on the 'mass organisations'

[Paul]

Hi cdes,

 I must first commend you on your top website! Just a quick point, you're British comrades in Socialist Appeal, are still wedded to the idea that the working class will move back through the Labour Party, and are sitting waiting for thid to happen. A leading member of SA, when I asked him what they did in the LP said ' not much as we would just be expelled' (he was a leading member of the Militant).

When will the workers move through the LP? I think whats left of the ex CWI minority in Britain will be waiting a very long time, would they participate if a british version of the RC was set up? Its worth noting at the time of the setting up of the RC the Grant / Woods group in Italy refused to join and stayed in the DS, now they have taken the correct position and are in the RC and have  a certain influence.

any thoughts

comradely
Paul
West Mids, UK

[marx_was_right]

The sweeping changes in the LP at the moment are there for all to see - and its only the beggining. The party will swing to the left, but unless a Marxist tendency is built within the party it will always remain a left reformist party.

 When the Taaffites walked out of the party (with the intention of 'coming on leaps and bounds') they lost thousands of members, and in effect joined the bankrupt que of 'revolutionary' parties which consider themselves to be 'the true' socialist party.

 Off the top of my head there is..

 SWP
 SSP
 CPGB
 CPB
 CPS
 RCPML
 SP
 WRP
 SPGB (fraction 1)
 SPGB (fraction 2)
 SLP
 SDP
 
 This list could be doubled or trebled probibly.

 Out of interest however, what would you like to see Socialist Appeal do if we were to leave the LP, would we join the que above?

[OUTOFTHENIGHT]

I agree with igor. Its pretty cold outside the LP at the moment if you want to form a separate organisation of the working class.Our position in Southampton in the last few years is beginning to pay off with a number of interventions where the sects have trailed behind us.

One of the SWP members last week retorted  that everyone  
in the LP are Blairites!!!! Which leads us to an interesting dilema at the local council elections in May. The fascist BNP are standing in 6 of the seats locally. Do the sects who stand against the LP unite against the BNP and not stand in those seats?What will be the Taafite position where the are fielding one candidate against the LP?

Due to the position of one of our cdes on the city council and the stance he took against the 18.56% council tax rise and job losses we pulled the rug from under the SP position. They assumed we would vote with the Blairites. At the demo our cde spoke and gained the support of the workers present. This could not have been achieved by being outside the LP.

It is important now to look forward now and intervene in the coming workers struggles locally and nationally.If we encourage workers that the only way they can remove the Blairites by fighting within the party and deselecting them the fight can begin to transform the LP. Trade Unionists must be involved at grass roots to transform the ward branches and clps into fighting ,campaigning organisations. I would like to know of cdes experiences in the areas.
By the way this forum is a brilliant idea an long over due.
Ian.

[redjordi]

Hi Paul,

To say that Socialist Appeal comrades are just sitting in the LP waiting for the workers to come is a complete mis-representation of what we are doing, and I think you know it.

1) the position of the Socialist Party is that the LP is an out and out bourgeois party and that therefore no lef opposition could ever arise in it. This has been proven wrong by the massive internal turmoil within the party on issues like the war in Iraq. I think that even the SP recognise this now since they invited Galloway (a "left" Labour MP) as the main speaker at the closing rally of their Socialism event last year. Here's an irony for you, if the LP is an out and out capitalist party, why invite one of its MPs to address a gathering of socialists?

2) right now the process of radicalisation of the working class is not YET expressing itself in the LP in the sense of increased membership in any significant way. That is why Socialist Appeal has been concentrating most of its work in the last few years in the trade unions (with quite a lot of success) and amongst the youth (with some advances).

3) Thus, now we are actively participating in the anti-war movement, organising student walk-outs in different parts of the country, and above all building and strengthening our position in the trade union left.

