# building a revolutionary org



## TremulousTetra (Nov 18, 2004)

To the editor and others. This is not meant to be a thread about the swp. I talk about, them, because they are my experience.

Are “the masses” rushing to join any left wing organization? No. do “the people” and mass believe that a “better world is possible”? No. it seems to me the vast majority of people I meet agree with a lot of what revolutionaries say about the state of society, and why it’s so, but do not believe that is anything better is possible. They accept elements of the revolutionaries arguments, and they accept elements of the capitalists argument. It seems to me without these people society cannot be changed. So how do revolutionaries relate to these people? Today, how should a revolutionary organization organize for struggle in the here and now, AND for the revolution tomorrow? How I ‘answer’ these questions is based upon my understanding of the past.

In 1979 Cliff believed that the working class in Britain had entered a downturn. In the level of our struggle. It took in two years to convince his party that this was the case, but by 1981 is party to organized on this basis. Certainly 1985 to the poll tax riot probably saw one of the lowest periods in postwar history for British working class struggle. Whole eighties saw a series of defeats which turned the labor party to “new realism”. New realism reflected a feeling amongst the majority of the working class that you “cannot beat the Torie’s”, and that your only hope is to try to defend what you have got.

On the ideological battle the swp always argued that the Tories could be beaten, but that the reason they weren’t being, and that the working class was being consistently defeated, was failure to implement the working class methods that have brought victories in the post war boom. Basic principles of solidarity and combativity. However, the swp itself was battoning down the hatches and looking inwards. Certainly this was a period of self imposed sectism.

In 1979 the swp certainly was not the biggest organization on the organized left By the early nineteen nineties collapse of the Soviet Union, and the collapse of “council socialism” militant ect. They were. So the swp felt somewhat smug in its achievements of coming out of the downturn as one of the strongest partys on the left. But, any organization builds up through its structures resistance to change. The nature of class struggle had changed, and the party organization needed to change to match the historical circumstances.

The anti poll tax campaign first saw the swp begin to realize circumstances have changed. Of course other organizations which had not organized on the same downturn theory had realized the importance of the poll tax campaign before the swp. But although the poll tax riots was debately the end, or the absolute bottom of the downturn of British working class struggle in this country, the upturn was/is some way off.  Though we have on many occasions saw green shoots of class struggle we hoped were the beginning of a spring, they have been continually dashed by frost. Though there is a massively different ideological situation to the mid eighties under Thatcherism, industrial struggle has never matched the ideological struggle.

Swp has made many organizational twists and turns to try fit itself into these historical circumstances.  The most important of which in my opinion was after Seattle.

From the war in Yugoslavia I think we began to realize we could reach out to the left in a way that had not been possible before.  But we could organize much more effective united fronts with other leftists.  Around the Yugoslavia war this had been done on the basis of a very tight centrally controlled party organization in my district.  Very tight!  The party was built, but also some fine united front.  I personally felt quite proud, but also quite frustrated.

I felt quite proud because of what we have achieved.  But I also felt frustrated because the intense organization of the party took up much time.  So much time that was much more pleasant to use in organizing among nonparty members.  I think there was a general mood amongst the swp that we were fed up of talking to each other, and wanted to “get out there and relate stronger to the working class”.

All the branch meetings were scrapped.  Virtually all party organization ceased.  And comrqades became rooted in various campaigns of the class struggle, asylum seeker, stop the war, socialist alliance, respect.  But this also atomized my party members, making it difficult to discuss with other members of the problems of operating within the united fronts.

I said some time ago that it seemed somewhat ironic to me that as the swp moved to a less rigidly organized model of revolutionaries organization, it had weakened the party.  Yes I have supported this move, but being free from reaching party organization also had made one much more vulnerable.  Many long long serving comrades dropped out of the party activity.  Recruitment though it did take place, did not replace at the same rate as those dropping out, and replace the knowledge and experience that had been accumulated over the years. [ I suppose there are good as well as bad aspects to that phenomena.]

The party is now reorganizing again.  It is seeking to do what it has failed to do for a decade.  To try and create some sort of cohesive party organization, that can act in totally disjointed historical circumstances.  How is that to be done?

I don’t know. 

It seems to me the answer to the question starts from where I started in the beginning of this post.  There can be no social revolution without the working class.  But the working class, are not revolutionaries.

I have no doubt there will at some point in this country be a breakdown where the ruling class can no longer rule in the same way, and the working class are no longer prepared to be ruled in the same way, a revolutionary crisis.  But such a revolutionary crisis is pregnant with all kinds of possibilities.  Just because it is a revolutionary crisis, does not mean the working classes will only have revolutionaries suggesting the way forward to them.  Fascists, reformists, and all kinds of people will be vying for their attention.  It there for seems logical to me that the objective of revolutionaries now,  is to build as big a social revolutionary movement as possible so that when those circumstances arise we are big enough to influence the working class.  If we don’t influence them to social revolution, others will influence them to barbarism.  Looking at recent revolutions shows there is no innate precondition of the working class to social revolution.
Therefore it seems to me that revolutionaries politics have to be dynamic.  Our politics always have to relate to where the working class is, not where we are.  Calling for a general strike today to end the occupation of Iraq would be madness.  It just would not relate to where people are at today.  However, it might perfectly fit in two or three months time.  We cannot treat our slogans and demands as if they are the ten commandments.  They have to constantly shift to fit the current historical circumstances, more importantly constantly engage with the working classes to the right of us. 

Beyond that I don’t really have any answers.  The swp is moving towards some more central organization on a district level, whilst trying to maintain our inbedment in the various parts of the movement.  Will this achieve the aim? I don’t know.  I certainly hope someone STARTS to create mass revolutionary organisation. Because so far no one can claim to be right.

_________________
Respect, ResistanceMP3. 

They stoop so low to reach so high.

PS.  Suppose both sides will attack me for being some kind of a liberal but; It is my personal opinion that all us on the left are far too arrogant.  Even though I personally think that S. W.s Tactics For a revolutionary crisis are the ones best suited to achieving on our aims, I would prefer to see a strong left movement with many strands, just in case I was wrong.  It is also my opinion that not being tolerant of difference in strategy and thoughts on the left is one of the barriers we face to building revolutionary organizations.


----------



## Ray (Nov 18, 2004)

ResistanceMP3 said:
			
		

> In 1979 Cliff believed that the working class in Britain had entered a downturn. In the level of our struggle. It took in two years to convince his party that this was the case, but by 1981 is party to organized on this basis. Certainly 1985 to the poll tax riot probably saw one of the lowest periods in postwar history for British working class struggle. Whole eighties saw a series of defeats which turned the labor party to “new realism”.



What was the 'downturn' in, BTW, number of struggles or number of successes? 
And if the 1990's were the 1930's in slow motion, shouldn't we be in the middle of a world war now? Or does the SWP buy the whole 'war on terror' thing? Do you really think the choice now is between socialism and barbarism (in a way that hasn't been true for 50 years)?

