factors, and the SWP certainly played a role in those subjective factors. I think as well though, it was a serious mistake that the decision was made to call a seperate conference. Partly because I think it sunk the possibility of Respect becoming a wider national alternative (although it may still play a role in generating one). Imagine for a moment the position we’d be in now if we had not gone ahead with the split. And I also think it was a mistake for the narrower reason that I think, in all probability, the conference would have forced the old leadership in the SWP to recognise reality at an earlier stage. By jumping the gun this possibility was avoided. Partly I suspect because the continuing existence of a broader formation might have have been regarded as undesirable even if the specific arguments George initially raised were dealt with.
At the time of the witch-hunt petition though none of these outcomes were known and there was still much to play for. Without any troops its highly unlikely you could play at all. I do think that the petition was a mistake. But I also think that the real sin was the degree to which a section of the leadership was pushing for a split whilst pretending it was’nt. But then again I think this was also the case in the Respect leadership.
Comment by johng — 29 December, 2009 @ 3:09 pm
“The answer to the question - “was there a witchhunt” needs to be a simple yes or no.”
Of course there was! Galloway wanted to neuter the SWP at a time when Respects electoral success had taken a dip. He viewed the revolutionary left as a liability because of this. In light of the electoral situation the SWP wanted to broaden the work to include more industrial work. Another direction Galloway was not happy with.
The legacy of this is evident in the recent division at the recent Respect conference where those advocating greater involvement in industrial work were sidelined. Ger, a leading Respect member, is advocating electoralism a THE key area of activity. I would be more worried about this potential disaster than about a some petition years ago.
No one in the SWP is answerable to you Andy and it’s about time you gave up your interrogative debating style.
Comment by Ray — 29 December, 2009 @ 4:33 pm
I would say that its understandable that the leadership of respect is more concerned with electoral work then with industrial work, simply on the basis of the options open to them. My problem is turning this neccessity into a virtue. I prefer to steer away from endless discussions of the questions that divide us, but what I find disapointing about Andy’s method of argument is the obvious investment in keeping these things alive. I think thats short-sighted. There has just been a somewhat farcical argument published at Liam’s place (usually a fairly sensible blog) which I think plays the same game.
Comment by johng — 29 December, 2009 @ 4:46 pm
I agree that if Respect plan to make electoralism the main plank of their strategy then good luck to them. Many a reformist organisation has put all its eggs into the electoral basket. What irks me is when certain Respect members on SU dress it up as a new way forward for the left, or even more bizarre, a critique of the revolutionary lefts betrayal of so-called “Leninism”.
I don’t think it’s co-incidence that this obsession with electoralism has manifested after the split. The closer we get to the general election I suspect the more intense this mantra will become. But it isn’t THE strategy for the left in the future and if the bottom drops out of the electoral strategy then it will seriously damage those who are depending on it.
After the split, Respect has become a two horse race in one London borough and one area in Birmingham. If this demonstrates anything it’s how fragile the penetration of Respect was nationally and indicates the level at which SWP comrades were substituting for any significant retention of non-SWP members nationally. Galloway knew this and it became an area of contention in relation to how Respect should direct its work during a lull in electoral fortunes.
I think the split was inevitable in those circumstances and I doubt that even in hindsight it could have been handled very differently. It wasn’t a clash of personalities, it became a fundamental political disagreement about the direction of Respect when the initial electoral success had dried up. That’s why I think it’s disastrous for the left outside Labour to place it’s fortunes in electoralism but at the same time inevitable that Respect sans the SWP have done so.
Comment by Ray — 29 December, 2009 @ 5:50 pm
I agree with Andy (the ‘witchhunt’ petition was a disastrous move and wasn’t justified), but also with John (”when did you stop lying to the class?” isn’t a useful question).
So, was there a witchhunt? No. At the time of Galloway’s letter to the RESPECT CC, I don’t believe there was any intention of driving the SWP out of RESPECT, let alone excluding individual SWP members from RESPECT. What I think was there from the start was a determination to change the terms on which the SWP was involved with RESPECT - or, more fundamentally, to change the situation in which the SWP leadership didn’t recognise anyone else as having the right to change the terms on which the party was involved with RESPECT.
There is a big, big difference between (a) “your involvement as a party can continue but not necessarily on your terms” and (b) “your involvement as a party is over”. And there’s a big difference between that and [c] “your members aren’t welcome here” - let alone (d) “revolutionary socialists aren’t welcome here”. As far as I can tell, most of those who identified with Respect Renewal were genuinely committed to position (a) rather than any of the others. I didn’t expect the SWP leadership to acknowledge the difference between (a) and (b) - that was the problem, after all - but I know I was genuinely surprised at how quickly and consistently the message from the SWP leadership settled on interpretation (d). I agree with John, again, that framing the situation in terms of socialists being driven out of RESPECT was a legitimate move, and frankly one which has subsequently received some support from some of Galloway’s comments. But it was a bad move, or more precisely a desperate one, which showed how far Rees had painted himself into a corner. I mean, at that point dialogue really was over - to accuse fellow socialists of being engaged in a witchhunt was clumsy and stupid, and could only really have been undertaken on the calculation that the RR leadership could be isolated completely, detached from the base, expelled and then ignored forever after. Which would have been a pretty self-destructive move for RESPECT and for the SWP even if it had worked.
But we need to recognise that the fault was partly on the RR side. Galloway has his own agenda - within RESPECT as well as more broadly - and it does his position absolutely no harm to blur the distinctions between “work with the SWP but not necessarily on the SWP’s terms” and “Trots out”. And blur them he has, of course, most recently in November. The shift away from No2EU was fair enough, but a balancing reassertion of RESPECT’s own Left & class identity would be very welcome.
Comment by Phil — 29 December, 2009 @ 5:54 pm
‘I think Ger Francis comparison of Cliff’s black lesbian with a hijab wearing woman is more enlightening for the difference rather than the similarity’
Prehaps an Islamaphobia awareness refresher course is in order, tiresome. The rest of your post is secterian bunk, demolished many times before on this blog. Go on, say ‘communalism’, you know you want to …
I am not surprised in the least though that Ray defends the ‘witch-hunt petition’, probably one of the most cynical abuses of SWP member’s sense of party loyalty in its history. It says all you need to know about him. And such a stunning tactical success as well. Those who do not learn from history…yada yada.
For anyone delve back into the arguments, it was all played out on this site in possibly one of the first examples of how the internet could bust open abusive democratic centralist practices. Alan Thornett also provides a good summary and critique from another Leninist point of view (you are not the only one Ray, I know, it’s a shock):
http://www.internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?article1407
Johng: ‘I have to say that I don’t think its very odd that the SWP has under theorised electoral work nor that we didn’t do much in the previous period.’
It’s not just ‘electoral work’ I was making reference to, it was having any sense of long terms strategy in any meaningful sense of the word that looks farther than party council to party council. It has only taken a couple of hundred posts but thanks for partial acknowledgement at least. And I agree it was under theorised because the SWP weren’t do doing any, but that’s my point, maybe they should have been giving this critical area a bit more serious consideration. Anyway, it’s all a bit academic now, because its going to be a very long while before the SWP summons up the courage to dip their toe in the murky waters of electorialism. So, it’s back to the future…
Interesting comment about the Broue book. I look forward to reading it and no doubt catch up about it another time .
Comment by ger francis — 29 December, 2009 @ 6:57 pm
I just love the way that Johng tries to set himself up as some sort of dispassionate, academic observer on events that he defended to the hilt. Unfortunately, his underpinning logic is given away when he uses phrases such as ‘At the time of the witch-hunt petition though none of these outcomes were known and there was still much to play for. Without any troops its highly unlikely you could play at all’.
As long as there is much to play for (please be more specific, do you mean the middle ground in the argument or the notion of a left of Labour electoral project?), it is OK to lie and to use abusive language. Clarity is important - calling me a witch hunter is calling me a scab, have no doubt.
‘I don’t think it was an attempt to call people ’scabs’. It related much more to the view that what was involved was a ‘left-right’ split. About that I think there can be legitimate differences’. So, if you have a witch hunt petition when there is no witch hunt and you proceed to lose the ‘middle ground’ as a result of lying and acting out fantasy political perspective, this does not invalidate the perspective (left-right split) but can be claimed as legitimate difference? Thank you, Johng, you have just explained precisely why the SWP is pulling itself to pieces now.
Why has this discussion returned to the Respect split? Because the Respect project and the 2007 split throw up all the questions about the British left’s perception of democratic centralism, its relevance and the meaning of Leninism.