4) Political traditions in Britain and Italy are different. Crucially, in Britain the trade unions are affiliated to the LP. If there was a move from a significant section of the LP to split, with trade union support, and create a more left wing working class party with support from important sections of the unions, then we would undoubtedly discuss all the pros and cons and if this was a significant move we would participate (as we have done in Italy). However, given the political traditions in Britain I think this is unlikely to suceed, as proven by the disaster of Scargill's SLP. For those abroad Scargill was the very much respected leader of the mineworkers union. He came from a Stalinist background and was  a very influential figure in the British trade union and labour movement. A few years back he decided to split away from the LP and set his own Socialist LP. He got the backing of some important trade union leaders (from smaller unions mainly). His SLP has now all but disappeared. And the trade union leaders who supported him are either back in the left of the LP (Rix from ASLEF - train drivers) or backing the idea of struggling within the LP (Crow from RMT - railworkers).

5) If what you are talking on the other hand is about the Socialist Alliance, that is, a coalition of different small socialist groups with no decisive influence in the trade union movement, then I think we were right in not joining. The SA is going nowhere, many of the groups which originally set it up have now left, and the biggest of them, the SWP, has all but buried it.

6) One last point on "sitting", this is a quote from our 2001 British perspectives and tasks document:

"We are beginning to connect with an important layer of workers and youth who are looking for Marxist ideas. In many ways, things are now beginning to change for us. A change in the objective situation will open up big opportunities for us in the youth, the trade unions and the Labour Party. But we cannot just wait upon events! Our future success depends entirely on the work we do NOW. We need to tighten our tendency at all levels to be able to meet up to the tasks imposed upon us by history. With faith in our ideas and confidence in the working class, we can succeed." (Where is Britain Going? British Perspectives and Tasks 2001 Statement by the Editorial Board of the Socialist Appeal - March 2001).

If however you find any Socialist Appeal comrades "sitting and waiting" then I volunteer personally to go and kick their ass into activity! ;-)

7) as for our work in the LP - limited though this is at present time - you can see the campaign of our Southampton comrades against cuts in the council (Southampton - Labour Councillor takes principled stand against cuts )


I hope this clarifies the issue.

Comradely,


redjordi

[marx_was_right]

More than 120 Labour MPs have made it clear to Blair that he has no mandate for taking this country to war on Iraq.
The largest peace movement in the history of humanity took to the streets of cities across the world in February.
The message to MPs and to the US and British leaders was that millions upon millions of their citizens are unconvinced about arguments for war. It was the massive demonstrations and intense lobbying of MPs which brought about the largest rebellion of Labour MPs in parliamentary history.
It is hardly surprising that peo-ple are rejecting this war when month by month the arguments brought forward by the Bush administration and by this government have degenerated from emotional blackmail to the near farce of British intelligence plagiarism and CIA photo montages.
People were angered by the grotesque abuse by Bush of the memories of the victims of the 11 September, Bali and Mombasa atrocities — using them as the excuse to dust off and implement the long held plans for the invasion of Iraq developed by Pearle and Rumsfield over a decade ago. People understand that war on Iraq not only has no link to the war against terrorism, but in reality will contribute to exacerbating the terrorist threat.
People also bitterly resent Blair’s association of any criticism of the Bush administration with what he describes as ‘anti-Americanism’.
Opposition to Bush’s war runs deep amongst the American people and is rising to a scale of the anti-Vietnam protests, but it goes largely unreported over here. Hundreds of thousands of brave Americans have demonstrated on the streets of New York, Washington, San Francisco, Los Angeles and across the US against the Bush regime’s rush to war.
Our message to them is that we stand shoulder to shoulder with them in solidarity against this war. By standing together in solidarity the peoples of this world can still stop this war.
Of course the time is now short. The Bush military regime has set a timetable for war in late March based not upon the outcome of the weapons inspection but upon the climactic conditions of the Middle East region.
That is why in a last desperate throw to convince public opinion, the two remaining arguments for war have been dragged out by the President and the Prime Minister.
The moral imperative of overthrowing the vile tyrant Hussein has suddenly been discovered by the very people who supplied the weapons to him by which the Iraqi people were so brutally murdered.
The right of our own government to be listened to on humanitarian grounds has been tarnished by its welcoming of Iranian ministers, whose brutal regime stones women to death.
The final argument by the Prime Minister was that we risk the UN’s authority being undermined. In reality the UN’s authority is being undermined by the ability of the Bush regime to contort the democratic decision-making process of the Security Council by blatant process of threats and bribery.
Our argument is give peace a chance. If to save lives we have to station weapons inspectors permanently in states which are considered a threat to world peace, then let’s do it.
Let us learn from the lessons of conflict resolution. Let us send in with the weapons inspectors new teams of human rights inspectors, providing a free press, and supporting the reassertion of civil society in Iraq. Tyrants fall hardest and best when they are pushed over by their own people.
Let us also reform the UN into the democratic global institution we so desperately need it to be in this challenging century, so that never again can the UN be hijacked for a single country’s strategic military and economic interests.


