# Labour – a party fit for imperialism - Book launch 12-11-14



## Limerick Red (Oct 13, 2014)

Somers Town Community Centre 150 Ossulston Street London, NW1 1EE  Time:18.45

Labour – a party fit for imperialism
by Robert Clough

This second edition brings the history of the Labour Party as an imperialist, racist, anti-working class party up to date. With a general election due in May 2015, this book explains why socialists have to oppose Labour, and why there cannot be a real movement against austerity, racism and imperialism unless it fights this ruling class party

Hosted by the Revolutionary Communist Group.

FB Event:https://www.facebook.com/events/739173019470198/


----------



## Nigel (Oct 13, 2014)

Looks interesting!


----------



## likesfish (Oct 14, 2014)

Which is all very nice and all except the rcp are slightly more relevant than the spp but only just


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Oct 14, 2014)

RCG not RCP, the RCG are less relevant than the RCP who at least produced Kenan Malik and Brendon O'Neil who are interesting. The RCG are just boring loons.


----------



## chilango (Oct 14, 2014)

The RCG's book on Strangeways was alright.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Oct 14, 2014)

chilango said:


> The RCG's book on Strangeways was alright.


 
stopped clocks


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 14, 2014)

Limerick Red said:


> Somers Town Community Centre 150 Ossulston Street London, NW1 1EE  Time:18.45
> 
> Labour – a party fit for imperialism
> by Robert Clough
> ...


i read this book about 20 years ago, very much enjoyed it. good to hear there's a second edition.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 14, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> RCG not RCP, the RCG are less relevant than the RCP who at least produced Kenan Malik and Brendon O'Neil who are interesting. The RCG are just boring loons.


at least the rcg jumped the right way on the poll tax riot, as opposed to so much of the left. always had a bit of a soft spot for them since.


----------



## Nigel (Oct 14, 2014)

RCG have always been good on matters around immigration asylum seekers and helping political prisoners.
They're a bit cultish and have more eccentricities than a lot of leftist groups but for myself I've always liked them, not only as a group but also as individuals.


----------



## cantsin (Oct 14, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> at least the rcg jumped the right way on the poll tax riot, as opposed to so much of the left. always had a bit of a soft spot for them since.



 RCG bloke I knew a bit , R , actor, lovely guy, photoed outside SA House during height of the trouble face covered in blood = West End OB had apparently taken revenge for 3 yrs of policing the Non Stop Picket ( + I'm sure he was giving it to them with both barrells ).

Re; "So much of the left", I still had a lot of Swappie mates / contacts then, and they seemed v up for it / involved on the day one and all, certainly with the OB ( as opposed to wider trashing/burning stuff etc) .


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 16, 2014)

Isn't the title of their paper "Fight Racism! Fight Imperialism!"? No mention of the class struggle. Oh no...


----------



## The39thStep (Oct 16, 2014)

Didn't the RCG have some theory that the working class over here had been bought off by imperialism and were wedded to it. I had a row with one who said because of that new forces were needed.


----------



## Limerick Red (Oct 16, 2014)

The39thStep said:


> Didn't the RCG have some theory that the working class over here had been bought off by imperialism and were wedded to it. I had a row with one who said because of that new forces were needed.


Not quite, the idea of a labour aristocracy is Lenin's not the RCGs "theory" most socialist groups subscribe to it to some extent. It certainly is not saying that the working class have being bought off by imperialism , if that were the case what would the point in even being in a socialist group be? It argues that the traditional organisations of the working class, I.e trade unions, the Labour Party etc. have at their top a layer akin to an aristocracy are kept in their privileged position by constantly coming to accommodations with capitalism rather than confronting it. If your in a union you know yourself, yer shop steward is generally sound out and doing their all to fight your corner, but these people rarely make it to top brass in unions, because there comes a point when people need to "get real" in their dealings with the opposition.
In regards to Ninos accusation of no mention of class struggle , the RCG have being at the forefront of the focus e15 campaign for social housing, have being  involved with others in save the NHS campaigns, including being out supporting unison staff at the Whittington on Monday morning, have being involved in a regular and ongoing picket of Peckham job centre highlighting their way above national average sanction rate.... If this isn't class struggle what us? Maybe squeeze " worker" into the paper title somewhere?


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 16, 2014)

Are you in the RCG, Red?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 16, 2014)

No, the crude labour aristocracy theory of these groups argues that workers, not _their _organisations are bought off.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Oct 16, 2014)

Limerick Red said:


> the RCG have being at the forefront of the focus e15 campaign for social housing,?


typical disgusting lefty appropriationism normal angry working class people have been at the forefront of this campaign, and people from a number of left groups and tendencies have supported them, your RCG nutters might be one of several.