I'd reply to the rest of your post, but it seems to be a long-winded way of saying 'the SWP line on organisation changed - the old line was right then, the new line is right now. Hurrah!'


----------



## cockneyrebel (Nov 18, 2004)

People on here are just too obsessed with the SWP......


----------



## JoeBlack (Nov 18, 2004)

ResistanceMP3 said:
			
		

> Certainly 1985 to the poll tax riot probably saw one of the lowest periods in postwar history for British working class struggle.









There is a lot of building on sand here.

Edite to add - that was my first time adding a graphic so I didn't know it would work.  Sorry to be a boring old empericist but the SWP downturn theory followed by the 1990's revolution in our time hype has no relationship to what it claims to speak of - the level of working class struggle in Britain.  That table is from http://www.tutor2u.net/economics/content/topics/labourmarket/strikes.htm

You can argue (rightly) that struggle is not measured by strikes alone but in that case you need to point at struggles occuring post '93 that more than compensated for those of the 1980's.


----------



## cockneyrebel (Nov 18, 2004)

In all seriousness though RMP3 what is the logic of the downturn theory? It was come up with before the miner's strike and seems to rest upon the assumption that the miner's HAD to lose. If they hadn't are you seriously suggesting that there would have been a downturn? The opposite would have been the case....


----------



## JoeBlack (Nov 18, 2004)

cockneyrebel said:
			
		

> In all seriousness though RMP3 what is the logic of the downturn theory?



It's not really the 'downturn' bit that is mad though, as the graph posted shows struggle as measured by strikes did decline from the mid 1980's on.  While you can and should argue how good 'downturn theory' is at dealing with this empirical observation the mad bit is claiming some sort of upturn from 1993 on (specifically dated to the miners march).  There is no emperical evidence for this.

I used to go to the Irish version of Marxism most years but gave up when a couple of years running there were all these weird claims from people who should of know better that we were at the start of a big strike upsurge.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Nov 18, 2004)

Wow! I knew it would be a question, but everyone has asked the same question.

can I start another thread on downturn theory and leave this thread to what I was interested in please?

_________________
Respect, ResistanceMP3. 

They stoop so low to reach so high.


----------



## cockneyrebel (Nov 18, 2004)

> It's not really the 'downturn' bit that is mad though, as the graph posted shows struggle as measured by strikes did decline from the mid 1980's on.



The upturn bit is mad but so is the down turn theory. As said this theory was made BEFORE the miner's strike. Are the SWP saying the miners had no chance on winning? Because obviously that's bollox, they could well have won with a different strategy. And if they had of won that graph would look very, very different. So how does it make sense?

Sorry RMP3, yeah another thread if this isn't what you want...


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Nov 18, 2004)

ResistanceMP3 said:
			
		

> Wow! I knew it would be a question, but everyone has asked the same question.
> 
> can I start another thread on downturn theory and leave this thread to what I was interested in please?
> 
> ...



How when your defense of the SWP's changing tactics is premised on the acceptance of the downturn theory? You can't just run away (or say you were only joking) when things get a bit trickier...more evidence of the emptiness of your 'I'm not a sectarian, it's all you other splitters' claim.

Louis Mac


----------



## rednblack (Nov 18, 2004)

you can't discuss the building of a revolutionary org, and the swp in relation to the rest without discussing the politically bankrupt and dishonest downturn/upturn position


----------



## Ray (Nov 18, 2004)

ResistanceMP3 said:
			
		

> Wow! I knew it would be a question, but everyone has asked the same question.
> 
> can I start another thread on downturn theory and leave this thread to what I was interested in please?



Well, surely the different organisational turns taken by the SWP are responses to the downturn, the slow-motion years, and whatever historical epoch we've now entered? You battened down the hatches, then you formed united fronts and threw out branch meetings, now you're reforming branch meetings. And remember, you are the one to frame these organisational changes as responses to outside events - you didn't just say 'that didn't work, now we're doing something new'. 

So if your organisational changes are responses to your changing analyses, isn't it appropriate to question those analyses?


----------



## cockneyrebel (Nov 18, 2004)

> now you're reforming branch meetings.



And people complain about the SWP threads I put up. What would you all do without that info....


----------



## JoeBlack (Nov 18, 2004)

ResistanceMP3 said:
			
		

> Swp has made many organizational twists and turns to try fit itself into these historical circumstances.  ...  Our politics always have to relate to where the working class is, not where we are.



The reason I brought up the downturn followed by upturn issue is that is shows the SWP theory is not about ' relataing to where the working class is' but about 'where we[SWP] are'.

The turn to the upturn (actually Oct 1992) had no emperical base in terms of class struggle unless you count (as the SWP did at the time) the cross-class 'save the pits' marches as somehow 'better' that the 1984 miners strike.

The only thing that had really changed was the the other left parties had collapsed (the SP was in the process of doing so).  The twists and turns of the SWP since then have been all about the party and very little to do with the class - the RESPECT adventure being a very clear example.  Given that all the SWP has is a claim that the leadership have a good crystal ball this is a pretty fundamental problem.  (The crystal ball replaces the normal trot emphasis on program).

If you start at 1990 and look at the various changes in line made by the party they look really, really odd.  At any one moment members can avoid doing this by imagining that the latest line change is the great breakthrough but if you sit back for a moment and look at the pattern it suggest no strategy beyond ambulance chasing.


----------



## Top Dog (Nov 18, 2004)

ResistanceMP3 said:
			
		

> To the editor and others. This is not meant to be a thread about the swp


but...


----------



## Ray (Nov 18, 2004)

If the downturn ended and 1930's began in 1994, when did the 1930's end? What did they turn into? Anyone know?


----------



## scawenb (Nov 18, 2004)

I'm not sure what the tread is actually about if not the SWP or the question of a politcal downturn (whether measured by strikes or other political inaction).



> I certainly hope someone STARTS to create mass revolutionary organisation.


Surely no-one can just start to create a mass revolutionary organisation in the abstract. A revolutionary organisation is the vanguard of the mass movement and the mass movement predominately arise with material conditions. You cannot have the advance section of the movement without first the movement. You cannot win your position and show by your action your revolutionary organisation until you have the masses to convince.

==========================================================
I'm not sure about the 1930s - I'm much more reminded of the 1860 and 70s. As Engels wrote to Kautsky in 1882:



> You ask me what the English workers think about colonial policy. Well, exactly the same as they think about politics in general: the same as the bourgeoisie think. There is no workers' party here, you see, there are only Conservatives and Liberal-Radicals, and the workers gaily share the feast of England's monopoly of the world market and the colonies.


----------



## Wilf (Nov 18, 2004)

Trying to stick within the (relatively) non-sectarian tone of this thread....

Suppose what I disagree with is the idea that it is _either _ build the party structure _or _ work in diverse campaigns.  In my experience swp members have almost entirely concentrated on pushing their line, keeping away from direct action and the like when working in the stwc, respect etc.  Its been a building the party strategy by other means in a period where industrial militancy is limited + using non-class bodies to recruit tot he party.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 18, 2004)

building a revolutionary organisation:

look at the swp.

see what they do.

avoid their practice at all costs.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Nov 18, 2004)

Top Dog said:
			
		

> but...