For information contact Stop the War Coalition: http://www.stopwar.org.uk
Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament: http://www.cnduk.org
Scottish Coalition for Justice Not War: http://www.banthebomb.org


In the event of war
Demonstrate at 6 pm in your town centre (London: Trafalgar Square).

[redjordi]

mmmmm

Igor I do not know where did you get this text from, but

a) it has not much to do with the subject of the thread (which is mass organisations in Britain)

and b) is hopelessly pacifist, in the worst sense of the word, particularly the last bit about humanitarian civil society inspectors and the democratisation of the UN.

redjordi

[marx_was_right]

Ian gave me it, its not my fault :-P

[OUTOFTHENIGHT]

Sorry .....it was meant to be an article by Billy Hayes  from CWU on Campaign Group website. Dont know what happened........
Ian

[OUTOFTHENIGHT]

Blimey....it is a load of old pacifist crap!!!! Ian

[kimberlysark]

hi all,

thank god! (not very marxist expression i know). A socialist discussion board that isn't full of rubbish and cross posts! At last! All serious marxist youth around the world should arrange to discuss on this board (or others like it if they exist). Pointless message boards full of sectarians and mental people who live on their computers are making the internet close to pointless. i'm pleased  to find a message board with some serious topics running on it at last.  

how exactly can the LP be reclaimed?

Why would any worker join the LP now? If they did join surely they would just leave after about 10 seconds extremerly pissed off! Just say I went to my local branch and put forward a socialist program. I'd get no support. The other members are all middle class blairites or careerists! Say I then got 5 mates to join (I'd have to force them to but just say i did, my local branch is very small.... maybe inactive infact because i've had no contact for about 2 years), just say we then passed a motion.... support the FBU strike say. It would then get ignored because there is no democracy in the party and we would be a tiny minority at any rate. Say we then selected me as the local LP candidate! We would refuse to stand on the LP's current program. Instead we would stand against cuts, war, racism... etc etc. The LP would then expell us! What would be the point of all this????? We would have just wasted all our time and energy surely????!!!! Say though we did manage to stand. We went round door to door. Argued for socialist policies and a labour party fighting for the working class. We won the election! Then what? The council is privatising council housing. I oppose it. I oppose the war. I oppose everything the LP council does. I get expelled. So why bother???

In reality what the LP needs is 100,000 workers or so joining the LP, causing loads of trouble, then all would get expelled, and then the LP would split. So then we're back to square one. We need a new workers party. Why go through the LP at all? It makes no sense? The LP is totally empty of youth and workers. Why get them all to join only to get expelled? The point is that the base of the LP Has changed. It's still got union links, it's still got about 5 MPs who think they're socialists, but it's not got a working class base. This has been lost forever I think.  

I can't see any serious struggle developing inside the LP to reclaim it. Youth hate the LP, workers hate the LP (although i admit many have illusions in it still, esp older workers), no one is joining, people are leaving. The only 'struggle' in the LP is by the tiny left that remains who are only allowed to stay in the LP because they are no threat to Blair. If they were a threat they would be expelled. As I understand it SA are in the LP because they believe that as the traditional organisation of the working class the working class will eventually move back into the LP. What if they don't? Then what? Can I have your answer please.

I'm genuinely undecided/slightly confused about the LP. Nothing is simple. If the LP is now a bourgeois party then it doesn't mean that all traces of it's former bourgeois workers party days have disapeared. That would be rediculous. It didn't just transform over night when clause 4 went did it?????!!!!! processes take time to be completed. Can the process be reversed before the blairites totally transform the party? is it too late? I hope I'm proved wrong and the LP is reclaimed by the working class and then it goes on to take power and a marxist tendency wins the leadership, creates a revolutionary crisis, is backed up by millions of workers on the streets and thus triggers world revolution. I just find it unlikely.