----------



## Horas (Oct 16, 2014)

i am not in the rcg. I think the labour aristocracy theory is kind of true. i am not an expert on Lenin as such, so i might be missing some things.  but, from what i've seen,  that is, there are rich workers in western imperialist countries, and it is not immediately obvious that they indeed have the same interests as workers elsewhere in the 3rd world or their situations are the same. surely, one reason why there is immigration to the UK and other western countries by people to work in shitty jobs is because the pay is much better than in their home countries. likewise, mexicans illegally cross the border to work in the US, while not many american workers cross the border to go to mexico to work;  it is better to be a worker in the UK than in Bangladesh. also, if a section of workers weren't 'bought off', then why do so many workers  vote for tories or UKIP?   a recent book, Brommna's 'the worker elite' deals with this subject. you can google for reviews of it if you are interested.  i think some anarchists also hold a version of this theory. am not enough of an expert in marxist theory to say one way or another, however, it strikes me as purely dogmatic to say that all workers have the same interests when it is obvious the lot of some workers is so much better than others. of course, not all first world workers are better off, but many are. if this theory is true, then the revolution, if it ever happens, will come from the 3rd world, and not from the first, precisely because things are worse there. that makes sense.


----------



## albionism (Oct 17, 2014)

Not at the forefront, but certainly jumped on it for a few photo ops/paper sales.


----------



## The39thStep (Oct 17, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> No, the crude labour aristocracy theory of these groups argues that workers, not _their _organisations are bought off.



That was my impression when I had a discussion with the RCG guy, it was his dismissal of the British working class , as a class. His argument was that workers needed to be realigned supporting black people ( regardless of class) , women and minorities in fighting imperialism.presumably under the banner if the RCG. Well meaning I suppose but exactly the sort of lefty politics that the far right stereotype the left with.


----------



## The39thStep (Oct 17, 2014)

Horas said:


> i am not in the rcg. I think the labour aristocracy theory is kind of true. i am not an expert on Lenin as such, so i might be missing some things.  but, from what i've seen,  that is, there are rich workers in western imperialist countries, and it is not immediately obvious that they indeed have the same interests as workers elsewhere in the 3rd world or their situations are the same. surely, one reason why there is immigration to the UK and other western countries by people to work in shitty jobs is because the pay is much better than in their home countries. likewise, mexicans illegally cross the border to work in the US, while not many american workers cross the border to go to mexico to work;  it is better to be a worker in the UK than in Bangladesh. also, if a section of workers weren't 'bought off', then why do so many workers  vote for tories or UKIP?   a recent book, Brommna's 'the worker elite' deals with this subject. you can google for reviews of it if you are interested.  i think some anarchists also hold a version of this theory. am not enough of an expert in marxist theory to say one way or another, however, it strikes me as purely dogmatic to say that all workers have the same interests when it is obvious the lot of some workers is so much better than others. of course, not all first world workers are better off, but many are. if this theory is true, then the revolution, if it ever happens, will come from the 3rd world, and not from the first, precisely because things are worse there. that makes sense.



What should we be doing whilst we wait for the revolution?


----------



## J Ed (Oct 17, 2014)

The39thStep said:


> That was my impression when I had a discussion with the RCG guy, it was his dismissal of the British working class , as a class. His argument was that workers needed to be realigned supporting black people ( regardless of class) , women and minorities in fighting imperialism.presumably under the banner if the RCG. Well meaning I suppose but exactly the sort of lefty politics that the far right stereotype the left with.



Why are they bothering with the E15 Mothers then?


----------



## chilango (Oct 17, 2014)

J Ed said:


> Why are they bothering with the E15 Mothers then?



Women.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 17, 2014)

J Ed said:


> Why are they bothering with the E15 Mothers then?


Because their theory doesn't stand up to real life.


----------



## J Ed (Oct 17, 2014)

chilango said:


> Women.



Surely housing is as much, if not more, of a class issue rather than a women's issue and they are wasting their time on First World Labour Problems



butchersapron said:


> Because their theory doesn't stand up to real life.



Well it's good that their stupid theory doesn't get in the way of doing something decent.