Comment by Dirty Red Bandana — 29 December, 2009 @ 7:17 pm
‘you have just explained precisely why the SWP is pulling itself to pieces now.’
Wishful thinking. That dirty bandana’s slipped down over your eyes.
Comment by swp member — 29 December, 2009 @ 7:22 pm
To me there are two questions of any interest in the current SWP brouhaha. One relates to the CC’s criticisms of Rees & co, many of which strike me as valid; the question is what implications are drawn from those criticisms in terms of how the SWP should have conducted itself in RESPECT. Even after looking at the leaked IBs, I have no idea what the answer to this is; I get the impression the CC wants to draw a line under the whole thing and forget about it, on the grounds that it would have collapsed by now anyway (indeed, one criticism of Rees could be that he tried too hard to keep the SWP in RESPECT). As my previous comment implies, I think that the SWP missed a major learning opportunity in RESPECT, for reasons associated with Rees’s leadership style; it would be ironic if they continued to miss it for (completely different) reasons associated with Smith’s approach.
The other question is about factionalism and the Mutiny and Counterfire initiatives. I don’t see that the CC have a leg to stand on with regard to this one, on any but the most sclerotically bureaucratic understanding of the concept of faction. Nothing I’ve seen (including the IBs) suggests to me that the measures against Solomon, Meadway and Cousins were merited. I think this kind of reaction to some useful ground-level initiatives puts a major question mark over any idea of the CC being a force for democratic renewal of the SWP - and, again, suggests that there’s some learning to do.
Comment by Phil — 29 December, 2009 @ 8:15 pm
no 368
Phil, of course George Galloway, along with everyone else, has his own preferneces and individual political vision; and that could be described as an ‘agenda’
But in politics life involves negotiating and navigating around different agendas, working together on what you have in common, and debating, indeed arguing, where you don’t.
The significance of the Witchhunt, and why i so single mindedly pursue it, is that it is very revealling about the SWP’s approach, as an exemplar of 21st century leninism.
Either they didn’t really believe it was a withchunt, but that somehow a narrative of a left right split justifies lying and saying that there is a witchhunt even when there isn’t one - in which case that is simply machiavellian and evidence of an instrumental attitude to the truth; and an elastic attitude to morality and ethics.nx
or they genuinely believe there was a witchhunt, which could only be understood as believing that having their automatic right to leadership being disputed by others who expect a compromise is itself a witchhunt. that is if the SWP cannot participate entirely on their own terms then they are being witchhunted.
in either case, it is hard to see that this refelcts the maturity of an organisation that seriously could ever contend with creatig a broad enough counter-hegemonic coalition that could challenge the rule of capital.
Frankly, if the SWP did not have the diplomatic and political skills to collaborate with other leftists who mainly agree with them in Respect, then how coould they ever expect to lead a ‘revolution’, and if they don’t have any skills for working with others over the longer term, then how will they ever be in a position to infleunce the whole of working class and progressive opinion? And if they can’t aspire to do that, then what is the purpose of their organisation?
Comment by Andy Newman — 29 December, 2009 @ 10:23 pm
SWP member: Oh dear! How many times have we heard this bullish drivel from members and supporters in the past two years, only to then discover that every posited reverse is true, every expulsion has happened and every palace coup has also happened? The latest, extraordinary episode was the replacement of the Socialist Worker editor, which numerous posters, including one with your moniker, insisted had not occurred at all.
Let me guess, it is onwards and upwards, the party is in excellent shape because it recruited students in October and everything it touches turns to gold. By the way, there is an upturn around the corner and working class combativity has revived (just don’t mention the ability of the TU bureaucracy to maintain a grip of the BA and postal disputes).
So SWP mushroom, I suggest that your vision is affected by your position and what you are fed.
Comment by Dirty Red Bandana — 29 December, 2009 @ 10:44 pm
Why is it an ‘extraordinary episode’ to say that Bambery has’nt been removed from being editor of socialist worker but agreed to step down after christmas?
Also I think the way in which my comments on the witch-hunt petition (which I said was a mistake) have been utterly distorted is a sign of the kind of defensiveness which I think Respect should move away from.
Its quite possible to have believed that the leadership in the SWP which had played an excellent role in helping to launch Respect, seriously screwed up in the last few years of the project, but also believe that, none-the-less, the split was not in the interests of the movement.
Holding these two thoughts togeather is possible.
Comment by johng — 30 December, 2009 @ 10:08 am
On the contrary, I believe that the split was a disaster. However, I think that letting the single conference go ahead - with the inevitable result that the ’splitter’ leadership would have been ousted and replaced by more reliable Reesite elements - would have been a greater disaster, effectively destroying RESPECT as an independent organisation and saddling the SWP with one more front organisation (albeit of a special kind). I’m genuinely curious to know what those SWP comrades who are now queuing up to denounce Rees think about this - nobody’s been very forthcoming.
Comment by Phil — 30 December, 2009 @ 10:22 am
I don’t think that would have been the outcome of the conference. Most of the comrades I knew at the time were expecting John Rees to resign after the said conference (subsequent events, its true, make one wonder about this: for those wondering, the hostility is less to do with initial mistakes and more to do with an inability to recognise them) and some kind of compromise deal to be re-worked. Hence the decision to hold a seperate conference were, as far as I was concerned, an absolute disaster (from all possible perspectives).
It is ironic, in retrospect, that those independents who spoke of the clash as a ‘mutual suicide pact’ were accused of being ‘apolitical’ by some comrades in the SWP, whilst being denounced as SWP stooges by those in what was then Respect Renewal.
I think they were both entirely politially correct, and certainly not SWP stooges (mores the pity). I also think that it was understandable that those who had decided on a split would find particularly unacceptable those advocating unity (from such a position this just looks like a fudge), but, in reality, the split was always going to be a disaster in its consequences for the left.
I’ve stated it before, but I think the biggest political divide around the Respect split was between those who understood that the consequences were bound to be catastrophic from the perspective of re-building the left as a whole and those who did not. I’ve been inconsistant on all sorts of things (it would be frightening if I had not), but on that I’ve always been clear.
Comment by johng — 30 December, 2009 @ 11:16 am
Ray, imo the SWP did not want, when they were in Respect, to carry out industrial work AS Respect, for similar reasons as to why they didnt want Respect to become a party, so your comments on the current orientation of Respect without the SWP, whther correct or not ( I think you are not btw), I find disengenuous to say the least.
Unlike johng, I get the impression that you don’t think the SWP did anything wrong in the split with Respect. Am I correct?
On another matter, have you given any consideration to the points I put to you about your allegation that Derek Wall is hostile to the revolutionary left?
I think you should answer because one reading of what you said is that you have deliberately distorted his political position in order to discredit his arguments. I am not accusing you of this because there are other readings, for example-
*You don’t think the USFI (which includes the LCR in France) and other currents to which Derek has shown positive attitudes are part of the revolutionary left.
*You think the revolutionary left equals the SWP.
*You think criticism and hostility are automatically the same thing.
*You hadn’t noticed that Derek has said positive things about currents on the revolutionary left in spite of you being a frequent contributor to this blog.
*You had noticed, but think that Derek is being dishonest.
Obviously you are not under any obligation to answer, particularly as it is not Derek, but someone who doesn’t even know him personally, who is asking you.
I will say that your response will make quite a difference as to whether I take any of your future comments seriously.
Comment by Armchair — 30 December, 2009 @ 11:41 am
“will say that your response will make quite a difference as to whether I take any of your future comments seriously
Oh c’mon Armchair. Its a blog. Not a sicilian village.
Comment by johng — 30 December, 2009 @ 12:26 pm
Any chance of a font that doesn’t merge a “c” into the next letter?
Comment by KrisS — 30 December, 2009 @ 12:29 pm
I use arial becuse it is the preferred font by people with visual impairment, apparently.
Comment by Andy Newman — 30 December, 2009 @ 12:31 pm
People with visual impairment prefer to see a “d” instead of a “c l”?
Odd.
Fair dos though, Andy.
Comment by KrisS — 30 December, 2009 @ 12:32 pm
oh and the reason why we did not campaign as respect in either the trade unions or in stw was a) many in respect would not have signed up to the kinds of position we take on trade union questions and b) many in STW would not have signed up to the project of Respect.
Comment by johng — 30 December, 2009 @ 12:45 pm
#379- Sicilian village? What on earth are you on about? Have you read some cosa nostra style threat into my comments aimed at Ray? Do you think not having what you say treated seriously is some kind of euphemism?