Pickman is right, I was wrong Groucho has convinced me.   SW threads are boreing, but if you can't beat them join them [with out the destoirtions.] .  

Rmp3


----------



## JoeBlack (Nov 18, 2004)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> building a revolutionary organisation:
> 
> look at the swp.
> 
> ...



As a joke this is funny but as a practice its been a bit of a disaster, its quite remarkable how no alternative to the SWP has emerged in the last decade despite there increasingly bizarre turns.

The SWP like a stopped clock are quite capable of being right two times a day and assuming they are always wrong is about as wrong headed as assuming they are always right.  You'd actually be safer with 'always irrelevant' even though this is not true either.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Nov 18, 2004)

Louis MacNeice said:
			
		

> How when your defense of the SWP's changing tactics is premised on the acceptance of the downturn theory? You can't just run away (or say you were only joking) when things get a bit trickier...more evidence of the emptiness of your 'I'm not a sectarian, it's all you other splitters' claim.
> 
> Louis Mac


Considering you ran away from the last debate because you was wrong , that's a bit rich.  Secondly, I think I explained to you before I am paralysed neck down so it takes me a bit of time to write post, so have patience.  Thirdly, I am a sectarian now, you've convinced me to be one.  


_________________
Respect, ResistanceMP3. 

They stoop so low to reach so high.


----------



## flypanam (Nov 18, 2004)

Ray said:
			
		

> If the downturn ended and 1930's began in 1994, when did the 1930's end? What did they turn into? Anyone know?



In ISJ 63 (Summer 1994), Alex Callinicos wrote “Crisis and class struggle in Europe today”, which examined the crisis in Europe in three dimensions: 

(a)    Economic (high unemployment, poor growth rates);

(b)   Political (disillusionment with and hostility to established political parties because of  continued pursuit of neo-liberal policies by both mainstream right and left parties, rise of far right groups) and;

(c)    Class polarisation (which can push workers to right or left or a complex mix of both—to look to racism or collective struggle as solutions).

The reason for the slow motion theory was that the same ingredients were present—deep-seated economic crisis which put pressure on the social structures built up during the boom, crisis of the political system, class polarisation involving both the growth of the fascist right and greater working class militancy. Yet equally, the pace of development of the crisis along the different dimensions was slower than in the 1930s.

Callinicos went on to detail how it was slower: (1) The economic crisis was not yet as severe as the 1930s; (2) bourgeois political structures, though under severe strain, were not yet as fragile as they were during the inter-war period; (3) the far right challengers to liberal democracy were successful chiefly in accumulating votes; and (4) the organised working class was considerably stronger than in the 1930s.

Technically it can be argued that we are still in a 1930's motion because the present boom is quite fragile (robert brenner) and neither side workers or capitalist have made a decisive move.


----------



## Top Dog (Nov 18, 2004)

ResistanceMP3 said:
			
		

> Pickman is right, I was wrong Groucho has convinced me.   SW threads are boreing, but if you can't beat them join them [with out the destoirtions.] .
> 
> Rmp3


Fuck sake you're in a good mood today... 26 words, 3 grinning smilies... to my reckoning thats one cheezy grin per 8.6 words recurring.

You on happy pills or summat?


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Nov 18, 2004)

ResistanceMP3 said:
			
		

> Considering you ran away from the last debate because you was wrong , that's a bit rich.  Secondly, I think I explained to you before I am paralysed neck down so it takes me a bit of time to write post, so have patience.  Thirdly, I am a sectarian now, you've convinced me to be one.
> 
> 
> _________________
> ...



No RMP3 you've always been a sectarian; it's just that your level of consciousness has been raised so that you are now aware of it.  

I know it takes you a long time to post...which is what made all that pretend 'working classiz' nonsense on another thread really irritating...you were taking the time to pretend that you were some stereotypically thick 'oik'.

Please refer me back to where I ran away...I must have missed it. If you're refering to the debate about the origins and meanings of symbols, then it became impossible to discuss with you because, as you said, for you it was just a bit of a laugh...nothing to take seriously...or think about.

Louis Mac


----------



## Ray (Nov 18, 2004)

flypanam said:
			
		

> In ISJ 63 (Summer 1994), Alex Callinicos wrote “Crisis and class struggle in Europe today”, which examined the crisis in Europe in three dimensions:
> 
> (a)    Economic (high unemployment, poor growth rates);
> 
> ...



And none of these things have been present in Europe at any time except the 1930's and the 1990's? Frankly, I have a very hard time believing that class polarisation is more evident today than at any randomly-chosen time in the last 70 years. How evident was political disillusionment in 1930's Britain? I thought turnout in elections and party membership had been declining from those heights for decades? And the economic dimension - what are the metrics Callinicos is using, and are the 1930's really anything like the 1990's/2000's?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 18, 2004)

5 years prior to WW1 - 5 years after.


----------



## sihhi (Nov 18, 2004)

Ray said:
			
		

> are the 1930's really anything like the 1990's/2000's?



No of course not. Ask a twelve year old and you'd get a sane answer that things are quite different.


----------



## Ray (Nov 18, 2004)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> 5 years prior to WW1 - 5 years after.


----------



## cockneyrebel (Nov 18, 2004)

Can any SWPer explain to me the down turn theory? As said how would it have been a down turn if the miner's had won? The opposite would have been the case and the UK would look very different today.

I presume the SWP didn't think the miner's were going to inevitably lose?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 18, 2004)

Ray said:
			
		

>


 Both periods in which the defining charateristics as outlined by Callinicos existed - and in a more acute form. Which would logically make the 1930s merley the 1910s slowed down, and the 1990s the slowed down 1910s played at slow motion. That's the silly sort of knots you end up in by predicting that the future will just be another version of the past. (It's also very unmarxist - or at least, not very dialectical).


----------



## rebel warrior (Nov 18, 2004)

JoeBlack said:
			
		

> There is a lot of building on sand here.
> 
> Edite to add - that was my first time adding a graphic so I didn't know it would work.  Sorry to be a boring old empericist but the SWP downturn theory followed by the 1990's revolution in our time hype has no relationship to what it claims to speak of - the level of working class struggle in Britain.  That table is from http://www.tutor2u.net/economics/content/topics/labourmarket/strikes.htm
> 
> You can argue (rightly) that struggle is not measured by strikes alone but in that case you need to point at struggles occuring post '93 that more than compensated for those of the 1980's.



The graph seems to indicate a 'down turn' to me...


----------



## Top Dog (Nov 18, 2004)

Louis MacNeice said:
			
		

> Please refer me back to where I ran away...I must have missed it.


dont hold yer breath louis


----------



## Ray (Nov 18, 2004)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> Both periods in which the defining charateristics as outlined by Callinicos existed - and in a more acute form. Which would logically make the 1930s merley the 1910s slowed down, and the 1990s the slowed down 1910s played at slow motion. That's the silly sort of knots you end up in by predicting that the future will just be another version of the past. (It's also very unmarxist - or at least, not very dialectical).