I didn't actually know any groups subscribed to the labour aristocracy theory in the UK, I thought that it was a weird US Maoist idea


----------



## seventh bullet (Oct 17, 2014)

Horas said:


> i am not in the rcg. I think the labour aristocracy theory is kind of true. i am not an expert on Lenin as such, so i might be missing some things.  but, from what i've seen,  that is, there are rich workers in western imperialist countries, and it is not immediately obvious that they indeed have the same interests as workers elsewhere in the 3rd world or their situations are the same. surely, one reason why there is immigration to the UK and other western countries by people to work in shitty jobs is because the pay is much better than in their home countries. likewise, mexicans illegally cross the border to work in the US, while not many american workers cross the border to go to mexico to work;  it is better to be a worker in the UK than in Bangladesh. also, if a section of workers weren't 'bought off', then why do so many workers  vote for tories or UKIP?  a recent book, Brommna's 'the worker elite' deals with this subject. you can google for reviews of it if you are interested.  i think some anarchists also hold a version of this theory. am not enough of an expert in marxist theory to say one way or another, however, it strikes me as purely dogmatic to say that all workers have the same interests when it is obvious the lot of some workers is so much better than others. of course, not all first world workers are better off, but many are. if this theory is true, then the revolution, if it ever happens, will come from the 3rd world, and not from the first, precisely because things are worse there. that makes sense.



Some marginal Maoists in the US have this kind of thinking.

From an earlier milieu that saw American and Canadian (sorry, Amerikkkan and Klanadian) middle class Maoists who, through their dilettantism as 'blue collar' workers (playing around at 'class suicide') in the 1970s, became disappointed with the proles they came into contact with.


----------



## J Ed (Oct 17, 2014)

DissUnited $$$nakes of AmeriKKKa


----------



## Horas (Oct 17, 2014)

The39thStep said:


> What should we be doing whilst we wait for the revolution?



I don't know. depends who this 'we' is. perhaps just sit and wait and have a cup of tea.  perhaps carry on with whatever you are doing. or perhaps someone should carry out a class analysis. 
the key point is whether it is true or not.  i am sure many people have been on holiday to india/thailand/morocco etc. if you did, did you find the lot of the ordinary working people to be similar to that of workers over here? perhaps the revolutionary class in 1st world countries is the lumpen proletariat. I don't claim to be an economist or enough of an expert in economics, but the desire that the working class internationally has the same interests may be just that, a desire and  not a reality.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 17, 2014)

france or a package deal to the canaries only


----------



## articul8 (Oct 17, 2014)

Limerick Red said:


> the history of the Labour Party as an imperialist, racist, anti-working class party



I do hope Fight Relevance! Fight Intelligence! haven't ignored the working class struggles led by George Lansbury and the rebel Poplar Councillors, the commitment to national liberation struggles of people like Fenner Brockway, the anti-racist commitment of Labour representatives and activists in struggles against the NF, and that this party founded the NHS.....I'm not saying there aren't entirely valid reasons to severely criticise Labour governments, but this sounds like crude nonsense.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 17, 2014)

Chuck off


----------



## Idris2002 (Oct 17, 2014)

articul8 said:


> I do hope Fight Relevance! Fight Intelligence! haven't ignored the working class struggles led by George Lansbury and the rebel Poplar Councillors, the commitment to national liberation struggles of people like Fenner Brockway, the anti-racist commitment of Labour representatives and activists in struggles against the NF, and that this party founded the NHS.....I'm not saying there aren't entirely valid reasons to severely criticise Labour governments, but this sounds like crude nonsense.



You forgot that time Harold Wilson bravely stood up to the illegal regime of Rhodesian fuckwit Ian Smith. . . oh.


----------



## articul8 (Oct 17, 2014)

Idris2002 said:


> You forgot that time Harold Wilson bravely stood up to the illegal regime of Rhodesian fuckwit Ian Smith. . . oh.


as I said, there are plenty of legitimate criticisms to make - but there has always been an anti-imperialist, anti-racist, pro-working class element within Labour.  There still is.


----------



## J Ed (Oct 17, 2014)

articul8 said:


> as I said, there are plenty of legitimate criticisms to make - but there has always been an anti-imperialist, anti-racist, pro-working class element within Labour.  There still is.


 
To be totally honest you could say the same thing, and it would probably be more true in terms of class composition, about most majors businesses in the UK like Tesco or whatever. Lets just cut out the middle man and vote for Tesco, if we're going to get bland neoliberal corporate manager speak from Ed we might as well get it from an actual corporate manager rather than one of their lackies.


----------



## articul8 (Oct 17, 2014)

what, corporate interests created the NHS?  Come off it...


----------



## chilango (Oct 17, 2014)




----------



## J Ed (Oct 17, 2014)

articul8 said:


> what, corporate interests created the NHS?  Come off it...



Your reply to what I wrote is to mention a social democratic reform in 1948? Whatever helps you sleep at night


----------



## J Ed (Oct 17, 2014)

BTW, getting back to the subject a bit how much influence does this theory of labour aristocracy have on the Labour Left? Does the purchase that it has explain the fact that some members of the Labour Left are so keen on the capitalist PRC and North Korea?


----------



## rioted (Oct 17, 2014)

articul8 said:


> what, corporate interests created the NHS?  Come off it...