My point is that when people say things about other people they should be able to justfy themselves. I expect that for myself and I try to act accordingly. As Ray himself noted on another thread dealing with the BA dispute, I dragged an apology out of an anti-Jerry Hicks Unite activist who had attacked me without being prepared to justify themselves.
#383- although I would have prefered Ray to answer for himself, if that is the case then doesn’t your response indicate that he was indeed being disengenous about trade union work?
Comment by Armchair — 30 December, 2009 @ 1:03 pm
Oh I was just thinking of affairs of honour. Sorry I was’nt intending to be serious. On the trade union affair of honour I’m afraid I didn’t see the original comment. What Marlon Brandon said of actors is true of me and blogging. “If I ain’t talking I ain’t listening”.
Comment by johng — 30 December, 2009 @ 1:23 pm
#381/382
Not wanting to sidetrack the thread, but…
It’s true that sans serif fonts are easiest for those with visual impairments (although you’re not using Arial - all comments are in Lucida Grande / Verdana).
The problem is that you have reduced letter spacing (by 1 pixel regardless of font size) which at small font sizes runs a lot of letters together. If anything you should increase it, but certainly not have a negative setting.
Comment by Mike — 30 December, 2009 @ 2:13 pm
Isn’t verdana a variant of Arial ???
I will see if it is possible to change the letter spacings.
Comment by Andy Newman — 30 December, 2009 @ 2:15 pm
Most of the comrades I knew at the time were expecting John Rees to resign after the said conference … and some kind of compromise deal to be re-worked.
This is news to me. The Rees group certainly hadn’t shown much sign of a willingness to compromise - or to listen to people raising similar concerns to those they’re now raising themselves. I thought, and still think, that the risk of a stitch-up was too high to allow the single conference to go ahead.
Comment by Phil — 30 December, 2009 @ 2:26 pm
Well there was always a risk of course. But its also true that I don’t believe that the kind of sectarian idiocy which is easy enough on an internet discussion board would have been possible in a conference. I know for a fact that even some comrades now in LP would have been wavering in that position (it was always mistaken to imagine that it would be a re-run of smaller factional meetings) But once the conferences were seperate, those whose aim was a split were bound to triumph in both. I’d also add that as comrades tried to come to terms with the shock of the initial split, the general feeling was that “John’s position is untenable”. At that time this was said more in sadness then in anger. The anger came later as what just seemed common sense got pushed further and further away. But that initial mood was the dominant one at the time all this was going on, and that was reflected in my contributions at the time.
Comment by johng — 30 December, 2009 @ 2:36 pm
Dirty Red Bandana: So the SW editor being replaced = the SWP pulling itself to pieces? Plus a handful of expulsions (less than fingers on one hand I believe).
Get real. Even if Rees walks, even if he takes a few dozen with him, it’s still frankly minor by the standrds of the Left (And i don’t think he’ll walk).
And incidently, no-one is saying that the upturn is just around the corner and everyone is well aware of the bureaucracy’s ongoing ability to rein in the struggle.
For what its worth, i think the SWP is a bit like someone who has had a nasty disease (sectarianism and control freak leadership) but is now recuperating nicely. A full recovery can hopefully be expected, and yes a healthy dose of young students will help boost that recovery.
Comment by swp member — 30 December, 2009 @ 2:51 pm
#387
Verdana is different in a lot of ways (eg serifed I, J, 1 and more open rounded letters like C). I much prefer it to Arial for screens. You’re actually using Lucida Grande though, with Verdana as the fallback if it’s not available. That’s a decent font too though.
All you need to do is get rid of the letter spacing and it makes a huge difference.
In style.css go to around line 90 and in the section for “p, li, .feedback” get rid of:
letter-spacing: -1px;
Comment by Mike — 30 December, 2009 @ 3:22 pm
I guess what I’m trying to work out is what the SWP leadership’s position on the RESPECT project is. I mean, the LP is keeping fairly quiet about it, but we can infer that they believe the only problem with RESPECT was that they were stabbed in the back by the CC (while also being stabbed in the front by Galloway), and that the united front of a special type would still be on track, perhaps under the name of the Left List, if only they’d had more support and a bit more luck. And this clearly isn’t tenable - Rees’s achilles heel in the current faction fight is his refusal to admit that something he was responsible for failed. But the CC seems to be keeping even quieter than the LP, which I find a bit odd. Is their line that RESPECT was already dead by the time of the split, so that the bust-up with Galloway was a kind of symptom of decay - and Rees’s great error was not winding up RESPECT earlier? Or is it that RESPECT was a viable project which was sabotaged by Galloway et al, and Rees’s error was letting it happen?
Comment by Phil — 30 December, 2009 @ 3:42 pm
Well in my view part of the reason for the silence was that it was impossible to have an open discussion given the factional situation. Hopefully this is one of the things which will be resolved after conference. But yes the main line of cleavage is the belief that everything was fine and on track with left list until the nasty majority said: ‘look this is a joke’.
Comment by johng — 30 December, 2009 @ 3:48 pm
I’m not sure that there is an overarching position on the Respect project, apart from the fairly obvious point that thre was always the potential for a clash between George Galloway and those members who weren’t prepared to accept his making policy on the hoof. The hope was that Respect would grow to be big enough quickly enough so that it could exert some form of collective control which GG would accept, and I think that dash for growth was behind some of the more voluntaristic moves.
My personal view, which is definitely a minority one in the SWP, is that Big Brother was a turning point. If the SWP had sided with Salma Yaqoob, and got the majority of the NC to openly criticise GG for the damage that his appearance had done to the project, that would have laid down some ground rules which would have helped for future disputes. The argument against that view - which I accept is a strong one - is that the project at that stage was too fragile to risk GG walking away, which would have killed the project stone dead.
Comment by chjh — 30 December, 2009 @ 4:03 pm
Actually I think Chjh is right that there is not an overarching position. This is I think a problem. What is more positive is the very real change in the attitude to how we relate to the rest of the left from that period. I’ll always remember reading with horror tales being told here about a certain leading member stating that the Respect project was too important to allow decisions to be made about it by those who actually comprised the organisation. Forget for the moment that this was, in any case, in principle wrong. How on earth could this be said even if it was believed? (these are tales of rage of course). Such hubris would be unimaginable now. As it happens if chjh’s view is a minority one, on this at least, I’m with him on this. However, perhaps its positive that comrades have no problem differing about these questions. This is only positive however if it ends in some kind of resolution for our practice. Its why many of us have high hopes for conference. The tendency for these questions to be put on hold due to differences in the leadership must absolutely end. As I think they are ending.
Comment by johng — 30 December, 2009 @ 4:15 pm
I suppose if you think the SWP got it wrong over Big Brother, then the question is whether there’s something to be learned from such an error, or not.
Comment by KrisS — 30 December, 2009 @ 4:36 pm
Well I think the answer is fairly obvious.
Comment by johng — 30 December, 2009 @ 4:48 pm
Duncan Hallas used to begin meetings on the united front by saying that it was the simplest thing in the world to describe, and the hardest to do. The lesson I draw from Big Brother is that it’s very difficult to make tactical calls. It’s especially difficult to work out how to be fraternally critical of someone who’s being vilified in the media.
Comment by chjh — 30 December, 2009 @ 4:49 pm
Well it doesn’t seem to be obvious to everyone. There are some who see it is a nuanced tactical decision which could reasonably have gone either way, and could again in future, for example.
Comment by KrisS — 30 December, 2009 @ 4:50 pm
I’d agree with chjh. The problem was that you could make a strong case either way. Hindsight is always so clear…
Comment by swp member — 30 December, 2009 @ 5:08 pm
Johng - it’s obvious that there are lessons of the BB episode. It’s not so clear what they are. Please spell them out.
Comment by swp member — 30 December, 2009 @ 5:09 pm
How convenient that Big Brother can now be seen as the ‘turning point’ - that way we can all put the blame on the perfidious Galloway being unreasonable rather than look at the response that Rees and Co cooked up in answer to his perfectly legitimate criticisms in his August letter.
Claims that there were ‘no ground rules for disputes’ misses the point. The NC was the place to discuss issues of national importance - and the NC discussed the BB issue and the August letter. Problems could be resolved by taking decisions and then acting in accordance with them.
However, it was clear that the decisions taken at the 2nd September NC was not what some in the SWP leadership wanted and so they upped the ante. There was simply no sense that compromise was going to be allowed. This started the next day at the SWP national council, continued in that week’s Party Notes and so every level of the CC - both pro and subsequently abti-Rees are implicated.
