Esf

[Bobajip]

Where the YSF-UK at the ESF in London? If so does anybody want to post a report?

Bobajip

[Paul]

Hi Comrades,

didn't see any members of YFIS, only about 10 people from the different sections of the CMI.
Quite an interesting event, dominated by right wingers and bureaucrats (including the SWP / IST in this)

my organisation, the CWI had over 200 members at it during various points, peaking at the demo on sunday.

interestingly, spoke to a spanish supporter of the CMI, and he was completely unaware that a split had ever taken place in the CWI?! very strange

as a final point, it is interesting that cmi, through marxist.com have posted the minority documents from the debate in the early 90s, but not the majority! why is this comrades? the cwi has posted both sides of the debate on our website marxist.net, we want everyone to see both sides then make their own minds up - why don't you post the majority docs (apart from the resolution on walton)?

all the best

Paul
CWI Coventry / UK

[T.K.A.-Denmark]

If you look at it what was posted was 1. a interview with Ted 2. both resolutions on Walton 3. article called something along the lines of "a threat to 40 years of work".
Now if you see something strange in this you must be a bit paranoid. I think your views have been quite clearly explained. IE that Militant would grow by leaps and  bounds if you went out of Labour. The 90'ies was red and so on on so forth. Sadly enough one has to read the pages of the Weekly Worker to see any discussion about this grave miscalculation. The ditching of the name Militant strikes one as the strangest miscalculation ever.

200 SP members at ESF? One wonders why you didn't have a higher profile then.

[OUTOFTHENIGHT]

Aaaargh!!! The cwi is right  and we are wrong because firstly , they had more people at ESF than the cmi and secondly,the cwi majority articles at the time of the split werent published on IDOM. What a blow to the international workers movement!!
Well....as they can all be accessed on marxist.net and we arent all stupid and can check them all there, I dont really see the point.
Also , as far as the vast majority of working people are concerned, who really cares anymore what happened 12 years ago. Obviously you do Paul, but you would be better occupied recruiting people to your declining organisation than reading all these past documents interesting though they are.
Anyway. Im bored know with this cwi/cmi talk . You Paul cant even be bothered to reply to our questions regarding Tony Sanious article about Venezuela on this board , so why the hell should I be bothered about your wonderful and enlightening experience at ESF!!

[Monster]

Hi
I was at the ESF as well, and I also met several from the CWI, SWP, the mandelites, IBT, the spartacists and a bunch of other "trotskyite" groups whom I cannot remember the name of. A lot of things can be said politically about the comrades of the CWI, but as far goes as my little experience at the ESF, the CWI were the least annoying of the lot of the above mentioned groups... I even saw some CWIs explaining their paper to some interested people, which I didn't see any of e.g. the Mandelites doing. In fact the mandelites shocked me! They distributed their paper (bi-lingual french/english) around for free!! They were lying all around the place, in the trash with all the thousands of leaflets, and when I asked two of their lot (two sitting in their stand, next to IDOM) what they stood for, they weren't able to answer according to their own paper! It was even a simple question, US elections... btw, their stand didn't sell one single copy of their own books, all from other "independent" authors...
Sad to see stuff like that..
anyhow, there were definetely more CWIs than CMIs at ESF - but is that a quality in itself? The SWP had even more than the CWI (at least it appeared so), and where does that leave the SWP?

Finally, I note that you said "supporter" about the spanish comrade - because we also had some contacts there, not only comrades from our section... and are supporters ment to know everything?

All the best
Klaus / CMI / Danish section

[mrbojangles]

Also , as far as the vast majority of working people are concerned, who really cares anymore what happened 12 years ago

i agree with you. So why has your tendancy dragged it up now??? shouldnt you be having words with them, expressing your opposition to publishing such material on the website?
The reason, i think why IDOM has been selective in what docs they have published on their website is that not all of them fit in with their version of the split.
On walton, i was told that it was ted grant who first raised the possibilty of winning the seat, standing outside of labour ... is this true?
Anyway, the document i really want to read is the one were ALan woods propses that spanish comrades declare an open party,standing  independantly of the PSOE in the Basque country ... written in the late 1980s i think. any chance of that being published on marxist.com?

[Bobajip]

Hmm looks like I opened a can of yummy worms here then.
I was only asking for a repot on the ESF from YFIS - UK.
Not a my our groups bigger then yours session from the CWI.