Looking forward to reading your replies to my totally unstructured thoughts on reclaiming the LP! I hope you have lots to say on it.

All the best,

 

KS

[Richard Wilson]

The Labour Party is not a working class party and as for the unions themselves, their leaderships aren't representing the workers, which is why British union membership has declined over the past years and continues to decline. What good is a union that won't organize itself to stand up for the worker? In fact, the faces in the unions that run the show are making more money than many business owners. UNISON doesn't stand up for public sector workers and the TUC flat out abandoned the fire fighters in their effort to demand a fair living wage.

Labour has never been a Socialist Party, there is a difference between nationalization and socialization, the first is done when the private sector isn't efficient enough. The Labourites under Clement Attlee following World War 1, nationalized the coalfields, the railways and health care, but that wasn't Socialism, because those industries represented an insignificant portion of the economy and further more, they were more efficient under public sector control, so nationalization there, benefited the private sector everywhere else.

The Labour Party might give the union leaders some influence on the party, but overall, the Labour Party is the same as our Democratic Party, it is a party of the bourgeosie and will take the reformist approach to save capitalism.

Let us not forget under which government that the Winter of Disconent occured, or under which government the International Monetary Fund had to take control of government finances under.

Sure Marxists might have had some power in the party in the past and even the government, but they were silenced by the majority in the Labour leadership that were disgusted with the very idea of a Marxist Britain.

Here we are now and the Labour Party gets more money from corporations than even the Tories under Thatcher.

Even if Labour were to go "left" it doesn't mean much, it will take a Marxist takeover to do anything and the right wing and reformists within the party aren't going to give you a chance.

This doesn't mean I don't think you shouldn't work within Labour, because the conditions for a Worker's Party independant of Labour aren't possible yet. So until than, you must work within the party , work and locate the progressive elements and win them over and fight to gain more and more power and than when the time is right, break and form a seperate, truely Communistic Worker's Party.

[redjordi]

Originally posted by kimberlysark
hi all,

hi kimberly,

and welcome to the discussion board!

how exactly can the LP be reclaimed?

Well, this is not a simple question, but first of all we must not forget to think dialectically. That is, to see things not only as they are, but as they were and as they will be, and not to see things just as they appear but how they are under the surface and with all the contradictions they contain (for contradiction is the source of all movement).

The Labour Party can be, and has been described in many different ways. Lenin once talked of a bourgeois-workers party (that is a contradictory definition, but one which reflects the contory nature of this party. It basically means that it has a bourgeois leadership and a mass working class base or following.

I think that since Lenin's times the LP has changed a lot. Over the years it has moved to the right and it has moved to the left, it has been full of workers, and then emptied out again (and full of middle class careerists). What has hapenned over the last few years with the advent of New Labour is nothing new (although it must be said that this time the shift to the right in the leadership has gone further probably than at any time in the past).

Why is this? If we look at the history of the LP we can see that it is generally the case that in periods of lull in the class struggle the party tends to shift to the right, since there is no active participation of workers in its ranks. Periods of heightened class struggle tend to get reflected also inside the LP (with more or less delay) in a radicalisation, which eventually reaches the tops as well and produces a general movement to the left in the party. For instance during the late 70s and early 80s there was a shift to the left in the party as a result of big clashes and battles of the labour movement. It was at that time that the left (a reformist left, but left nevertheless) nearly won the general secretary election (was it in 1981?), and that a revolutionary Marxist tendency (Militant) won massive influence in the party (including 3 MPs, the Liverpool City Council, and majorities in many local parties and wards).

In the mid-80s, after the defeat of the miners' strike a general mood of disillusionment and despair set in in the labour movement, there was a lowering down of active political participation of workers in their organisations (Labour and trade union) and this set the ground for the rise of the Blairite right within the party in the 1990s.

Now, for the last say two or three years, or maybe a little bit more, we have seen the beginning of a recovery in the class struggle and a general move to the left in society. Inevitably this was bound to create conflicts within the party, precisely because of its contradictory nature. High points of this can be seen in the battle over Ken Livingstone mayoral candidacy, the resolutions passed at last year's party conference against PFI and the narrowly defeated one against the war, etc.