The SWP leadership used a document by Rees and Graham-Leigh that was packed with half-truths and downright lies to justify their position. Of course when the truth about the OFFU cheque et al came out publicly they throw their hands up in horror - but some of them knew the truth before hand and kept quiet. Just as they keep quiet today - not because it will deepen the current factionalism but because they were all implicated in busting up something that actually had the potential to work. And now - within six months of a General Election the SWP have precisely NO candidates selected for any seat in England. Thank the Lord we can blame Big Brother.
Comment by TLC — 30 December, 2009 @ 5:48 pm
Have no doubt Duncan Hallas was very clear that the United Front was neither an electoral alliance or a minor populist party. And yes I have textual proof.
“We are certainly in favour of joint action with everyone in the working class movement, whether Labour Party members, CP members, independents or whatever to fight the fascists, to fight hospital closures, to fight the Social Contract and so on and so forth - always provided it is action. We do not, however, form blocs to make propaganda. We put forward our own ideas in our own paper.
The distinction is obvious enough. Unity in action with everyone who can be pulled in to support the particular action, irrespective of their views on other matters. Independent expression of our own ideas at all times. We don’t stay out of any genuine working class struggle and we don’t make our participation conditional on others agreeing with us. At the same time, we don’t hide or dilute our politics or pretend to be other than we are.
How does this apply to parliamentary etc. elections?
Revolutionary intervention in parliamentary elections at present is essentially a propaganda operation, a means of contacting people and involving them in some of our activities and of recruiting.
We judge our success (or failure) in a contest by members recruited, contacts made, SW readers gained and so on and not mainly by votes gained.
We are not parliamentary roaders.”
May 1977.
Comment by neprimerimye — 30 December, 2009 @ 5:49 pm
You see that little “at present” there, nep?
Comment by KrisS — 30 December, 2009 @ 6:04 pm
I must find the time to post something on the ISO!
Comment by Derek Wall — 30 December, 2009 @ 7:15 pm
Briefly - yes, BB was a difficult one; it’s no secret that some of the most enthusiastic partisans of Respect mk II had big problems with Galloway at that point. One of the problems many people had with Rees, ironically, was precisely his insistence on covering GG’s back.
Comment by Phil — 30 December, 2009 @ 8:49 pm
406 comments on a variety of politics whose adherents in Britain number scarcely more than a few thousand.
Members of organisations which have next to no base of any sort in a single working class community.
Parties whose total combined membership amount to less than half of the CP when it finally dissolved itself in 1990.
This is the measure of their failure and near-total irrelevance. The few exceptions are when they broke with the main tenets of their perverted application of 1917 o the late twentieth century. Namely the popular frontism first pioneered by the SWP in the ANL/RAR of the late 1970s, then again with Stop the War 2001-2003. Both had little or nothing in common with Trotsky’s United Front. Likewise in Scotland the initial success of the SSP was down to a combination of the personality of Tommy Sheridan coupled with a turn to left-nationalism.
And thats about it. If you really think this history of unmitigated failure deserves commenting on you really should get out more, and Derek if you think the ISO deserving of much of your time you really are a very strange kind of Green, you;re not a victim of Lenin-envy surely?
Mark P
Comment by Mark P — 30 December, 2009 @ 9:17 pm
Tell us more about what happened after the CP dissolved itself, Mark. Tell us how your prefigurative politics empowered those thousands of socialists liberated from the shackles of outmoded organisation.
Comment by chjh — 30 December, 2009 @ 9:20 pm
CJH. As per usual in these debates an attempt to duck the question. The CP’s project failed, not proud to admit that but at least I’m honest. By 1990 there was no longer a critical mass of any of the competing factions to provide any kind of future. Dissolution didn’t ‘liberate’ it just led to disintegration and disinterest. Various fragments perhaps remain but these are down to individuals not ideology.
Now lets hear it for the SWP, SP, SR, AWL and the motley rest. All that effort and what have you collectively amounted to? A few thousand adherents. No base of support in a single working class community. No party organisation numbering even half of what the CP finished up with. Not one success story to point to except when you broke with the leninist model to adopt what in effect was a popular front, ANL/RAR an StWC, or left nationalism around an individual, the SSP.
For a politics founded on critique, Trotskyism, why are you lot so incapable of self-criticism?
Mark P
Comment by Mark P — 31 December, 2009 @ 7:41 am
409* How bitter Mark, that dissipation and dissolution obviously left its scar, hey but at least you are honest about your political legacy diisappearing up its own arse. Now you can think of nothing better than reccomending others follow your prescription for oblivion.
btw I’m no particular fan of the swp, but even you note the successes of ANL. STW, and the launch of Respect, all happened because of thier politics not despite them, having a real effect on the real struggle in the UK and beyond.
Your contributions here, negative, bitter, insulting say more about you than your grandstanding.
Happy new year!
Comment by non-partisan — 31 December, 2009 @ 8:09 am
The scar is about being honest.
The grandstanders are those who seriously believe that 60 odd years of seeking to build Trotskyist organisations has amounted to anything at all. A few thousand adherents, not one party amounting to even half the membership of the CP when it finally dissolved itself, not a single base in any working class community anywhere. Yet the neo-cultist tendency to criticise all but themselves lingers on.
As for ANL/RAR, StWC, Respect. Yes all 3 are significant achievements of the SWP. Did any of them lead to the SWP’s growth? No. You see they were successes in spite of the politucs, principally because they were popular fronts, not because of them.
So just for once, own up to these failures and start to dissect the reasons then your critcisms of others might just stand some sort of chance of credibility.
As for being negative and bitter. A Salma Yaqoob victory in 2010 couldn’t make me happier and I will be doing all I can do to help make it happen.
Mark P
Comment by Mark P — 31 December, 2009 @ 9:30 am
#404. No, I do not.
Comment by neprimerimye — 31 December, 2009 @ 9:45 am
Righto. Maybe look a bit harder?
Comment by KrisS — 31 December, 2009 @ 10:20 am
‘ Derek if you think the ISO deserving of much of your time you really are a very strange kind of Green, you;re not a victim of Lenin-envy surely?’ no not really but they do their bit in the US which is a tougher political climate than the UK.
Comment by Derek Wall — 31 December, 2009 @ 10:24 am
To be clear: references to big brother are not attempts to “blame george”. They in fact refer to objective difficulties. These arose because Respect was not doing well and there was therefore a desperate struggle to find some magic solution to the difficulties. These involved on the one hand Georges mistake with BB. And on the other hand a growing voluntarism on behalf of a section of the SWP. The refusal to actually discuss openly the problems that were emerging meant that when sporadic crisis occured all that could be done was to cover them up. This also went togeather with charecterising any discussion of objective difficulties with ’shifts to the right’, ‘passivity’ etc, etc. The voluntarism meant a politics of utter recklessness about the costs of splits in the movement.
On the question of the united front and lessons: from that period to this there have been differences inside the SWP which relate to one section who never gave up on a voluntarist model and those who understood it was a mistake. When the Left Platform speak of the ‘abandonment of the united front’ what they mean is the abandonment of the Left List, the refusal to launch other initiatives without building any real basis for them etc. Their’s is the politics of proclamations. They counterpose to the politics of proclamations ‘passivity’ and being ‘inward looking’, any discussion of objective difficulties being treated as ‘retreat’. They remain firm in the belief that leadership is won with ringing declarations rather then patient work.
It is in that sense classic ultra-leftism, but like all classic ultra-leftism, its form, substitutionalism is not incompatible with sudden lurches to the right.
Thats why the current policy of the majority of re-building bridges, taking part in actually existing movements always, and launching new ones when actually possible, is the correct one. It has been hampered though by the paralyses engendered by a kind of internal warfare launched by those who refuse to break with these methods, and indeed, identify them as principles. There needs to be a much more open repudiation of these methods, methods which have been shown to be utterly disasterous.
On the question of the relationship between united fronts and electoral work. I think it all depends. The SWP in its most successful work refused to treat the texts of the first four congresses of the third international as scripture. It also refused to treat Trotsky’s work as scripture. In the 1920s United Fronts involved a mass Communist Party approaching Mass Social Democratic Parties. In the 1930s Popular Frontism involved alliances between workers parties and bourgoise parties combined with a global schema in which ‘democratic nations’ (including the imperialist powers) confronted fascism. The principles are important. But the actual social and political terrain is so difference that mouthing the scripture is not enough.
Principles have to be APPLIED and that implies thought. And there are no roadmaps of a situation which does not yet exist.
Comment by johng — 31 December, 2009 @ 11:07 am
Thanks for this explanation johng. My argument indeed, we all learn as we go on in life and we MUST learn from our mistakes if we are not to repeat them.