Oh dear. By the time the NHS was created, even the Tories were in favour - they realised cannon fodder wasn't up to the job. And as a non-participant, non-democratic organisation it was at the mercy of drug companies nd other vested interested parties. Top down nonsense, born to fail.


----------



## The39thStep (Oct 17, 2014)

Horas said:


> I don't know. depends who this 'we' is. perhaps just sit and wait and have a cup of tea.  perhaps carry on with whatever you are doing. or perhaps someone should carry out a class analysis.
> the key point is whether it is true or not.  i am sure many people have been on holiday to india/thailand/morocco etc. if you did, did you find the lot of the ordinary working people to be similar to that of workers over here? perhaps the revolutionary class in 1st world countries is the lumpen proletariat. I don't claim to be an economist or enough of an expert in economics, but the desire that the working class internationally has the same interests may be just that, a desire and  not a reality.


Solidarity comes out if struggle not theory .


----------



## Horas (Oct 17, 2014)

The39thStep said:


> Solidarity comes out if struggle not theory .


true, but theory, in a broad sense, does matter. a mistaken or wrong theory can lead a struggle in wrong or mistaken directions. i am not sure whether it is right or wrong, frankly, but the theory of supporting scots independence in order to win leftist or social democratic demands does make a difference on the kind of struggle that takes place, and with who the solidarity is with.


----------



## The39thStep (Oct 17, 2014)

Horas said:


> true, but theory, in a broad sense, does matter. a mistaken or wrong theory can lead a struggle in wrong or mistaken directions. i am not sure whether it is right or wrong, frankly, but the theory of supporting scots independence in order to win leftist or social democratic demands does make a difference on the kind of struggle that takes place, and with who the solidarity is with.


So all we need is the correct theory then?


----------



## Horas (Oct 17, 2014)

The39thStep said:


> So all we need is the correct theory then?



no of course not. does anyone have the correct theory? probably not. but that doesn't mean that it is not important either. theory is somewhat pretentious word. but let us look at a current problem. ISIL/ISIS. if you have a theory describing them as anti-imperialist you have a different take than if you theory describes them as islamo-fascist.  the kind of solidarity that takes place differs depends on what your 'theory'  make of this group. personally, i don't know enough to say whether it is one or the other. similarly, in the anti-fascist struggles, as you may know already, there were debates about whether islam4uk were fascists in the same way as the bnp and edl. some anarchists and some leftists, such as Maryam Namazie and her ex muslim group, do see them as fascist, and wanted to demonstrate against them, while the UAF did not. these are theoretical debates which in turn inform the kind of action that takes place and who solidarity is with.  i think there sometimes is over-theorizing, which seems like so much wank, but the opposite, of having no theory and just action action action, is stupidity. I hope that is kind of clear.


----------



## The39thStep (Oct 18, 2014)

How about theory built on the experience of struggle?


----------



## chilango (Oct 18, 2014)

Horas said:


> no of course not. does anyone have the correct theory? probably not. but that doesn't mean that it is not important either. theory is somewhat pretentious word. but let us look at a current problem. ISIL/ISIS. if you have a theory describing them as anti-imperialist you have a different take than if you theory describes them as islamo-fascist.  the kind of solidarity that takes place differs depends on what your 'theory'  make of this group. personally, i don't know enough to say whether it is one or the other. similarly, in the anti-fascist struggles, as you may know already, there were debates about whether islam4uk were fascists in the same way as the bnp and edl. some anarchists and some leftists, such as Maryam Namazie and her ex muslim group, do see them as fascist, and wanted to demonstrate against them, while the UAF did not. these are theoretical debates which in turn inform the kind of action that takes place and who solidarity is with.  i think there sometimes is over-theorizing, which seems like so much wank, but the opposite, of having no theory and just action action action, is stupidity. I hope that is kind of clear.



Wrong way round IMO. Action informs theory which then informs action and so on. Chicken and egg to an extent, but right now we need to start (again) with action. And I don't mean marches or protests or direct action or anything like that but at how w/c communities, workplaces etc. are organising themselves and what form struggle has at the moment, here and now.


----------



## seventh bullet (Oct 18, 2014)

J Ed said:


> DissUnited $$$nakes of AmeriKKKa


----------



## Horas (Oct 19, 2014)

chilango said:


> Wrong way round IMO. Action informs theory which then informs action and so on. Chicken and egg to an extent, but right now we need to start (again) with action. And I don't mean marches or protests or direct action or anything like that but at how w/c communities, workplaces etc. are organising themselves and what form struggle has at the moment, here and now.



i'm cool with that.  i pretty much agree.  in your opinion, what form does struggle have at the moment, here and now?