Ah, I see, and yeah, you're right.


----------



## Top Dog (Nov 18, 2004)

rebel warrior said:
			
		

> The graph seems to indicate a 'down turn' to me...


but im glad i held mine, there's that smell of decomposition back again.


----------



## JoeBlack (Nov 18, 2004)

rebel warrior said:
			
		

> The graph seems to indicate a 'down turn' to me...



Yeah but if you read my post you'd see my point is not whether the down turn theory is right or wrong as a explanation for the real drop off in struggle.  I've left that to CR to obcess about.

My point was where the hell is the upturn that the SWP reckoned started to emerge in Oct 92.  I get that its meant to be slow motion thing but after 12 years you'd expect some sort of blip to start to show.

The bigger argument is that both downturn and upturn/slow mo theories were invented too serve the needs to the party - this is much clearer in relation to the upturn.


----------



## sihhi (Nov 18, 2004)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> Both periods in which the defining charateristics as outlined by Callinicos existed - and in a more acute form. Which would logically make the 1930s merley the 1910s slowed down, and the 1990s the slowed down 1910s played at slow motion. That's the silly sort of knots you end up in by predicting that the future will just be another version of the past. (It's also very unmarxist - or at least, not very dialectical).



Marxist dialectico-spazzwhackery history sounds awful anyway.

Feudal societies like parts of Pakistan have to become properly capitalist.
Workers must experience state socialism before pure communism. 

And it's absurd claiming that capitalism will be destroyed by bigger and bigger monopoly companies.

It makes no sense anyway it's bonkers.

Downturns and upturns are a load of nonsense.
People have all kinds of different political concerns that they are struggling with and that manifest themselves in different ways. Usually the most important is being convinced that an anrchist/socialist society could work in the future and not lead to Bonaprtism which is what communism was described as a recipe for pre-world war i.


----------



## rebel warrior (Nov 18, 2004)

JoeBlack said:
			
		

> My point was where the hell is the upturn that the SWP reckoned started to emerge in Oct 92.  I get that its meant to be slow motion thing but after 12 years you'd expect some sort of blip to start to show.
> .



The theory though was looking at Europe, not just Britain.  The fact in in France in 1995, and in Italy and other places, there have been mass strikes...


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 18, 2004)

The above graph only indicates the number of stoppages, it says nothing whatsoever about the size of duration of those strikes. The actual number of days lost to strikes during this period,a far more accurate measure demonstrates the exact opposite - and we must bear in mind that Cliff first proposed that the downturn was clearly in existence around 74-75 i.e in a period of rising strikes and industrial conflict.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Nov 18, 2004)

Fair enough.  So I don't piss off the editor for starting another S. W. P. thread I'll post this here.  BUT.  I think people have to acknowledge, we all have such well established ideologies it is very unlikely we are going to agree.  So instead of concentrating about what we disagree, can we not discuss a few generallities which may hold true for all revolutionaries?

------------------
I think people have noticed I’m not the most well read person on the forum.   and I can’t remember an article that “instructed me” on what is the party line response to this question.  So I will put down the understanding I’ve constructed from the general information I’ve gleaned from being in the party.  Sorry if this is in my usual tedious and simplistic fashion.   PS. I hope S. W. members will correct me if I get this wrong.

I think for myself it is a “big picture” analysis.  For example; If you look at the detail of the economy it could be in boom. So you could look at several indicators like the real wage growth, and increasing production, etc.  but this then has to put in the context of long-term trends.  To cut to the chase, though we can see booms in the nineteen thirties, and slumps in the nineteen fifties, we categorize the nineteen thirties as a period of depression and the nineteen fifties as period of boom. Yes?

Now class struggle itself go through booms and slumps.  BUT like the whole of human experience it operates on two levels which can be divergent.  On the material level one can measure the level of struggle By the number of strike days, the direction of real wages, and the achievement of reforms ect. But the class struggle also takes place on a ideological level.

Now because society is a dynamic ever changing whole one can see the first green shoots of the upturn of British working class ideological struggle in the nineteen thirties it might be argued, just like you can see the green shoots of capitalism within feudalism before the revolution, but and I think we can definitely say the postwar period saw the longest period of sustained British working class confidence in combativity.  From 1945 to 1979ish there was a general ideological confidence of the British working class that they could fight for at least reforms of the capitalist system to make the world a better place.  Because the post boom gave the bosses room to maneuver, and accede to reforms, this ideological viewpoint was never tested to the point of crisis.

The post war boom ended in 1972ish.  Even before then you could see attempt to restructure capitalism [ie labor government “in place of strife”].  But by the heath government, needs to restructure British capitalism were desperate.  The two sides fought to a standstill with the miners strike of 1974.  but the only answer to the crisis from the reformist working class movement was a reformist government.

It was the labor government that made scabbing respectable.  It was the labor government that brought in Thatcherism, “ You can't spend your way out of a recession" Callaghan.  And by 1979 the British working class reformist labor movement had nowhere to turn.  From having a offensive, solidarity,  labor movement with hope for a better future, came a defensive, divided labor movement that resulted in defeat after defeat.

Now if you think as I stated above that a revolutionary opportunity is breif in nature.  That it is pregnant with all kinds of possibilities for reform or fascism etc..  And that you need the biggest possible influence at that moment, if  you re to win social revolution.  And you can see your party hemorrhaging members to Bennism, reformism which is already bankrupt.  You would probably want to reorganize your party.

_________________
Respect, ResistanceMP3. 

They stoop so low to reach so high.


----------



## scawenb (Nov 18, 2004)

I'm not sure how good a guide strikes actually are as they do fluctuate madely overtime. Often it is just one big strike (usually the miners) which makes all the difference. 



> Periods of high industrial dispute occurred in 1972, 1979 and 1984. In 1972, a miners strike accounted for 45 per cent of the 24 million days lost and a strike by the engineering workers in 1979 resulted in just over half of the 29 million days lost; http://www.statistics.gov.uk/STATBASE/xsdataset.asp?vlnk=134&More=Y(display all at the bottom for the full figures)



Moreover, in the 1930s we had the great unemployed workers hunger marches and the fight against fascism. They appear to be an upturn in political action but do not register on days lost through industrial dispute.


----------



## JoeBlack (Nov 18, 2004)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> The above graph only indicates the number of stoppages



This is true which is why I also posted the URL of the page so people could look at these.  However





			
				butchersapron said:
			
		

> The actual number of days lost to strikes during this period,a far more accurate measure demonstrates the exact opposite



For what it matters I don't think 'days lost' is a more accurate measure then numbers of disputes.  Numbers of disputes gives you a general idea of militancy across the working class.  Days lost can (and in this case was) dominated by one section of workers (the miners).  In this discussion militancy across the class seems more relevant then the heroic militancy of one section of the class. 