Comment by florence durrant — 31 December, 2009 @ 12:46 pm
“On the question of the relationship between united fronts and electoral work. I think it all depends. The SWP in its most successful work refused to treat the texts of the first four congresses of the third international as scripture. It also refused to treat Trotsky’s work as scripture. In the 1920s United Fronts involved a mass Communist Party approaching Mass Social Democratic Parties. In the 1930s Popular Frontism involved alliances between workers parties and bourgoise parties combined with a global schema in which ‘democratic nations’ (including the imperialist powers) confronted fascism. The principles are important. But the actual social and political terrain is so difference that mouthing the scripture is not enough.
Principles have to be APPLIED and that implies thought. And there are no roadmaps of a situation which does not yet exist.”
You are absolutely correct johng in that determining the relationship between specific United Fronts and electoral interventions requires thought. You are also absolutely correct in noting that the IS tradition treats texts critically and does not accept them as sripture to use your offensive term.
Now in the article by Hallas I quoted from he argues for unity in action but denies, as a PRINCIPLE, that revolutionaries should undertake electoral interventions in alliance (still less as a common party) with forces that do not stand on the same programme as the revolutionary group. What he does not exclude, because he does not address it, is the formaqtion of electoral endorsement of the candidates of non-revolutionary parties or electoral pacts.
But, I repeat, for Hallas and the SWP in 1977 it was PRINCIPLE that in electoral work the revolutionary programme is not to be muddied by alliances with other groups.
Comment by neprimerimye — 31 December, 2009 @ 3:23 pm
Yes well I think that was probably wrong.
Comment by johng — 31 December, 2009 @ 3:27 pm
Incidently texts which are not scriptures can be treated as scriptures. the offensiveness is not here directed at the texts but at those who treat them as scriptures. The quite extraordinary deference paid to ‘the transitional program’ being perhaps the outstanding example of this.
Comment by johng — 31 December, 2009 @ 3:29 pm
“415.To be clear: references to big brother are not attempts to “blame george”. They in fact refer to objective difficulties. These arose because Respect was not doing well and there was therefore a desperate struggle to find some magic solution to the difficulties.”
In fact it is wrong to claim that “Respect was not doing well”, and behind this throwaway statement lies the entire post-hoc justification by SWP member for their “scorched earth” retreat from united work in Respect.
But this unsubstantiated claim is contradicted by the facts: Respect won the Shadwell by-election on 7th August 2007, defeating a major Labour challenge to roll back Respect’s gains in East London, led by former council leader Michael Keith who was defeated by Respect in a more than symbolic victory. In Birmingham Respect won the second seat in Sparkbrook in May, showing that it was not a one-woman band in the Second City. Electorally Respect was on course to make gainsi in its most significant area, Tower Hamlets. John Rees comments in Socialist Worker 14th August 2007, still on the SW website if you look them up, make it clear that this assessment was shared by the SWP leadership.
In fact Respect was doing unevenly. Respect had done badly in the Ealing Southall parliamentary by-election, especially when one considers that the candidate had scored 20% in one ward less than 18 months earlier. Victory in Shadwell, poor performance in Ealing within a month of each other. It was this unevenness that Galloway’s letter addressed and over which the SWP decided to “go nuclear”. The SWP were also unhappy that they had not got their way in two local election candidate selection meetings - in Birmingham and in Tower Hamlets - and as a result had deliberately sidelined Salma Yaqoob within the apparatus of Respect that they were hugely influential within. With hindsight, particularly Salma’s recent appearance on Question Time and the victory in the recent Sparkbrook by-election putting her on course for election as an MP, this was a foolish retaliation.
The SWP made three major mistakes over the split in Respect in my view:
One was the Witchhunt petition; this completely exorcised relationships with other left wing activists. To accuse someone of a witchhunt in the Labour and Trade Union movement is a fundamentally hostile step that contrary to John’s claim that it was intended to promote unity, I think the SWP leadership actually deliberately wanted to result in a split by that stage and to ostracise the remainder of Respect. The most obvious manifestation of this was the dragooning in of Mark Serwotka to the ‘I-cannot-believe-its-not-Respect’ conference and his statement that he would never address the ‘Galloway Conference’ of witch-hunters. This deliberate and uncalled for poisoningy of relationships in the labour and trade union movement is unheralded since the days of Gerry Healy, with whom it inevitabl must be compared. Indeed the video of Serwotka saying it is still up on the socialist worker website for all to see where this unprincipled assault on fellow left wingers took us, while Serwotka himself seems to be suffering from amnesia as at a recent meeting in Manchester he claimed he addressed “all four left wing conferences in London” on that day in November 2007.
The other two SWP major mistakes were the press conference of the four councillors in Tower Hamlets, designed to do maximum electoral damage to Respect (and of course ultimately backfiring when all four “principled socialsists” defected to the Tory/Labour Parties); and the continued attempt to pack the conference with student delegates.
These are the mistakes the SWP made. I am still at a loss to know what John and others think were the mistakes that the Respect leadership, made and have made since. Please tell me John.
Comment by Prinkipo Exile — 31 December, 2009 @ 3:42 pm
Prinkipo perhaps you’d like to read over what I actually say, rather then continue simply to repeat the same stale arguments over and over. It really IS disapointing given that I have made some effort not to be sectarian and to be perfectly open about my own position. Disapointing and depressing actually.
Comment by johng — 31 December, 2009 @ 3:45 pm
“How does this apply to parliamentary etc. elections?
Revolutionary intervention in parliamentary elections at present is essentially a propaganda operation, a means of contacting people and involving them in some of our activities and of recruiting.
We judge our success (or failure) in a contest by members recruited, contacts made, SW readers gained and so on and not mainly by votes gained.
We are not parliamentary roaders.””
I fail to see how this comment written by Duncan Hallas is a rejection of revolutionaries engaging in electoral politics. What he is saying is that a revolutionary organisation should expect to grow out of such involvement otherwise it is counter-productive.
Comment by Ray — 31 December, 2009 @ 3:49 pm
PR address the departure of Choonara and the SWP from the traditional understanding the UF here
http://www.permanentrevolution.net/entry/1874
Hallas is pretty unambiguous about the question btw
“…the united front tactic has nothing to do with the so-called ‘electoral combinations’ of leaders in pursuit of one or another parliamentary aim.”
Comment by bill j — 31 December, 2009 @ 3:51 pm
Well Bill J, Josephs article is in the same issue of International Socialism which contained perhaps the only article by Chris Harman I ever thought was so flawed politically as to be damaging. It was part of a desperate attempt to square a circle which was getting rounder and rounder. Things have moved on considerably since then.
Comment by johng — 31 December, 2009 @ 3:55 pm
Indeed. Choonara is now arguing the opposite to what he did a year ago. Flexibility is evidently a key quality in a candidate CC member. It does rather make you wonder what the point of publishing theory is though doesn’t it?
Easy come, easy go.
Comment by bill j — 31 December, 2009 @ 4:20 pm
“These are the mistakes the SWP made. I am still at a loss to know what John and others think were the mistakes that the Respect leadership, made and have made since. Please tell me John.”
It’s like butter wouldn’t melt in the mouth…You conveniently forget to frame Serwotkas comments in light of Galloway setting up a separate autocratic conference that had no legitimacy whatsoever. But perhaps that was the olive branch that we all missed.
It does beg the question why a leading non-aligned trade unionist also saw a witchhunt in operation if this was an exclusively so-called SWP delusion.
The problem with extrapolating the state of a political organisation nationally from just two successful electoral areas is obvious. Respect was not drawing ex-Labour or significant TU support. Despite the initial localised electoral success this had not spread nationally and that is still the case. The frustration with this was first articulated by Galloway and was not initiated by the SWP. On this basis, blaming the SWP for throwing the towel in contradicts events leading up to the split.
What this obsessive revisiting of the split tells us is that certain people find it very difficult to move on. The repeated inquisitorial demands for denouncements is an ongoing internal struggle to justify their own right to exist. I say, relax, you are part of the left and you don’t have to try so hard.
Comment by Ray — 31 December, 2009 @ 4:22 pm
Johng is looking at the history of the SWP and Respect through the lens on an internal SWP faction fight. He tries to reduce John Rees to a crude caracartiture of the reality.