In fact the situation has changed a lot within the party. If you went to a party meeting say 5 years ago, everyone, more or less, would support Tony Blair. Today you will be hard pushed to find a single member who openly declares to be a Blairite, and you will be able to pass any number of resolutions you want calling for the nationalisation of the railways, support for the firefighters strike, opposition to the war, etc. However the point is that there has not been YET an influx of new people into the party, so this (though it might be necessary to do) will have little effect. But these changes can also be seen at other leves, for instance in the fact that 122 Labour MPs rebelled against the war (this would have been unthinkable just 2 years ago), and now maybe up to 200 could vote against the war this week. Some have even demanded a special recall party conference and the resignation of Tony Blair.

Now, we do know that most of these left Labour MPs are reformists (some of them even left reformists) and not genuine revolutionary socialists. The point however is to see in what direction is the process going (to the left) and what does it reflect (a movement further to the left amongst the ranks and in public opinion which is pressuring them).

There are other symptoms. For instance there was an attempt to force the de-selection of Oona King, LP MP for Bethnal Green in East London because she supported the war. The move had the support of 5 of the 10 local wards and was only defeated at the last minute due to a bureaucratic manouvre. Though the move was defeated is nevertheless significant since Bethnal Green was always a solidly right wing LP. Also a majority of the local councillors has come out against the war and they even spoke at an anti-war rally on Saturday.

In the unions the same process has gone further (it is usually the case that the process of political radicalisation of the workers starts in the unions and is then transfered onto the LP). There have been in the last two years elections in many unions in which left wing general secretaries have been elected (some of them even calling themselves socialists): RMT, ASLEF, NUJ, AEEU-AMICUS, NATFHE, CWU, FBU, PCS. And in other unions left wing candidates are likely to win this year (GMB and TGWU). It was actually union delegations which moved the resolutions against privatisation and the war at the LP conference last year (remember the unions have 50% of the votes at LP conference).

Again what this reflects is a process of a shift to the left in the working class which has pushed a number of trade union leaders to the left, and those who have not moved in that direction have been replaced. Many of them are not revolutionary Marxists, but it is nevertheless VERY significant.

All these left trade union leaders (I think with only one exception) have called for trade unionists to reclaim the LP and to fight against Tony Blair and his domination of the party (including some who are not particularly left like Edmonds of the GMB).

These are all little symptoms but they all point in the same direction and they confirm historical experience.

You also seem to think that at the earliest opportunity you will be expelled from the LP for arguing for revolutionary politics. That is not actually the case. In fact it depends on what is the mood of the class, how is this reflected in the ranks of the party and how much your ideas connect with the aspirations of workers. For instance during the massive witch-hunt against Militant in the 1980s only a few hundred Militant supporters were ever expelled from the party (they had a few thousand members and many more who supported the ideas of the Militant tendency), simply because many local labour parties just refused to accept any expulsions. Also the three Marxist Labour MPs were never expelled from the party since they had mass support from their local constituencies (two were later expelled when Militant had already decided to leave the LP, that was just the excuse the bureaucracy needed).

In reality what the LP needs is 100,000 workers or so joining the LP, causing loads of trouble, then all would get expelled, and then the LP would split. So then we're back to square one.

If 100,000 workers were to join the LP right now they left would no doubt take over the whole party immediately. The Blairite faction is extremely isolated in the party.

As I understand it SA are in the LP because they believe that as the traditional organisation of the working class the working class will eventually move back into the LP. What if they don't? Then what? Can I have your answer please.

Well, all historical experience and all anecdotal evidence currently available show that our perspectives are right. However we are not dogmatic sectarians, we are dialectical materialists and the final proof of any theory is practice. If there was to be a move to set up a new workers' party which had significant support amongst the mass of ordinary working class people, we would no doubt participate. However we think that this is ruled out.

In the meantime we do not wait with our arms folded for the workers to join the LP! We actively participate in the struggle in the trade unions, schools, colleges, etc. So if you agree with our ideas I suggest you should join, participate with us, and let the LP question be resolved by practical experience!