I say 'for what it matters' as I wasn't addressing the rightness or wrongness of the idea that there had been a drop off in struggle anyway.  More the idea that there was somehow more struggle in the 1990's which is obviously ludicrous.


----------



## poster342002 (Nov 18, 2004)

rebel warrior said:
			
		

> The theory though was looking at Europe, not just Britain.  The fact in in France in 1995, and in Italy and other places, there have been mass strikes...


So would you accept, then, that in the UK there has been no significant upturn whatsoever?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 18, 2004)

scawenb said:
			
		

> I'm not sure how good a guide strikes actually are as they do fluctuate madely overtime. Often it is just one big strike (usually the miners) which makes all the difference.
> 
> 
> 
> Moreover, in the 1930s we had the great unemployed workers hunger marches and the fight against fascism. They appear to be an upturn in political action but do not register on days lost through industrial dispute.


 Of course, which is why the great series of urban riots/uprisings from the early 80s to early 90s won't register with thise who argue in favour of the downturn either, and nor will the Poll tax - thoug they were both undoubtdly extremely high points of class conflict. This just throws more doubt on the theory.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 18, 2004)

JoeBlack said:
			
		

> This is true which is why I also posted the URL of the page so people could look at these.  However
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 Fair enough - i guess the most accurate measure might be something like a cross between number of disputes, number of workers involved and days lost.


----------



## JoeBlack (Nov 18, 2004)

rebel warrior said:
			
		

> The theory though was looking at Europe, not just Britain.  The fact in in France in 1995, and in Italy and other places, there have been mass strikes...



So your saying that SWP day to day tactics in this period were based on a theory that was simply wrong in its application to where the SWP were organising but you think might have been right elsewhere?


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Nov 18, 2004)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> Of course, which is whay the great series of urban riots/uprisings from the early 80s to early 90s won't register, and nor will the Poll tax - thought they wwere undoubtdly extremely hight point of class conflict. This just throws more doubt on the theory.



It does follow the logic of keeping the workplace at the heart of analysis, even when the charateristics of the workplace - its size, location and internal organisation - have changed so dramatically. And of course that is before you turn to look at the vastly changed role of the state - in relation to how class intetrests are pursued - over the last century.

Cheers - Louis Mac


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 18, 2004)

A general debunking of the theory here, with plenty of those stubborn facts:

"The figures speak for themselves. In the five (upturn) years between 1970 and 1974 a huge 70 million days were lost in strike action. But in the five (downturn) years from 1977 until 1981 another huge 65m days were lost .... hardly any different. 

Was Cliff arguing that 65m days lost was a collapse of militancy of the working class? It beggars belief. If that period was a freezing winter, the *'upturn'* of the 1990s was an ice age, since the days lost in the 5 years 1991-95 _was just 2.6m_ - a tiny fraction of the 'downturn' period!. And the second 5 years of the 1990s were even worse.

There was a drop in the level of strikes for two years in the 1970s, in 1975 and 1976. This was a result of the support of the TUC for Labour's initial stages of incomes policy and its 12 month rule (which outlawed pay claims with 12 months of the previous one). 

As a result "only" 6 million days were lost in 1975 and 3.2m in 1976 against 14.7m in 1974. 

But this went back up to 10m in 1977 and then a staggering 29m in 1979 - the highest since the general strike of 1926 and 6m more than the highest year in the 70-74 period. 

There were numerous strikes against the later stages of Labour's incomes policy, the most important of which was the 13 week national fire fighters strike against Stage three."


----------



## scawenb (Nov 18, 2004)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> Of course, which is why the great series of urban riots/uprisings from the early 80s to early 90s won't register with thise who argue in favour of the downturn either, and nor will the Poll tax - thoug they were both undoubtdly extremely high points of class conflict. This just throws more doubt on the theory.


Absolutely!

Also, in relation to a thread on building a revolutionary movement the British Trade Unions and strikes are not revolutionary they are merely part of the mechanism for regulating the rate of wages.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Nov 18, 2004)

cockneyrebel said:
			
		

> Can any SWPer explain to me the down turn theory? As said how would it have been a down turn if the miner's had won? The opposite would have been the case and the UK would look very different today.
> 
> I presume the SWP didn't think the miner's were going to inevitably lose?


I think post 39.  However I would add I think the downturn theory in 1979-81 was more about the qualitive nature of the class struggle, rather than the quantitive nature.  But the change in the qualitive nature of the working class struggle resulted in a quantitive change, and defeat of the miners.
_________________
Respect, ResistanceMP3. 

They stoop so low to reach so high.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 18, 2004)

Don't send him a penny!


----------



## Ray (Nov 18, 2004)

ResistanceMP3 said:
			
		

> I think post 39.  However I would add I think the downturn theory in 1979-81 was more about the qualitive nature of the class struggle, rather than the quantitive nature.



What was this qualitative change? Did it ever change back? If not, why aren't we still in 'the downturn'?


----------



## JoeBlack (Nov 18, 2004)

ResistanceMP3 said:
			
		

> Now class struggle itself go through booms and slumps.  BUT like the whole of human experience it operates on two levels which can be divergent.  On the material level one can measure the level of struggle By the number of strike days, the direction of real wages, and the achievement of reforms ect. But the class struggle also takes place on a ideological level.



There is a pinch of truth in this but at some time you have to expect the supposed ideological upsure to result in some sort of real world measure of militancy.  As I said I'm an empericist on this sort of thing - I want to see numbers or at least the emergance of numbers before I'm willing to believe.

As long as I've been active on the left there have been people and groups around who have belived that the choice between fascism or revolution is just around the corner.  At some point in time these people are groups will be correct (unless we really are at the end of history).  But this is not a reason to stand in the spot you are in and accept such predictions in the short term.

The belief in imminant crisis has always led to left organisations doing odd things.  Or rather things that are odd if nothing happens but maybe quite sensible if the fascist coup was indeed just around the corner.  I'm sure some of the older posters here could fill us in with the antics of the WRP at the state of the 70's in that regard.  I remember the 80's when the Militant seemed to have a call for a general strike on the front page of every second edition.  And in the 90's it was the SWP's turn to step into that gap in the market.

One thing to be noticed in this that it tends to be the biggest trot group at that moment in history that decides the end days are at hand.  I suspect this isn't coincidental.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 18, 2004)

Ray said:
			
		

> What was this qualitative change? Did it ever change back? If not, why aren't we still in 'the downturn'?




...and if it did, why?


----------



## cockneyrebel (Nov 18, 2004)

> The graph seems to indicate a 'down turn' to me...



Joe Black can say it’s obsessing (maybe it is!), but I seriously just don’t get it. If no SWPer can answer it, can a non-SWPer?

For ease of reference here is the Q again!

Can any SWPer explain to me the down turn theory? As said how would it have been a down turn if the miner's had won? The opposite would have been the case and the UK would look very different today.

I presume the SWP didn't think the miner's were going to inevitably lose?

PS Post 39 doesn't answer it. Are the SWP seriously gonna suggest there wouldn't have been a big upturn in radical consciousness if the miner's had won?