----------



## Horas (Oct 19, 2014)

The39thStep said:


> How about theory built on the experience of struggle?



aren't all the leftist theories just that? or aim/claim to be? however,, we are not starting on a blank slate. when we get into activism, we are already in movements that have already been theorised and already have an ideology before we joined them, whether it be marxism, anarchism, reformism or whatever.


----------



## chilango (Oct 19, 2014)

Horas said:


> aren't all the leftist theories just that? or aim/claim to be? however,, we are not starting on a blank slate. when we get into activism, we are already in movements that have already been theorised and already have an ideology before we joined them, whether it be marxism, anarchism, reformism or whatever.



Maybe we should be looking at forms of struggle that aren't "activism"?


----------



## chilango (Oct 19, 2014)

Horas said:


> i'm cool with that.  i pretty much agree.  in your opinion, what form does struggle have at the moment, here and now?



I don't know for sure.

That's why we need to look.

An example I'm a little familiar with would be how parents are self-organising stuff in the face of childcare costs - playgroups, free play sessions in the park, toy/clothes swaps etc.

Or how workers organise away from the Unions, from the spectacular wildcats to mundane and minor acts of solidarity in the workplace.

or, or tonnes of other stuff that "we" ignore, don't notice  or take for granted in our focus on the theorised to death rituals of activism.


----------



## chilango (Oct 19, 2014)

Or we could look again at IS. Instead of arguing about whether they're fascists, or how they it into imperialism/anti-imperialism etc etc etc. perhaps we should look at what concrete forces they move in our communities? How they impact upon our daily lives and on the people we know or meet?


----------



## Horas (Oct 19, 2014)

most activism is quite ritualistic, thats true.  would you like a copy of socialist worker?


----------



## rioted (Oct 19, 2014)

chilango said:


> An example I'm a little familiar with would be how parents are self-organising stuff in the face of childcare costs - playgroups, free play sessions in the park, toy/clothes swaps etc.


The left has always had problems with that kind of thing, dismissing it as "liberal" or reformist at best. People ought not to be engaging in Mutual Aid but demanding that the state meets their needs!


----------



## chilango (Oct 19, 2014)

rioted said:


> The left has always had problems with that kind of thing, dismissing it as "liberal" or reformist at best. People ought not to be engaging in Mutual Aid but demanding that the state meets their needs!



Yeah. But that's kinda beside the point.

At this stage it doesn't matter what we  think of this kind of activity, but that we look at it as (some of) the forms of "struggle" that much of the w/c away from the remnants of the "labour movement" are engaged in or can relate to. 

Then, and only then, can we start to theorise from it (should we wish to).

In fairness, some people on the fringes of what we call the left have, and have done for some time.


----------



## The39thStep (Oct 19, 2014)

rioted said:


> The left has always had problems with that kind of thing, dismissing it as "liberal" or reformist at best. People ought not to be engaging in Mutual Aid but demanding that the state meets their needs!



Which is always ironic when people talk about getting rid of the state


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 19, 2014)

articul8 said:


> as I said, there are plenty of legitimate criticisms to make - but there has always been an anti-imperialist, anti-racist, pro-working class element within Labour.  There still is.



didnt the vast majority of their mps support the genocidal campaign in Iraq...not least their anti imperialist par excellence Peter Hain . Himself now a former colonial governor over the fuzzy wuzzies in Ireland. Another bit of imperialism Labour are quite chuffed about. Twas them who actually built the  H Blocks and introduced that particularly rotten regime that culminated in ten dead hungerstrikers . Maggie simply inherited the policies they introduced . Ten men starved to death on her watch but she was cheered on by Labour the entire time reminding her not to give in to _blackmail_ . Despite over 100000 fuzzy wuzzies at Bobby Sands funeral and electing him as an MP with more votes than Maggie got herself.

dont doubt for a minute such progressive people as you describe exist within Labour . But thats not the issue as far as  i can see . The issue is they are at best a fig leaf of respectability for a thoroughly rotten and irreformable  imperialist project that only succeed in giving it an air of respectability . And that as such a rotten party stands for everything such people claim to completely ineffectually oppose theyd be far better off somewhere else . its totally against their own interests. But then again just like Labour  plenty of working class British people love the royals and dont want a republic ether.

lie down with dogs and youre covered with fleas


----------



## gamerunknown (Oct 20, 2014)

Horas said:
			
		

> perhaps the revolutionary class in 1st world countries is the lumpen proletariat



This was Bakunin's position. Incidentally, it's completely opposed to Proudhon's (at least in The General Idea of the 19th Century - "To you, business men, I dedicate these new essays. You have always been the boldest, the most skilful revolutionaries").