Still I'll chip in anyway.....; )

As someone who was in the Militant during both the liverpool events and at the start of the poll tax campaign ( I left the tendency for personal reasons at the time so was only on the fringes during the so called split - I think you'll all find that the CMI comrades where expelled..) I must say that the whole debate at the time was actually very confusing for a lot of the comrades and in iteslf led a fair few to leave. i was going to rejoin when the debate broke out but backed off - not wanting to enter into a debate that i'd been out of. ( i also shared a flat with members of both factions for a while - we all got on fine.)

I think though that its important to read the documents and I've got a lot out of reading the documents recently - ( I only read a few at the time).

I think the tendency made some massive mistakes befor the debate though - and the minority documents point some of these out. ( a major one not mentioned was letting the LPYS go - it should have been kept going outside of the labour party but supporting, I think this was discussed a little bit at the time.)They are dead right when they say that the atmosphere was uncritical and of a low level of political debate i saw it decline myself in the short time i was involved.
Perhaps reading the documents now without having been involved at the time can seem a bit dry - even boring and abstract, but i remember thinking the minority where sooo wrong, They've been born out by events though. even if the SP can get 200 to the ESf - we have to remember that this was a national mobilisation, so not something to boast about. - I'm not saying this to score points though  - actually it sadens me greatly. The Militant Tendency was my whole life for a good few years and I loved it - it was the best most serious left wing organisation. Now it has gone - and whats left? - The scotish organisation fell away - many liverpool comrade then left, a few went of and aligned themselves with the mandeleites in respect - the SP built the SA a bit and then handed it over to the SWP! So much for the great opertunities out side of the labour party!

I do genuinly wish the comrades ever luck in building a 'mass workers party' - unfortunatly all it will ever be is a pipe dream if they keep persuing this disasterous turn.

As for the CMI - well I dont know, I hope they can build. They are small and in the UK came of pretty bad from the debtae and being expelled - but what I've read fron their website they seem to be willing to be a lot more honest about the mistakes of the past.

Now is anyone going to say anything about the ESF!

Bobajip

[Paul]

Hi all,

just on what you were saying -

ok will say something about the esf!!

i was at the bloomsbury end - not that exciting at all, i went to the one in florence and that was much better. this was stiched up by 'red' ken and the swp and it showed!

i enjoyed what a cde said earlier about the mandelites, they are arguably more clueless than the swp, and that takes quite a bit! turnout was low, the debates in the bigger sessions were pretty much tied up beforehand, and really the whole event was barely touched by the trade unions and ordinary working class militants.

the demo, which should have been against the bosses EU , which was hijacked by the SWP through the STWC, was quite small, with a max of 50000. i think there is a tendency for the politicised youth to leave anything organised by the swp well alone, and i don't blame them!

not sure where this whole esf thing will go - no where if the swp / usfi (mandelites) are in charge


i hope we can carry on the debate re the split - its important. btw i mentioned that we had around 200 people there (not a full national mob, actually) to show that we have more than 200 members which iswhats claimed by the cmi! but you are right it isn't who has the biggest ++++, its ideas and influence amongst the working class - so history will tell us

paul

[OUTOFTHENIGHT]

Why is the debate about the split important?

Dont see any problem about IDOM just putting their side of the story. The cwi put both side on their site.
Good for them. Its not an issue for me.
I think Bobajib raises the most important issues here. I agree totally about letting the LPYS go. That was criminal.
I was on the fringes of the organisation as well at the time of the split. In- active comrades were given a lot of attention by our local fulltimer who backed the majority.My vote was obviously wanted for the expulsions. Get this ......I voted and wasnt even a dues paying  member at the time!!!! That is how desperate the majority was!! Still I kept loyal to the organisation until about 1996/7 when I realised things were not going the way I was told, you know 'leaps and bounds' 'strength to strength'.Activity seemed to evolve around folding leaflets for elections.When you only got miniscule votes it was quite soul destroying.

Anyway why is a debate about the split important? When you compare it to the tasks today it is irrelevant. Look,  only 18% of privatised industry is unionised; workers in the UK work the longest hours with the least holidays in the EU.The minimum wage is still low and bosses are still cutting corners with health and safety in their pusuit for profit.
 There is a housing crisis and a debt crisis looming. Surely time would be better spent addressing these issues.
Ian

[mrbojangles]

unfortunatly i couldnt make it to the esf. i read in the guardian that there was some trouble at an antiracism debate. apparently some anarchists - i heard around 300- 'stormed' the platform to protest against the swp/livingstone's undemocratic methods in organising the forum. was anyone on the board at the this meeting?