----------



## JoeBlack (Nov 18, 2004)

cockneyrebel said:
			
		

> Are the SWP seriously gonna suggest there wouldn't have been a big upturn in radical consciousness if the miner's had won?



This is called counterfactual history - its fun but you can't prove anything by it beyond what you already believe.


----------



## Chuck Wilson (Nov 18, 2004)

The down turn theory was based on then fact that generally the working class was in a period of retreat in the mid 80s.If the strike days by miners were taken off the list for 1984 then the figure would have been more startling.

The SWP  believed that the fact that there wasn't one union that called for even one a one day national strike of their own members  in support of the miners says a lot.Whilst the rank and file had been strong enough say over issues like Pentonville dockers or the national building workers strike  in the 70s and many more examples by the mid 80s this pressure from below was receeding.

It could be suggested that in winding up the relatively successfull various rank and file groups that had brought together activist on the left that the SWP may haveremoved the very structures that could have tried to hold militants (small m) together.

The Parety went very internal, there were lots of speeches at District aggregates and branches about russia post 1905 and the growth of wierd and wonderful political and religous sects and how the need for a revolutionary orgnaisation was essential and a return to theory. There was a period of debate in the party and educationals to sharpen this return to theory and members encouraged to argue out ( or at) diffreneces of opinion. I think it was Bamberry who said 'we want to see blood on the carpet'

As I have tried to describe here before this meant that the internal party life and routine became more paramount than the outside world so much so that when the miners strike broke out at a national committee one delegate ( I think from leeds) told us all that we shouldn't let the strike get in the way of the weekly paper sales!

The party also believed , quite wrongly, that the turn to Militant was a sign that whilst there was a resistance in terms of ideas that the support for an electoral route  via the Labour Party was also  indicative of workers lack of confidence.Consequently a very sectarian line was initially taken to Militant and Liverpool where  a false distinction was made between reformist Militant and revolutionary SWP instead of solidarity.

For info:this is not a reply to cockneyrebel's question as he isn't 'talking to me'.


----------



## sihhi (Nov 18, 2004)

> Whilst the rank and file had been strong enough say over issues like Pentonville dockers or the national building workers strike in the 70s and many more examples by the mid 80s this pressure from below was receeding.



Perhaps the "union positions" had attempted to control this presure from below so that it wouldn't attack the authority and managerialist structure of most of the TUC unions.


----------



## JoeBlack (Nov 18, 2004)

Chuck Wilson said:
			
		

> The down turn theory was based on then fact that generally the working class was in a period of retreat in the mid 80s.



Ah thanks for this post, it illustrates the distinction I was trying to draw beween accepting that the level of struggle dropped off in the 80's and accepting the SWP's theory of why this was so and how to react to it ('downturn theory').


----------



## cockneyrebel (Nov 18, 2004)

But this still doesn’t make sense. You can’t “leave aside” the miner’s strike, it was one of the most significant events in working class history in the UK. There was also Wapping of course.

Also the dockers did come out on strike in support of the miner’s but they were shafted by their union leaders. A less syndicalist campaign by Scargill could well have meant significant secondary strikes. Indeed when the dockers came out Thatcher, from sources close to her, apparently thought that was the beginning of the end for her government.

So as said, if the miner’s had won it would have changed everything, so unless the SWP though defeat was inevitable then how could the down turn theory make sense?

Can’t believe a delegate said that about paper sales. It shows how crazy the theory was IMO…..

PS I'll talk on this thread   ....so you went from the SWP to IWCA eh....


----------



## TremulousTetra (Nov 18, 2004)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> A general debunking of the theory here, with plenty of those stubborn facts:
> 
> "The figures speak for themselves. In the five (upturn) years between 1970 and 1974 a huge 70 million days were lost in strike action. But in the five (downturn) years from 1977 until 1981 another huge 65m days were lost .... hardly any different.
> 
> ...


This article, and this post totally misunderstands what cliffs theory was about in my opinion in post 39.


----------



## Chuck Wilson (Nov 18, 2004)

sihhi said:
			
		

> Perhaps the "union positions" had attempted to control this presure from below so that it wouldn't attack the authority and managerialist structure of most of the TUC unions.




I am sure that this was right , there was and still is a deep suspicion of the leadership from the rank and file in most unions from activists. In fact IS and the SWP argued that then trade union bureaucracy was there to mediate between the bossess and the rank and file.There was an equal resentment between many of these bureaucrats  towards  independent shop stewards committess, national or regional networks or rank and file groups that lay outside of their control.


----------



## Chuck Wilson (Nov 18, 2004)

cockneyrebel said:
			
		

> But this still doesn’t make sense. You can’t “leave aside” the miner’s strike, it was one of the most significant events in working class history in the UK. There was also Wapping of course.
> 
> Also the dockers did come out on strike in support of the miner’s but they were shafted by their union leaders. A less syndicalist campaign by Scargill could well have meant significant secondary strikes. Indeed when the dockers came out Thatcher, from sources close to her, apparently thought that was the beginning of the end for her government.
> 
> ...



To quote one of the leading junior members of a small but perfectly formed Trotskyist organisation  of the present period " fuck off "


----------



## cockneyrebel (Nov 18, 2004)

Yeah fuck off


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Nov 18, 2004)

cockneyrebel said:
			
		

> PS I'll talk on this thread   ....so you went from the SWP to IWCA eh....



CR did you spring perfectly formed from the WP womb?   

Just wondering - Louis Mac


----------



## TremulousTetra (Nov 18, 2004)

Chuck Wilson said:
			
		

> I am sure that this was right , there was and still is a deep suspicion of the leadership from the rank and file in most unions from activists. In fact IS and the SWP argued that then trade union bureaucracy was there to mediate between the bossess and the rank and file.There was an equal resentment between many of these bureaucrats  towards  independent shop stewards committess, national or regional networks or rank and file groups that lay outside of their control.


So I think we are in agreement that "The down turn theory was based on then fact that generally the working class was in a period of retreat in the mid 80s."

But the reason for the thread Chuck, was that I was hope being you would expand upon your views of the nineteen nineties to today, revolutionary orgs and their relationship to the class struggle.  

_________________
Respect, ResistanceMP3. 

They stoop so low to reach so high.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 18, 2004)

ResistanceMP3 said:
			
		

> This article, and this post totally misunderstands what cliffs theory was about in my opinion in post 39.


 Lucky then it wasn't a reply to your post#39 but to Cliff's theory as propounded by himself in his autobiogrpahy.


----------



## Chuck Wilson (Nov 18, 2004)

ResistanceMP3 said:
			
		

> So I think we are in agreement that "The down turn theory was based on then fact that generally the working class was in a period of retreat in the mid 80s."
> 
> But the reason for the thread Chuck, was that I was hope being you would expand upon your views of the nineteen nineties to today, revolutionary orgs and their relationship to the class struggle.
> 
> ...



Bloody hell Resistance 'expand' eh? That's a tall order for a very short man.You clearly have no idea how politically insignificant I am!