You did not need any great Marxist insight by 2005 to recognize that there were limits to the space for a radical left party like Respect to emerge. We became alive to it very early in Birmingham, and said so. John Rees is a smart guy and I don’t doubt for a second he wasn’t well aware of the problems. The fact he chooses to downplay them had much more to do primarily with bog-standard SWP practices of ‘stick bending’, among other factors. (See ‘A tendency to exaggerate’, http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=1840)
In order to paint his picture, Johng has to apply dollops of mechanical marxism, which rewrites history to read something like this, ‘the objective conditions were so severe they prevented the further development of Respect, resulting in SWP members substituting, with inevitable disastrous results’.
This is crass for at least two reasons.
One, it exaggerates the objective problems. The fact is, whatever the difficulties, Respect was still the most successful initiative of its kind that the far left had ever been involved in and had established a small but real electoral footprint and national brand. This was a big reward for SWP commitment and sufficient to warrant continued engagement. Those serious about constructing a party of the radical left would have seen the process as a long term one, with ebbs and flows, and had an perspective that in view of the difficulties of impacting on electoral politics at all in the UK, it would take a lot longer than a few years of commitment to judge whether the Respect initiative had a future. (And with the crisis of neo-liberalism, the objective conditions are now much more favourable for an initiative like Respect than two years ago.)
Secondly, Johng distorts the reality of the SWP practice. It is simply not the case with Respect, any more than it was with Stw, that the entire SWP was immersed in both initiatives and busy substituting itself. A very small number were engaged on a continuous basis. The majority dipped in and out, knocked between the pillar of ‘we must build Respect/Stw’ and the post of ‘we must build the party’. SWP member’s conception of the latter entailed inconsistent engagement in either Stw or Respect to warrant building the kind of broader political relationships and hegemony that should be the result of successful campaigning work, and out of which other political initiatives can organically develop. Instead, the shallowness of SWP practice often creates a self fulfilling prophecy of ‘volunterism’.
There are numerous expressions of the SWP’s determination to ultimately subordinate every campaign as secondary to the interests of itself. I will give two. Firstly, in relation to Respect. The argument inside Respect about whether to have a newspaper was never really about what was in Respect’s best interests, it was what was in the SWP’s. In particular, the fact they saw a Respect paper as threat to Socialist Worker. Secondly, in relation to Stw. Whereas Stw should have had a proper mass membership structure from the off like, for example CND or the PSC, it never developed one. Why? because it would have been seen as a bridge away from membership of the SWP. While the SWP intervention in Stw was a critical factor in its success, it was also a critical factor in its weakness. The monopolization of the local leaderships by SWP activists, and the resulting picking up and dropping of the building of Stw groups dependant on orders from the CC, served to both propel the movement forward at times and send it backwards at others.
It all goes back to method, vision, strategy and ultimately a rather sectarian conception of how socialist currents are to be constructed. Ray unashamedly sums it up in relation to any electoral strategy when he states that success should be determined by numbers of SWP ‘members recruited, contacts made, SW readers gained and so on and not mainly by votes gained.’ Really? So if George had lost in 2005 but the SWP recruited, that would have been a success? And presumably the converse applies, if George’s victory had not coincided with a growth of SWP membership that would have been a defeat?
In the words of Dizzee Rascal, simply Bonkers.
Now, johng will not doubt try give Ray a more sophisticated edge. It won’t work. He reflects a thoroughly rotten approach, and it makes no difference whether what he quotes comes from Duncan or not. (Who all of us who came into contact with have a soft spot for).
The ultimate failure of the SWP’s engagement with Respect lies first and foremost in its political method, not objective difficulties or ‘volunterism’.
Comment by ger francis — 31 December, 2009 @ 4:32 pm
“Hallas is pretty unambiguous about the question btw
“…the united front tactic has nothing to do with the so-called ‘electoral combinations’ of leaders in pursuit of one or another parliamentary aim.””
Respect was never meant to be purely an electoral organisation. The fact that it never lived up to a broader remit became its undoing. There is no doubt that Galloways election was a positive step for the left. And Respect had a significant impact in undermining developing Islamophobia. Duncan Hallas would have been the first to reject robotically applying an analysis from one period onto another.
Comment by Ray — 31 December, 2009 @ 4:37 pm
‘Duncan Hallas would have been the first to reject robotically applying an analysis from one period onto another.’
I like to think so too. So why quote him ‘robotically applying an analysis from one period onto another’, then?
Comment by ger francis — 31 December, 2009 @ 4:42 pm
Voluntarism IS a political method Ger. I think you are just wrong about SWP members ‘dropping in and out of anti-war work’. The question of Respect is different. Partly because, outside of the areas where it had a base, it was always rather unclear what the role of SWP members should be. You also misunderstand the argument about substitutionalism Ger. What is at issue here is precisely the substitution of proclamations for real organic relationships. The argument about the paper is just nonsensical. George also opposed it, and one can see, even in Respect today, why. But since I have no interest in stirring up existing tensions in other organisations I won’t refer to them. Ray’s comments on Duncan’s article (written in an entirely different historical context) are hardly evidence of anything very much. I agree that real achievements were thrown away due to the Respect split, and lessons have to be learnt.
Comment by johng — 31 December, 2009 @ 4:48 pm
Ray- your whole orientation is towards building a propaganda sect.
It may suit your purposes, but for anyone who doesn’t want to join and build the SWP, it is utterly useless. I don’t in fact believe that it is an orientation shared by all SWP members Stw could not have developed in the way it did fore example if it was) but if it played a significant role as a pressure on the leadership at the time of the split, then the split was absolutely inevitable imo.
It isn’t even an orientation for other people who consider themselves to be revolutionary socialists, as it doesn’t appear that you consider them to exist outside of the SWP.
Comment by Armchair — 31 December, 2009 @ 4:48 pm
“So why quote him ‘robotically applying an analysis from one period onto another’, then?”
Possibly because he was responding to someone else who was trying to do the same.
Comment by johng — 31 December, 2009 @ 4:52 pm
403, 417, 418
Hallas’ comments in May 1977 need putting in context. The IMG had launched a ‘unity’ assault on the SWP, proposing a left wing coalition to fight elections. The IMG’s Brian Heron had outpolled the SWP’s far better known Paul Foot in the Stechford by-election on 31st March 1977 and in the aftermath had proposed a united coalition to avoid bruising electoral battles between left wing parties (does this sound familiar to anyone?). The Socialist Unity electoral coalition had begun to take shape and the IMG had been joined by another significant far left organisation Big Flame in launching it at the time Hallas was writing in April/May. Hallas was clearly attempting to wall the SWP off from any prospect of electoral coalitions. By August 1977, however, the SWP’s candidate had been significantly outpolled by Socialist Unity in the Ladywood by-election. In October 1977 Socialist Unity scored its most significant result, in a council by-election in Spitalfields, Tower Hamlets, coming second with nearly 20% of the vote, ahead of the Tories and fascists one of the best ‘far left’ votes since the war. With smaller organisations outpolling it and a left wing electoral coalition making apparently significant gains, the SWP armed with Hallas sectarian policy was soon to put up the shutters from electoral work for the next 22 years.
Comment by Prinkipo Exile — 31 December, 2009 @ 4:56 pm
#420
“this unsubstantiated claim is contradicted by the facts: Respect won the Shadwell by-election on 7th August 2007, defeating a major Labour challenge to roll back Respect’s gains in East London, led by former council leader Michael Keith who was defeated by Respect in a more than symbolic victory.”
Indeed, it was this result that persuaded me to rejoin Respect, as the project clearly had established it still had legs.
Comment by Andy Newman — 31 December, 2009 @ 4:59 pm
I remember campaigning for Hilda Kean( IMG and socialist unity candidate) in the spitalfileds council election.
what happened to her?
sandy
Comment by Anonymous — 31 December, 2009 @ 5:03 pm
Ray: “separate autocratic conference” - was that the one that the SWP’s central committee member Wayman Bennett attended and addressed and where SWP members were welcomed and freely allowed to sell their paper and put their point of view?
Seems strange to denounce something as unprincipled witchhunting, and then turn up and address it, but that’s your contradiction not mine.
Comment by Prinkipo Exile — 31 December, 2009 @ 5:08 pm
#422. “I fail to see how this comment written by Duncan Hallas is a rejection of revolutionaries engaging in electoral politics. What he is saying is that a revolutionary organisation should expect to grow out of such involvement otherwise it is counter-productive.”
You misread Hallas. His argument was that it is wrong, in PRINCIPLE, for revolutionaries to enagage in electoral interventions under a common banner with other forces even if those forces are themselves revolutionary. This becomes more clear if one reads the full article which can be found on my rather unused blog. There is no question of his rejecting the use of elections to make revolutionary propaganda. Quite the reverse!