			
				Bakunin said:
			
		

> By the _flower of the proletariat, _I mean above all that great mass, those millions of the uncultivated, the disinherited, the miserable, the illiterates, whom Messrs. Engels and Marx would subject to their paternal rule by a _strong _government – naturally for the people’s own salvation! All governments are supposedly established only to look after the welfare of the masses! By flower of the proletariat, I mean precisely that eternal “meat” (on which governments thrive), that great _rabble of the people _(underdogs, “dregs of society”) ordinarily designated by Marx and Engels in the picturesque and contemptuous phrase Lumpenproletariat. I have in mind the “riffraff,” that “rabble” almost unpolluted by bourgeois civilization, which carries in its inner being and in its aspirations, in all the necessities and miseries of its collective life, all the seeds of the socialism of the future, and which alone is powerful enough today to inaugurate and bring to triumph the Social Revolution.



Anyway, all workers want fewer hours and more pay. Those not involved in the workplace want more capacity to decide their fate (like the E15 campaign, free travel for those over 65, reduction of student fees, abolishing sanctions - organising outside of the workplace can be social). These are common things we can agitate for.


----------



## rioted (Oct 20, 2014)

The39thStep said:


> Which is always ironic when people talk about getting rid of the state


Do the left talk about getting rid of the state? Certainly not Leninists, Trotskyists, Stalinists and supporters of the Labour Party. The most we can hope for is that it withers away at some undetermined time in the future.


----------



## gamerunknown (Oct 20, 2014)

rioted said:


> Do the left talk about getting rid of the state? Certainly not Leninists, Trotskyists, Stalinists and supporters of the Labour Party...






			
				Lenin said:
			
		

> That the state is an organ of the rule of a definite class which cannot be reconciled with its antipode (the class opposite to it) is something the petty-bourgeois democrats will never be able to understand.



From "The State and Revolution".




			
				Trotsky said:
			
		

> To believe Marx, Engels, and Lenin, the state is the organ of class rule. Marxism has long ago exposed all other definitions of the state as theoretical falsifications which serve to cover up the interests of the exploiters. In that case, what does the state mean in a country where “classes have been destroyed”?
> 
> 
> …
> ...



From "The Bonapartist Philosophy of the State".




			
				Stalin said:
			
		

> Where there are no classes, where there are neither rich nor poor, there is no need for a state, there is no need either for political power, which oppresses the poor and protects the rich. Consequently, in socialist society there will be no need for the existence of political power.



From "Anarchism or Socialism?".

It's interesting to note that Trotsky followed an opposite path to Lenin and Stalin. The latter two at least demonstrated familiarity with anarchist texts and exhibited some indication of a program to eliminate state power. Whether they actually intended to adhere to the plan is impossible to say, but the consequences of their rule ought to be familiar. Trotsky only became disillusioned with the state towards the end of his life, with his initial offerings not deviating far from this line:




			
				Trotsky said:
			
		

> The state-ization of economic life, against which capitalist liberalism used to protest so much, has become an accomplished fact. There is no turning back from this fact – it is impossible to return not only to free competition but even to the domination of trusts, syndicates and other economic octopuses. Today the one and only issue is: Who shall henceforth be the bearer of state-ized production – the imperialist state or the state of the victorious proletariat?



From "Manifesto of the Communist International to the Workers of the World".

He also writes the following, which I suppose is pertinent to the thread:




			
				Trotsky said:
			
		

> The working class, not to speak of the semiproletarian masses, is not homogeneous, either socially or politically.


----------



## seventh bullet (Oct 23, 2014)

rioted said:


> Do the left talk about getting rid of the state? Certainly not Leninists, Trotskyists, Stalinists and supporters of the Labour Party. The most we can hope for is that it withers away at some undetermined time in the future.



Stalin did have some idea of what full communism could be like, although it later became based on the Soviet experience.


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 23, 2014)

articul8 said:


> as I said, there are plenty of legitimate criticisms to make - but there has always been an anti-imperialist, anti-racist, pro-working class element within Labour.  There still is.


Show it to me. My eyes tell me that the leadership of the party and the PLP itself is dominated by Blairites (imperialists to a man) and the middle classes.


----------



## articul8 (Oct 23, 2014)

the PLP is not the party.  Even within the PLP there are people like Corbyn, who you'd be hard pushed to call imperialist, racist or anti working-class.


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 23, 2014)

articul8 said:


> the PLP is not the party.  Even within the PLP there are people like Corbyn, who you'd be hard pushed to call imperialist, racist or anti working-class.


It is the party or, at least, part of the party. The last time I checked, the PLP wasn't isolated from the party. People like Corbyn et al are marginalised within the PLP. How on earth can any self-respecting, self-styled left-wingers stay in a party that refuses to offer the electorate socialist policies? Stockholm syndrome? No, that's too easy. However, you offered me one example and as far as I'm aware, there are few genuine left-wingers left in the party (Corbyn is but one). There are even fewer Labour MPs that have worked with their hands sitting in the Commons and most of them come via the all too familiar route of university, researcher, MP. Their feet never touched the ground - so to speak.