I'll  have a go a little later, I am still pondering where to file cockneyrebels details in my little book.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 18, 2004)

ResistanceMP3 said:
			
		

> So I think we are in agreement that "The down turn theory was based on then fact that generally the working class was in a period of retreat in the mid 80s."
> 
> 
> _________________
> ...


 But the theory claimed that the downturn had started from 1974 - not the mid 80s!


----------



## cockneyrebel (Nov 18, 2004)

> CR did you spring perfectly formed from the WP womb?



Nope. Started in the SWP. That's probably why I take an interest in them. Well that and they fuck up everything they get involved with, and quite a few campaigns/organisations I've been involved with....



> I am still pondering where to file cockneyrebels details in my little book.



You're getting quite creepy.....


----------



## cockneyrebel (Nov 18, 2004)

RMP3 how does this take into account the miner’s strike though? How can the SWP say there was a down turn when the biggest strike since the 1930s took place in the early 1980s. A strike that if successful could have changed the face of the UK. That’s a down turn?!


----------



## TremulousTetra (Nov 18, 2004)

cockneyrebel said:
			
		

> RMP3 how does this take into account the miner’s strike though? How can the SWP say there was a down turn when the biggest strike since the 1930s took place in the early 1980s. A strike that if successful could have changed the face of the UK. That’s a down turn?!


Well develop that, how could have it won? By using their tactics it did in 1974.  But why didn't it?  Because of the ideological downturn. 

There of course was a chance the miners could have won despite the downturn.  NACODS.  And if this had happened of course it would have had an effect upon the ideological downturn.

Frats Rmp3


----------



## TremulousTetra (Nov 18, 2004)

Chuck Wilson said:
			
		

> Bloody hell Resistance 'expand' eh? That's a tall order for a very short man.You clearly have no idea how politically insignificant I am!


Not to me luv.   

Rmp3


----------



## Chuck Wilson (Nov 18, 2004)

Just to factually correct one of the leading junior members of a small but perfectly formed Trotskyist organisation of the present period there was no national strike action called in support of the miners by any trade union. Not even when the NUM funds were sequestrated.This was despite the tremendous solidarity of many rank and file trade unionists and activists.


----------



## Ray (Nov 19, 2004)

JoeBlack said:
			
		

> There is a lot of building on sand here.



I went looking for the figures on work stoppages through the century, and it makes the downturn theory even more suspect. Basically, days lost due to stoppages bounce along at the bottom of the chart for most of the century. 1907 to the mid 1920's there are lost of days lost, and there's a little hiccup around 1930. Then not a lot for 20 years, a little rise in the late 50's early 60's, and then from the late 60's up to 1987 there are some big peaks and a generally higher level of stoppages, higher than anything since 1930. After 1987 stoppages go back to bouncing along the bottom of the chart. 
(the charts too big for me to attach, but you can get the data here http://www.statistics.gov.uk/STATBASE/tsdataset.asp?vlnk=538   )

Anyway, the point is, there was no downturn in 1979. There was an *upturn * in the late 60's, that lasted for about 20 years - until *1987*, not *1977 * - and then things went back to normal. 

Of course, you can argue that the downturn is actually talking about something that isn't captured by statistics of industrial disputes. But then we're back to the questions asked above - 

What was this qualitative change?
Did it ever change back? 
If not, are we still in the downturn?
If it did, why? 

I'd appreciate any non-circular answers to these questions. 

(In other words, don't tell me that the SWP changed their approach because they could see that the downturn had ended, and we can tell that the downturn had ended because the SWP changed their approach)


----------



## poster342002 (Nov 19, 2004)

ResistanceMP3 said:
			
		

> There of course was a chance the miners could have won despite the downturn.  NACODS.


Proof if it were ever needed that you cannot rely on the supervisory classes to back their "subordinates" in a dispute or any other aspect of class struggle. When the chips are down, the supervisor class always relishes any opportunity to hold the whip and wield the rod. Remember the debacle when the signal supervisors similarly refused to strike alongside the signalworkers in the early 1990's? One of the left's biggest mistakes has been to continually inisst that the supervisory class will one day identify with the rank-and-file workers and join forces with them. It won't happen - this class has it's own seperate interests and is only interested in defending them. Occasionally the supervisor class calls for solidarity from the subordinate workers, but they seldom (if ever) give it in return.


----------



## rednblack (Nov 19, 2004)

Louis MacNeice said:
			
		

> CR did you spring perfectly formed from the WP womb?
> 
> Just wondering - Louis Mac



not perfectly formed not by a longshot


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Nov 19, 2004)

ResistanceMP3 said:
			
		

> Well develop that, how could have it won? By using their tactics it did in 1974.  But why didn't it?  Because of the ideological downturn.
> 
> There of course was a chance the miners could have won despite the downturn.  NACODS.  And if this had happened of course it would have had an effect upon the ideological downturn.
> 
> Frats Rmp3



Besides simply saying that the defeat of the 84/85 miners' strike is evidence of an ideological downturn (which is a thoroughly circular and therefore inconclusive line of argument) how could you measure such a downturn? 

Louis Mac


----------



## cockneyrebel (Nov 19, 2004)

Very good rnb.



> there was no national strike action called in support of the miners by any trade union.



So the docker's didn't go on strike during the miner's strike? The official reason wasn't given as secondary striking but everyone knew that was what it was about....

RMP3 are you seriously saying that the miner's lost because of the "ideological downturn"?! A big reason they lost was because of the syndicalist tactics of Scargill, the scabs (mainly in Nottingham) and the sell-out of other union leaders like with the dockers.....(well the main reason was Thatcher and the coppers, but I mean from our side)....

And the main reason there was a downturn was precisely because the miner's lost and in the process the organised working class smashed by Thatcher.

So how can the SWP say it was a downturn BEFORE the miner's strike. The evidence just doesn't support it and on top of that one of the greatest working class struggles in the UK of all time was about to take place....


----------



## scawenb (Nov 19, 2004)

cockneyrebel said:
			
		

> A less syndicalist campaign by Scargill could well have meant significant secondary strikes.


Don't want to bring-up the whole of the miners strike debate but are you suggesting that if Scargill had kept it to just an industrial question it would have been more revolutionary. Do you think it was wrong for the NUM to fight a plitical campaign in 1974 when it won? Do you think that the trade unionism (in the narrow sense) is revolutionary?

What do you think of the growing millions of unemployed at this point, the uprising in the inner cities and the solidarity with those also fighting against British Imperialism in Ireland and South Africa? As well as the issues of women's groups, Lesbian and Gays and defence against police attacks.


----------



## poster342002 (Nov 19, 2004)

scawenb said:
			
		

> What do you think of the growing millions of unemployed at this point, the uprising in the inner cities and the solidarity with those also fighting against British Imperialism in Ireland and South Africa? As well as the issues of women's groups, Lesbian and Gays and defence against police attacks.


Many of those issues rapidly turned up the blind-alley of _Identity Politics_, to which class struggle was ultimately sacrificed in favour of by many on the left.