[Bobajip]

Originally posted by OUTOFTHENIGHT
Why is the debate about the split important?


Anyway why is a debate about the split important? When you compare it to the tasks today it is irrelevant. Look,  only 18% of privatised industry is unionised; workers in the UK work the longest hours with the least holidays in the EU.The minimum wage is still low and bosses are still cutting corners with health and safety in their pusuit for profit.
 There is a housing crisis and a debt crisis looming. Surely time would be better spent addressing these issues.
Ian

Ian good to see I'm not the only old timer on the board!

As to the debate about the split - I think it is still important. ( though I didnt dream that this discussion would start with this thread).
 It is important because the debate revolved around many of the issues that are still being dicussed today.
most importantly
 1)The attitude to the traditional Organisations ( especially in relation to the working classes attitude to these organisations)
2)The attitude towards organisation and education of the revolutionaries. and building the revolutionary party.

I'm sure we could include many other points but i think these two should be broad enough catagories.

These issues arose at the time out of the perspective of a irriversable shift to the right with in the labour party. combined with the reletive strngh of the tendency at that time in work outside of the traditional labour party structure. ( ie the anti-poll tax campaign - though despite leading this campaign, both politically and organisationally others, we where not the sole movers and shakers.)

The problem with this perspective however was if you look at it closley its entirly subjective. This I think completly disorientated the organisation.

The reasons why the debate is important now is that these two questions in some ways have become clearer in hindsight. Which does mean that it is important to try to draw a balance sheet - especially for those of us who where involved at the time and may have jumped one way or the other.

I would also ask CWI members to do the same - we must realise that we are falable - even the most theoretically centred tendency can make mistakes - to fail to admit that is the biggest mistake, and its a mistake that the tendency made, and which is being repeated by the CWI.

I'll leave it there for now.

Bobajip
P.S. ( I'm not currently a member of either the Socialist party or Socialist appeal - I have just renewed my labour party membership though so its prbably clear which way I'm leanning)

[mrbojangles]

Look, only 18% of privatised industry is unionised; workers in the UK work the longest hours with the least holidays in the EU.The minimum wage is still low and bosses are still cutting corners with health and safety in their pusuit for profit.

your right. so can we expect more articles on these issues and less revisionist histories/interviews from sewell and grant? i hope so. IN the past few years a lot of new, young people have been radicalised by the nati war movement,anti globalisation movement, and just general disgust at the labour party's contempt for working people and students. dragging up these issues from 12 years ago , i would guess, means nothing to them and possibly turns them of getting involved in left wing politics altogether. Maybe discussing them internally is the way forward for the cmi and not on your public website....?

[Bobajip]

Originally posted by Paul
Hi all,

just on what you were saying -

ok will say something about the esf!!

i was at the bloomsbury end - not that exciting at all, i went to the one in florence and that was much better. this was stiched up by 'red' ken and the swp and it showed!

i enjoyed what a cde said earlier about the mandelites, they are arguably more clueless than the swp, and that takes quite a bit! turnout was low, the debates in the bigger sessions were pretty much tied up beforehand, and really the whole event was barely touched by the trade unions and ordinary working class militants.

the demo, which should have been against the bosses EU , which was hijacked by the SWP through the STWC, was quite small, with a max of 50000. i think there is a tendency for the politicised youth to leave anything organised by the swp well alone, and i don't blame them!

not sure where this whole esf thing will go - no where if the swp / usfi (mandelites) are in charge

Thanks paul,
I think I've got to agree with you about the ESF - Its clear that it has to start to try to democritise. The big problem is the whole consensus decision making thing is clearly to oopen to being manipulated ( like we're surprised) ironocally it was the anarchists who are(where?) big supporters of this - even in some of thier own organisations ( reclaim the streets, Wombles etc.) it seems they had to protest against the stich ups!

From what I've gathered the organsing meetings never voted and never even kept minutes - Livingstmnes basic position was it seems that if hes paying hes calling the shots. Unfortunatly the SWP and thier mandleite shadows went along with it in the hope of getting a slice of the pie.