----------



## articul8 (Oct 23, 2014)

There are still some around - I can think of an ex-brickie, an ex gas-fitter, an ex-factory engineer, ex-coal miners - but not enough, granted.  That's not to say that all researchers can't be politically pro-w/c - eg. McDonnell was a union researcher.


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 23, 2014)

articul8 said:


> There are still some around - I can think of an ex-brickie, an ex gas-fitter, an ex-factory engineer, ex-coal miners - but not enough, granted.  That's not to say that all researchers can't be politically pro-w/c - eg. McDonnell was a union researcher.


Like I said, they don't exist in any great number. Labour is dominated by Blairites and middle class careerists.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 23, 2014)

articul8 said:


> There are still some around - I can think of an ex-brickie, an ex gas-fitter, an ex-factory engineer, ex-coal miners - but not enough, granted.  That's not to say that all researchers can't be politically pro-w/c - eg. McDonnell was a union researcher.


Lots of ex things there eh?


----------



## articul8 (Oct 23, 2014)

There is a large element.  But that isn't exclusively the case.  And in any event, the book is presumably making a case about Labour throughout its history not since Blair.


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 23, 2014)

articul8 said:


> There is a large element.  But that isn't exclusively the case.  And in any event, the book is presumably making a case about Labour throughout its history not since Blair.


A large element of what? Middle class careerists? Blairites?


----------



## articul8 (Oct 23, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Lots of ex things there eh?



You think MPs should do manual second jobs?  Interesting...  I wouldn't go that far but do think MPs should take the wage of the average skilled worker - and second jobs should be strictly limited to where they are in the public interest.


----------



## articul8 (Oct 23, 2014)

nino_savatte said:


> A large element of what? Middle class careerists? Blairites?


both


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 23, 2014)

articul8 said:


> You think MPs should do manual second jobs?  Interesting...  I wouldn't go that far but do think MPs should take the wage of the average skilled worker - and second jobs should be strictly limited to where they are in the public interest.


Excellent, a class analysis that says Lord sugar is working class. Thanks for that.

Actually, it's a class analysis designed to say that you, despite your liberal left wing bubble privilege, are working class.


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 23, 2014)

articul8 said:


> both


Does the party have any principles left or did it jettison them when it voted to get rid of Clause 4?


----------



## articul8 (Oct 23, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Excellent, a class analysis that's says Lord sugar is working class. Thanks for that.


No, the people are described are still actively promoting union and w/c interests.  Notice I didn't add "postman" to that list.


----------



## articul8 (Oct 23, 2014)

nino_savatte said:


> Does the party have any principles left or did it jettison them when it voted to get rid of Clause 4?


There is a split between out-and-out neoliberals and cautious mainstream social democrats - with a small and admittedly for the time being mostly marginal core of socialists.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 23, 2014)

articul8 said:


> No, the people are described are still actively promoting union and w/c interests.  Notice I didn't add "postman" to that list.


Even better, class is defined whatever politics you supply. Brilliant.

Actually, it's a class analysis designed to say that you, despite your liberal left wing bubble privilege, are working class


----------



## articul8 (Oct 23, 2014)

Whatever - my class is neither here nor there in this context.  Are you saying working class people elected to parliament lose all their class characteristics overnight.  And this is "class analysis"?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 23, 2014)

MPs being working class - back to this nonsense. Ok, all Mps or just ones whose politics you agree with? How much of your politics do they have to agree with?


----------



## articul8 (Oct 23, 2014)

Of course MPs aren't working class by virtue of being MPs.  But being elected to parliament doesn't automatically disqualify you from every working class characteristic you ever possessed.   It's about how you relate to your past and present.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 23, 2014)

articul8 said:


> Of course MPs aren't working class by virtue of being MPs.  But being elected to parliament doesn't automatically disqualify you from every working class characteristic you ever possessed.   It's about how you relate to your past and present.


if your class is defined by your relationship to the means of production, as one k. marx declared, then what class are mps?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 23, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> MPs being working class - back to this nonsense. Ok, all Mps or just ones whose politics you agree with? How much of your politics do they have to agree with?


i think articul8 would have to articulate some coherent politics for that to occur and there is no sign of that happening in the near future.


----------



## articul8 (Oct 23, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> if your class is defined by your relationship to the means of production, as one k. marx declared, then what class are mps?


So someone who was born to a working class family, was educated like other working class kids, did a working class job and one day won the lottery somehow loses every class trait they possessed?  Yeh, right....