Comment by neprimerimye — 31 December, 2009 @ 5:10 pm
435 Sandy - Like most of the IMG activists at the time, she later joined the Labour Party went on to become (left wing) leader of Hackney Council. She is now a history tutor at Ruskin College Oxford.
Comment by Prinkipo Exile — 31 December, 2009 @ 5:11 pm
Actually the trouble was that the SWP’s first forray into electoral politics was a complete disaster. Swiftly following on from this most of the far left collapsed into the Labour Party and then we had Thatcherism, producing a completely changed political landscape. The idea that it was ‘Duncan Hallas’s sectarin method’ which meant that the SWP did not stand in elections subsequently is frankly laughable. I don’t want to sound like Mark P (perish the thought) but it is a bit depressing to see these discussions degenerate into the sectarian small change of the British left. Actually one thing I’d like to clarify. Ger at one point points to the fact that JR was not an idiot. I agree. However the politics of the last period means that I take rather more seriously the possibility that even very smart people can make serious political mistakes. Its very odd to find myself arguing with Ger about this.
Comment by johng — 31 December, 2009 @ 5:12 pm
As we reach comment 440, worth quoting from a comment on Dave sler’s blog abut Socialist unity and my good self:
http://www.davidosler.com/2009/12/ahmadinejads_mature_democracy.html#comment-40280
“Newman’s polemics always come across as a strange hybrid of TUC/Neo Labour double think and old Stalinoid boiler plate propaganda, all topped with a shiny veneer of post-modern bullshit.
“The good news: his blog is dying on its arse, with less than a dozen comments on most threads.“
Comment by Andy Newman — 31 December, 2009 @ 5:14 pm
#403. It is correct to place Duncans remarks in context. However you fail to do so properly. Hallas was not seeking to wall the SWP off from electoral collaborations with a number of socialist sects, as you allege. Rather he sought to explain the difference between unprincipled electoral combinations and united front work in the unions. Hence his long discussion of the latter which you fail to mention at all.
The decision not to stand a slate of candidates in the then upcoming General Election and the abandonment of electoral work for many long years was totally correct. It is a shame, given the unfortunate weakness of the SWP, that this position was ever abandoned. I nite that by engaging in such interventions the SWP has been further weakened and forced to divert energies from the open class struggle to internal struggles against those whose policies would liquidate the group if pursued to their logical conclusion.
Comment by neprimerimye — 31 December, 2009 @ 5:25 pm
#440. LOL!
Poor Osler consistently wrong.
Comment by neprimerimye — 31 December, 2009 @ 5:28 pm
John If the SWP’s “foray into electoral politics” was a complete disaster, it took the leadership a long time to wake up to it - they carried on after Stechford for another 12 months, until April 1978, coming behind the CP in Glasgow and behind both Socialist Unity and the WRP in Lambeth (though the saving grace there was that at least they were ahead of the SPGB).
Actually the IMG’s strategy at the time was also badly mistaken in my view and worth forming a tendency against, though not a “complete disaster” (that had to wait for the “turn to industry” which marginalised white collar workers such as Hilda Kean, and for the beliefs that the Russians were right to invade Afghanistan and that world revolution hinged around a few dozen people in Grenada to take hold of a significant minority of the leadership.)
Comment by Prinkipo Exile — 31 December, 2009 @ 5:34 pm
#441-”socialist sects”. The sects being the groups that were perepared to unite on a common platform against the austerity policies of the government, in support of workers struggles and against the NF and racism, as opposed the revolutionary vanguard party that was not.
Comment by Armchair — 31 December, 2009 @ 5:39 pm
#441 Thanks for the clarification. Presumably it was the SWP’s trade union emphasis that led them to something I never understood - standing their own ‘Right to Work’/ Rank and File candidate in the leadership election for the TGWU at the time, against the acknowledged most prominent left wing challenger in the union, Alan Thornett of Cowley?
Your expert on these things so you can help with one question I have - what was Richard Gott’s relationship with the IS at the time he stood in the Hull by-election in 1966?
Comment by Prinkipo Exile — 31 December, 2009 @ 5:41 pm
444 - yes, both the SWP and Militant had the same definition of “sects” at the time, all other groups on the left, including each other of course.
Comment by Prinkipo Exile — 31 December, 2009 @ 5:46 pm
#441 and 446. The SWP too was and is a sect. A rather larger one with greater implantation in and a better orientation on the working class than the IMG or Big Flame but a sect nonetheless. You take offense too easily.
Comment by neprimerimye — 31 December, 2009 @ 6:06 pm
Duncan Hallas identified sect like behaviour as orientating ones self inwardly towards other small left groups rather than outwardly towards the working class. There’s plenty of evidence of that in this thread. Although, it’s flattering that the SWP appears to figure so greatly in so many of the contributions. Far too many to really reflect it’s limited scope and influence.
Comment by Ray — 31 December, 2009 @ 6:31 pm
Good god. Were all these arguments just a spin-off of internal debates in the MIG’s in the late ’70’s? The internet is a confusing place to be sure..
Comment by johng — 31 December, 2009 @ 7:13 pm
Ray - Hallas did get things wrong, just very occasionally. There were plenty of very large, very active and very revolutionary sects around the Communist International during its early period 1920-23. Size and a working class focus have nothing to with it - it’s all about the application of the united front tactic and a long term orientation to the needs of the class rather than the party.
Comment by Prinkipo Exile — 31 December, 2009 @ 7:15 pm
448, Dead right Ray. I identify with the SWP alright. When ordinary people even forget to breath for a minute so as to debate and discuss about a topic or person, it proves that that topic or person does touch a raw nerve. Like many commentators on this subject, I have learnt a lot about both the SWP and RESPECT. My comment therefore is not a negative criticism but an acknowledgement that the SWP, whether sect or not does touch a raw nerve in all those who have commented on this thread, biased and neutral alike. I am also pleased that Andy at 440 is chuffed to have over 400 comments on this subject. To a certain extent I owe people like Andy whose blogs have opened up subjects like these.
I did say in my earlier comment that I have suffered in the past 7 years since joining the SWP more than I suffered in my life. Part of the reason is that no one in the SWP whether in the CC, District or Branch has ever talked to me as a comrade apart from telling me to sell Social Worker. It is no fault of the CC or comrades, but I believe it is this culture in the SWP where one is either accepted by ‘the Powers’ controlling the SWP.
So, I will take the liberty of saying why I also held back by repeating these words that a comrade told me in my first days in the SWP; It felt like a kind of a warning to me when she said; “Lindsey and John are the mother and father of the SWP. If you cross them, you will be expelled from the Party.” Seven years down the line I find myself blogging about the SWP where the topic is Leninism. From my theory that I have read like a lunatic, I would not separate my understanding of what the SWP stand for from what Lenin stood for. Yet practical experience taught me a different subject. That proves that what I was told by this comrade was in some way true, i.e. you either belong or you don’t kind of attitude. I am therefore indebted to all those whose arguments on this thread opened up the chasm between theory and practice in socialist politics, and how easily it is for true revolutionaries to lose track of what is means to be a revolutionary. Not all is lost.
To quote Ray above, “It is flattering that the SWP appears to figure so greatly in so many of the contributions. Far too many to really reflect it’s limited scope and influence.” This surely will strengthen the SWP as we learn from past mistakes; i.e No one is above the Party.
Comment by florence durrant — 31 December, 2009 @ 7:24 pm
Florence - your capacity for self-delusion is truly incredible … I would love to believe that the SWP can learn from mistakes - to admit making them would be the first step and I see no evidence from the Conference bulletins that this is the case. You can scarcely put a cigarette paper between the different perspectives being put forward which are all based largely on the same premise (all difficulties are someone else’s fault or objective circumstance) and the same future perspective (sell the paper, build the party). The very fact that discussion only happens in the three months of a ‘pre-conference’ period is the biggest indicator that what you seem to hope for simply is not going to happen.
Comment by Prinkipo Exile — 31 December, 2009 @ 7:33 pm
#450. “Size and a working class focus have nothing to with it - it’s all about the application of the united front tactic and a long term orientation to the needs of the class rather than the party.”
There is an obvious contradiction in the above. If an orientation to the working class has nothing to do with whether or not a group is a sect then the question of the United Front is besides the point. After all the whole point of the UF concerns the need of the revolutionary organisation to win a base within the class by winning it away from reformist ideology/organisations.
The UF is a two edged sword directed at both the open enemies of the class and the disguised reactionaries with whom the revolutionary organisation must temporarily ally. In part it was the lack of criticism that the SWP made of its allies in the various coalitions that it has animated these last ten years or so that highlight its failure to build a revolutionay alternative to reformism.