On the other hand its not just a meeting of the left but also of NGOs and other bodies - who are also happy onthe whole to go along with the consenus system because it stops them being challenged on the platforms.

Didnt want to go myself in the end.


[/B][/QUOTE] i hope we can carry on the debate re the split - its important. btw i mentioned that we had around 200 people there (not a full national mob, actually) to show that we have more than 200 members which iswhats claimed by the cmi! but you are right it isn't who has the biggest ++++, its ideas and influence amongst the working class - so history will tell us
 [/B][/QUOTE]

Well I thought I read that all SP members where expected to go on the 'party news' page of the socialist - I dont still have that copy but i'll see if its on the SP website. It sure sounded like that was a national mobilisation to me. but if i'm wrong then fair enough.

Well the cmi claim you have two hundred members you claim you had around 200 hundred at the ESF. I dont see that that proves you have more than two hundred members - maybe you have three hundred members maybe four hundred. In any event I think that t he CMIs main point is that the huge growth that leaving the labour party was expected to produce has in fact not materialised. And lets be honest it hasnt. To be fair its not entirly the SPs thought because as I'm sure you'll tell us its the objective situation - but hold on wasnt the objective situation right for huge growth outside the labour party?
Your right its not the size that matters but what you do with it.

Comradly
Bobajip.

[Bobajip]

Originally posted by mrbojangles
your right. so can we expect more articles on these issues and less revisionist histories/interviews from sewell and grant? i hope so. IN the past few years a lot of new, young people have been radicalised by the nati war movement,anti globalisation movement, and just general disgust at the labour party's contempt for working people and students. dragging up these issues from 12 years ago , i would guess, means nothing to them and possibly turns them of getting involved in left wing politics altogether. Maybe discussing them internally is the way forward for the cmi and not on your public website....?

I'm sure your right the split means nothing to them - but i dont think these articles where address to them - and if they do find them interesting, well they can read them.
So what should we all do sweep it under the carpet? Not let people know what has happened. - Is not the split an important part of the history of the revolutionary movement in britain or is it just water under the bridge best forgotten about? Perhaps we souldnt discuass marx or dialectics either. And best to avoid those long boring perspective documents.
Perhaps the chapter on the split should be expundged from peter taafes book on the history of Militant?
Then we can all attract the radicalised youth by the Layer load.

And what are those youths radicalised by the movement to do?

Learn Marxism or be foot soldiers for well informed leaders who are beyond reproach - then when that campaign is over they can juts drift away.
It'lll be like the SWP all over again.

I'm also wondering why these radicalised youth are not filling the ranks of the revolutioary parties outside of labour ( for sure they are not joining labour either.) but where are they? - is the SP running out of membership cards? Is respect about to become a huge organisation? Are they in the SWP? are they planning a conference on forming a new mass workers party?

Yes these youth have been radicalised. But who are they turning to? at the moment nobody. or at least they are being cautious and who can blame them!

Do you really think a couple of articles on a website is what are keeping these young people away?

Bobajip

[proletarianrevo]

Hi Everybody!
I was at the ESF too, mainly helping the comrades out at the IDOM stall. It was indeed a succes. We had four stalls in total; The IDOM stall, the Hands off Venezuela stall, the french La Riposte stall and the Spanish Sindicato de Estudiantes stall. All very well visited, especially by a lot of interested youth.

We had also organized two meetings, in both incidents the rooms were completely packed and the discussions were great, a lot of excellent comrades attending.

You can read more about it:
http://www.marxist.com/images/esf04/galleryesf.html
http://www.marxist.com/Globalisation/esf_04_venez_meeting.htm
http://www.marxist.com/Globalisation/esf_04_venez_colombia_meeting.htm

about the split-discussion, I agree that it is important. However, I think that Ian does have a point. We cannot dwelve over it forever. We need to get on with the tasks facing us now with the building of a Marxist Tendency. Saying this, I know that it can be argued that building a viable tendency includes studying the past and learning from mistakes. And yes it is correct, but I think that plenty of discussions on this subject have been taken, without getting us anywhere....Studying the past and learning the lessons is vital, but dwelving over it in all eternity is unproductive.  Lets get on with the tasks of recrutting workers and youth to Marxism and build the tendency with the best traditions that we inherit.

comradely,
Andreas from the Danish Socialistisk Standpunkt