----------



## articul8 (Oct 23, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> i think articul8 would have to articulate some coherent politics for that to occur and there is no sign of that happening in the near future.


have you lost your tumescence over that dead copper yet?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 23, 2014)

articul8 said:


> So someone who was born to a working class family, was educated like other working class kids, did a working class job and one day won the lottery somehow loses every class trait they possessed?  Yeh, right....


do you think being elected to parliament is like winning the lottery?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 23, 2014)

articul8 said:


> have you lost your tumescence over that dead copper yet?


between you, me and the cat news of dead cops doesn't give me an erection.


----------



## articul8 (Oct 23, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> between you, me and the cat news of dead cops doesn't give me an erection.


I'm not sure I believe you


----------



## articul8 (Oct 23, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> do you think being elected to parliament is like winning the lottery?


next best thing


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 23, 2014)

articul8 said:


> I'm not sure I believe you


i'm not sure i care


----------



## articul8 (Oct 23, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> i'm not sure i care


I'm not sure I care that you're not sure you care


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 23, 2014)

articul8 said:


> next best thing




it's back to the drawing board for your politics.


----------



## articul8 (Oct 23, 2014)

all left/pro-working class politics is at the drawing board stage again


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 23, 2014)

articul8 said:


> all left/pro-working class politics is at the drawing board stage again


ok, i was wrong: your politics are at best at the proto-political stage.


----------



## articul8 (Oct 23, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> ok, i was wrong: your politics are at best at the proto-political stage.



The question is how to move from the understanding the political to politics as such....


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 23, 2014)

articul8 said:


> The question is how to move from the understanding the political to politics as such....


the question you should be asking is, even assuming you're right that having people in parliament from a working class background is in and of itself a good thing, given the political class we see in all political parties, how do you expect meaningful political change to come through parliament?


----------



## articul8 (Oct 23, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> the question you should be asking is, even assuming you're right that having people in parliament from a working class background is in and of itself a good thing, given the political class we see in all political parties, how do you expect meaningful political change to come through parliament?



a) I never said that - people like Alan Johnson and Hazel Blears come from working class backgrounds but I wouldn't trust them with an infinitely long barge pole.  And, yes, no way meaningful change can come exclusively from Parliament.   The question is whether - given the way elections are generally seen as some yardstick of political opinion - that pro-working class forces would benefit from abstaining altogether from seriously trying to contest these positions in some form or other.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 23, 2014)

articul8 said:


> a) I never said that - people like Alan Johnson and Hazel Blears come from working class backgrounds but I wouldn't trust them with an infinitely long barge pole.  And, yes, no way meaningful change can come exclusively from Parliament.   The question is whether - given the way elections are generally seen as some yardstick of political opinion - that pro-working class forces would benefit from abstaining altogether from seriously trying to contest these positions in some form or other.


what's b)?


----------



## articul8 (Oct 24, 2014)

b) is up my sleeve in case of emergencies.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 24, 2014)

articul8 said:


> b) is up my sleeve in case of emergencies.


perhaps you should produce it now then.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 24, 2014)

articul8 said:


> b) is up my sleeve in case of emergencies.


Does involve squawking _John McDonnell! John McDonnell! _If it does, you've already tried that one.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 24, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Does involve squawking _John McDonnell! John McDonnell! _If it does, you've already tried that one.


john mcdonnell john mcdonnell johnny johnny mcdonnell mcdonnell john mcdonnell john mcdonnell etc etc ad nauseam


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Oct 25, 2014)




----------



## gamerunknown (Oct 26, 2014)

See, John McDonnell undergoes a process of titration*: the less his name is invoked, the more powerful it is. 

* Woo, not volumetric.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 26, 2014)

gamerunknown said:


> See, John McDonnell undergoes a process of titration*: the less his name is invoked, the more powerful it is.
> 
> * Woo, not volumetric.


by invoking mcdonnell you've exceeded your tit-ration


----------



## ManchesterBeth (Dec 1, 2014)

seventh bullet said:


>




Who knew that American Maoists had a hard on for gabber?


----------



## ManchesterBeth (Dec 1, 2014)

Anyway, anyone got a PDF of this book? Can't find it anywhere.


----------



## Limerick Red (Dec 1, 2014)

dialectician said:


> Anyway, anyone got a PDF of this book? Can't find it anywhere.


Ya could buy a copy


----------



## ManchesterBeth (Dec 1, 2014)

Nah, my scanner isn't win 7 compatible. 

So would be a waste of money really... Unless you want me to buy it and deliver to yours for OCR scanning... Though I fear the book might get infected with Trotskyite-Zinovievite counterrevolutionary tendencies in the post, if you get my drift.


----------