Looking forward to reading your replies to my totally unstructured thoughts on reclaiming the LP! I hope you have lots to say on it.

Well, I hope my reply clarifies some of the points and that you write back about the others and we can continue this discussion!

comradely,

redjordi

[OUTOFTHENIGHT]

I would just like to add to jordi's contribution that workers dont read about socialism from books, they learn from experience and draw out the relevant conclusions. There is a ferment going on in the workplace at the moment. All the pent up frustration of the last 10-15 years is now coming to a head and this is being expressed in the Trade Unions. At some stage this will be expressed politicallyand ONLY through the LP;historically this has always been the path.
I find it impossible to find any example of where a left party has successfully challenged the LP. Any success have been limited and temporary but now forgotten by the class.The LP will always be seen as the left alternative to the majority of workers who daily have to face long hours and crap wages in the workplace.It is up to us to campaign shoulder to shoulder with our class to reclaim the party from the bottom.I see this process happening in my workplace today.
Today the LP in Southampton is empty of workers.Yet around me I see the FBU dispute,disputes in the council and the colleges and latest we have walkouts at the local shipbuilders, a big employer in the city. The anger expressed in these actions will eventually be expressed politically especially with the new layer of younger shop stewards involved.We have to and are getting involved.
By the way ,Jordi, I wish we had this forum during   my days in the LPYS! And to think i used to argue  computers would never catch on!!!!!!!;-)

[Paul Smith]

The Labour Party as it has stood since it's foundation has always been a non-Marxist party.

Of course things could change, certainly no worker should support the Labour Party, but then of course we risk the Conservative's storming into power.

The lack of an effective Marxist party in the UK is clear.

There is the Scottish Socialist Party, which is making amazing strides forward, but on who's back?  The nationalists.

The Communist Party of Great Britain certainly is a quite good organisation, however it's painfully small, and it's recent opportunistic tendencies have been hard for myself to stomach, just take for example one of their student anti-war leaflets 'Fighting for extreme democracy under this society unlocks the door to a new and better one - socialism.'  Of course they could mean several things by extreme democracy; however the message it sends out is that somehow extreme-bourgeois democracy will lead to the proletarian dictatorship!  Their attacks on "trotskyist sects" although they have a point, are highly annoying, certainly to call themselves Leninist, is seriously bending the truth.

The Socialist Alliance has gone downhill, unable to take such advantages that the comrades in Scotland have done, but of course we don't have the nationalist card to hand.  

But the left in Britain found the anti-war demonstration hi-jacked by bourgeois sections, the "Mirror parade" it could be described, their total hypocrisy 'UNlawful, UNethical, UNstoppable' but 'we support our troops' in this UNlawful, UNethical, UNstoppable war, says a lot.

Marxists really failed to make large strides in this situation.  We did make a lot of progress, but we could of done better.

As for the SWP they can't even really be considered a serious party anymore.  Their total opportunism, and bureaucratic habits of not allowing anyone further left to speak against them say enough on their own.

Then of course the Stop the War coalition which is a joke.  A reactionary-bourgeois-pacifist coalition.

The trade unions at the moment are effectively dead, no real progress can be made through them at the moment, filled by bourgeois leaders.

Marxists in the UK certainly need to get a move on, we NEED a Marxist Party that is an effective fighting force.  Obviously ideally we would all just charge into the Labour Party and it would submit to Marxism, although I doubt that would be too realistic. ;-)

Just my views. :)

[Frederik]

It is certainly true that the working class need a party with ar socialist program. But this has to be a party on a mass basis. All the small sects in themselves very well confirm the perspective that the working class will totaly oversee those small groups outside the workers movement.

For many years our tendency have put forward the perspective that the workers mwill move through their traditional organisations. First the trade unions - and then their traditional party. For many years this has been somewhat abstract. But now there is turmoil and movement within the ranks of the class. This has obviously affected the LP - even MP's have been pressured.

As it has been said, the workers have not yet moved inside the LP. But as it has also been said by one comrade, we must look at the contradictions within the organisations, the beginning movement in the working class, and the direction of events. And now things are going to the left. I think the examples from Southampton shows this very well.

Just a few words from Denmark

Comradely,
Frederik