Comment by neprimerimye — 31 December, 2009 @ 7:43 pm
452 says “Florence - your capacity for self-delusion is truly incredible.”
What is your capacity Prinkipo Exile? See Mr/Mrs/Ms, its a futile game to play insults or patronise someone on the blog. All I can say to you in response to your attitude which is based on your own personal experience is; “My capacity of self-delusion” is better than no capacity at all. So let me spell it out to you:
At 50 years old, I am comfortable with my life, have worked hard to become a highly educated nurse, live in a comfortable big house in the country, my only child just got a 1st in his 1 st degree and is planning to go for his Masters - to PhD either in Cape Town (South Africa where I come from) or Latin America (I have connection there). For a start that does not potray a self-deluded woman. From where I stand it shows a woman who knows that it is only hard work that pays; having come to England 22 years ago with no two pennys to rub together.
For your own information, my SWP membership was accidental as I was looking for charities (NGOs) to help me build a hospital for my people in a village in Africa where the nearest hospital is over 70km away. I stayed in the SWP because I loved its politics. So wake up mate and realise that the SWP is made up of people from all walks of life, from someone like myself who is passionate about the NHS and International politics to ordinary street sweepers whose jobs are threatened. The SWP is not made up of conferences and pre conferences. Neither will the SWP become absolute because of people like you. If anything, the SWP is becoming stronger because comrades are beginning to publicly discuss, debate and talk about internal problems on blogs like this one. Just watch the space!
Happy New Year to all whose vision is a better world for all!
Comment by florence durrant — 31 December, 2009 @ 8:11 pm
Of course many would prefer that the SWP was’nt having a real debate. We are though.
Comment by johng — 1 January, 2010 @ 10:33 am
#454
‘At 50 years old, I am comfortable with my life, have worked hard to become a highly educated nurse, live in a comfortable big house in the country, my only child just got a 1st in his 1 st degree and is planning to go for his Masters - to PhD either in Cape Town (South Africa where I come from) or Latin America (I have connection there). For a start that does not potray a self-deluded woman. From where I stand it shows a woman who knows that it is only hard work that pays; having come to England 22 years ago with no two pennys to rub together.’
This reads like a campaign message on behalf of the Conservatives. Hard work=success. The system works. The poor are poor because they don’t work hard enough. It’s their own fault.
No more money to benefit scroungers.
Comment by John — 1 January, 2010 @ 10:47 am
Thought for the day:
In Broue’s history of the German Revolution there are some interesting passages on the impact of factional enmity between Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Radek which had its origins in Radek’s expulsion from the Social Democrats before the first world war and Rosa Luxemburgs support for that expulsion. Whats interesting about it is that when the contemporary reads such things the question isn’t “who was right and who was wrong”. The question is how could revolutionaries of such calibre have allowed such trivia to influence them seven years later in the midst of much more important events.
There is a lesson there somewhere.
Comment by johng — 1 January, 2010 @ 11:02 am
John at 456 you are surely deranged in “This reads like a campaign message on behalf of the Conservatives. Hard work=success. The system works. The poor are poor because they don’t work hard enough. It’s their own fault.
No more money to benefit scroungers.”
Why do people like you put words in other people’s mouths? Get it right, I work for the NHS for a start even though for your own information I have an MBA pre training as a nurse. My job satisfaction in nursing comes from helping other people including supporting those who find themselves unemployed or in need of state benefit. My argument regarding hard working relates to the SWP and building a political alternative to the main stream politics. My response was to prove to someone who had just labelled me as having a capacity for self-delusion.
So, if you are that thick as to fail to understand my argument and to accuse me of having a Tory mentality, I will ask you to look at your 5 fingers; see they are all different sizes - life is like that. So, there is no Tory in the blood of a country girl who did not wear a shoe until she was 12. There is no Tory in a woman who was told throughout life that just because of the colour of my skin, I am second class. There is no Tory in a woman who works 247 not only to make ends meet, but to help others who did not have the opportunity that I had. Sometimes all you have to do John is think, it does not cost a penny just to think outside your blinkers!
Comment by florence durrant — 1 January, 2010 @ 12:26 pm
453 - I obviously meant purely or solely a focus on the working class in and of itself does not stop an organisation being a sect; there are plenty of workerist but sectarian examples, such as LO in France. Neither is size alone a guide as in terms of a working class “orientation”, there are obvious complexities such as organisations operating under illegality, clandestinity, in exile or under extreme repression, but the guiding factor is the operation of the UF tactic. Quite a small propaganda organisation can still have a mass influence.
The UF doesn’t of course imply an automatic and cont inuous barage of criticism of allies, but a conscious effort to win preferably most and certainly the best to a revolutionary solution.
Comment by Prinkipo Exile — 1 January, 2010 @ 1:32 pm
@ neprimerimye 453
I thought that the following was the worst contribution to this debate I had seen, “After all the whole point of the UF concerns the need of the revolutionary organisation to win a base within the class by winning it away from reformist ideology/organisations”. No, the primary purpose of the united front is to win the aims of the united front.
But then I read this, “The UF is a two edged sword directed at both the open enemies of the class and the disguised reactionaries with whom the revolutionary organisation must temporarily ally.”
The ‘disguised reactionaries’ are members of your class, engaged in a campaign you agree with (or you wouldn’t be in it, surely?), who happen to disagree with you on other questions, tactical or programmatic. They may even be right.
But, no, there you have it- the purpose of the UF is not the aim of the UF itself (say, ending Apartheid or winning the reinstatement of sacked workers), but to unmask the disguised reactionaries within the UF and recruit the rest. If that fails it must be because they are reactionaries.
Only this type of genius could lead to a situation where there is now a majority in this country against the war in Afghanistan, yet there are empty StW meetings and dwindling national demonstrations, and where our rulers can promote the Wootton Bassett manifestations as the popular mood legitimising the war.
Well done.
Comment by krupskaya — 1 January, 2010 @ 2:08 pm
Well seeing as Nep isn’t leading any of these struggles its hard to see how his undoubted talents can have much to do with the situation you describe. Perhaps its all your fault? I mean, its an argument.
Comment by johng — 1 January, 2010 @ 2:11 pm
Actually that can’t be right. Its actually all Liam’s fault.
Comment by johng — 1 January, 2010 @ 2:14 pm
“Only this type of genius could lead to a situation where there is now a majority in this country against the war in Afghanistan, yet there are empty StW meetings and dwindling national demonstrations, and where our rulers can promote the Wootton Bassett manifestations as the popular mood legitimising the war.
Well done.”
It’s a bit naive to believe that in a UF the various components aren’t pushing their own political perspective on how to achieve the aims of the UF. It follows that a UF is a combination of different approaches to achieving the same aim. It’s also the case that there are often disagreements about tactics in a UF and that there is a struggle between reformist and revolutionary perspectives. It would be rather daft for any political organisation to form a UF with others and see its own membership swallowed up by the other components. If the UF is successful and attracts members then this will invariably boost the memberships of individual organisations within the UF. There’s nothing wrong with that.
As for exposing the problems with reformism it would be remiss of socialists in a UF not to promote their perspective because it is the one that will strengthen the UF. Not doing so is opportunistic and potentially disasterous for the UF.
As for empty StW meetings I think that’s an exaggeration but you are correct that national sentiment does not necessarily translate into bums on seats. If it did we wouldn’t need to organise against a government and media who are overwhelmingly supportive of the war. Blaming each other on the left for passivity among workers is a recipe for further infighting and demoralisation.
Comment by Ray — 1 January, 2010 @ 5:08 pm
Dear Krupskaja (#460) I’m reasonably certain that I did not cause the current impasse of the STWC. I could be wrong and you do make a very convincing case for my guilt.
You wrote “The ‘disguised reactionaries’ are members of your class, engaged in a campaign you agree with (or you wouldn’t be in it, surely?), who happen to disagree with you on other questions, tactical or programmatic. They may even be right.” Indeed it is quite possible that Neil Kinnock MP, a sponsor of the original ANL back in the day, was right on many questions. But in light of his record I rather doubt it.
“No, the primary purpose of the united front is to win the aims of the united front.” from the point of view of the revolutionary group/party this is not the aim of a UF. As revolutionaists we must recognise that in reality the aims of a UF can never be achieved unless the struggle itself can lead to the overthrow of the boss class. For this reason for revolutionaries we seek to win reformists to our ideas and in this way develop class consciousness. This is always our central aim and is something Hallas points to in his artivle when he speaks of the positive results of an electoral