----------



## cockneyrebel (Nov 19, 2004)

Sorry I rushed the way I wrote the post! I was saying it needed to be more of a political struggle and also that he had the attitude of "the miners united will never be defeated" and not "the workers united will never be defeated" meaning he never really pushed for secondary action. A disasterous tactic....

But aren't we agreeing


----------



## scawenb (Nov 19, 2004)

poster342002 said:
			
		

> Many of those issues rapidly turned up the blind-alley of _Identity Politics_, to which class struggle was ultimately sacrificed in favour of by many on the left.


So the rights of black people, women, queers, the unemployed, immigrants, those fighting constant police harrassment, racism, council tax, crap housing, criminalisation, democratic rights along with Ireland, Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, Africa all being carved up in the interests of preserving British imperialism???

These are all identity politics sacrified on the altar of the regulation of wages and working conditions. One strike is work a 1000 demonstrations, uprisings, defence of communities, fights for democratic rights.

The British Trade Union movement over centuries has shown what its aims and abilities are. Is there any revolutionary situation in the world which has been broght about by just the claim for better pay and conditions from the Chartists to the Russian Revolution from the Paris Commune to 1968 from Ireland to South Africa the issue of supposed "identity politics" has always been more signifcant than mere wage regulation.


----------



## poster342002 (Nov 19, 2004)

scawenb said:
			
		

> So the rights of black people, women, queers, the unemployed, immigrants, those fighting constant police harrassment, racism, council tax, crap housing, criminalisation, democratic rights along with Ireland, Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, Africa all being carved up in the interests of preserving British imperialism???
> 
> These are all identity politics sacrified on the altar of the regulation of wages and working conditions. One strike is work a 1000 demonstrations, uprisings, defence of communities, fights for democratic rights.
> 
> The British Trade Union movement over centuries has shown what its aims and abilities are. Is there any revolutionary situation in the world which has been broght about by just the claim for better pay and conditions from the Chartists to the Russian Revolution from the Paris Commune to 1968 from Ireland to South Africa the issue of supposed "identity politics" has always been more signifcant than mere wage regulation.


Errr not so fast there, mate. Those struggles did (and still do) need to be fought. But the often embarresingly crass "top down" way in which they were fought by middle-class trendies with large-framed glasses and long jumpers saying the word "concerned" a lot did no end of damage to those same struggles and the rest of the class struggle as a whole IMO.


----------



## Chuck Wilson (Nov 19, 2004)

Just for the sake of the increasingly deaf and  one of the leading junior members of a small but perfectly formed Trotskyist organisation of the present period..

There was no national strike action taken by any of the trade unions in support of the miners.Ie not one union called its national membership out on strike in support of the miners.

Compare that low level of solidarity by the TU leadership for example with the miners strike action in support of the nurses.The TU leadership during the miners strike had long since decided that backing Kinnock was the least damge that could be done to the Labour Party whose relection they saw as the way forward.In the years leading up to the miners strike Thatcher and her backers had succesfully took key trade unions one by one: railway workers ,steel workers, etc one by one and hung themout to dry.

Even those elements opposed to the elect Kinnock at all costs strategy ie Liverpool Councils Labour/Militant leadership ended there own dispute with the Tory govt having used the threat of the miners dispute to get an improved settlement.


----------



## cockneyrebel (Nov 19, 2004)

> Just for the sake of the increasingly deaf and one of the leading junior members of a small but perfectly formed Trotskyist organisation of the present period..



Are you one of those people who when they think they've said something funny says it over and over and no-one else laughs? It seems like it......


----------



## TremulousTetra (Nov 19, 2004)

cockneyrebel said:
			
		

> Very good rnb.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Hello cockneyrebel.  Think we have always had a fraternal discussion on topics.  What I am about to say is not completely directed at you, but those who refuse to accept they may not totally understand the REAL Downturn theory.  At least you in the post above begun to question the real theory.  But before we move on from here, can we be clear about something for others sake.  That what the swp is being attacked for, IS NOT THE SAME as what the swp members, and X member are saying.  

Poster after poster has attacked the “down to theory”, on the basis that it was a quantitive analysis of the class struggle.  The socialist outlook article is an absolutly right imo, that any such claim of a downturn in the class struggle based upon quantative analysis “Begger’s belief”.  Not one person from the swp has tried to defend a quantative analysis of the “downturn theory”, because that is not the swp analysis. 

It is totally irrelevant if none party members say that is what Cliff meant, if not one swp member is prepared to agree with that. You cannot attack collectively the swp for a theory, that the swp does not collectively accept.

The “downturn theory” was based upon a qualitive assessment of the nature of class struggle post 1974.  From 1945 to 1974-9ish there was a general ideological confidence of the British working class that they could fight for at least reforms of the capitalist system to make the world a better place. Because the post boom gave the bosses room to maneuver, and accede to reforms, so this ideological viewpoint was never tested to the point of crisis.  1974 – 79 labor government was the crisis. Labor government was the rock on which the ship of “post war boom reformist working class ideology” foundered.  The winter of discontent, Bennism, the steel workers strike, the print workers strike, and the miners’ strike, were the resulting wreckage that came as the ship foundered upon that rock was battered by the seas of class struggle.  That’s swp “downturn theory”.  If people want to attack the theory, the least they can do his attack the real thing instead of attacking strawmen.

Let me put it another way. The labor movement in Britain had a base and a superstructure, as did Britain.  Changes in the economic base of Britain, made necessary changes in the superstructure.  The reformist labor movement was a fetter to this change.  However, the reformist Labor movement Did not have have a social revolution alternative.  When forced through economic crisis to choose between social revolution and a reformist government who sought only to manage capitalism, and so manage the necessary changes in the economy, the reformist labor movement superstructure chose the reformist government and the continuing management of capitalism, just as the triple alliance did in 1919.  The rank and file organizations could not overcome the dead weight of the superstructure, because they to did not have a social revolution alternative. There was no revolutionary organization big enough to influence the movement.  And so the working class movement was never given the opportunity of the Luxemburg choice “socialism or barbarism”. the qualitive change in the labor movement superstructure eventually resulted in quantative change in the base of the labor movement, the number of strike days.   

__________________
Respect, ResistanceMP3. 

They stoop so low to reach so high.

PS. Sorry to speak in jargon.  I hate speaking in leftwing jargon.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Nov 19, 2004)

None of the below addresses the question of how you measure the ideological down turn in a way that isn't circular and self serving. Also stating that the miners' defeat was down to this illusive ideological downturn is turning the relationship between base and superstructure on it's head in a manner quite striking for someone claiming to be a marxist.

Louis Mac




			
				ResistanceMP3 said:
			
		

> Hello cockneyrebel.  Think we have always had a fraternal discussion on topics.  What I am about to say is not completely directed at you, but those who refuse to accept they may not totally understand the REAL Downturn theory.  At least you in the post above begun to question the real theory.  But before we move on from here, can we be clear about something for others sake.  That what the swp is being attacked for, IS NOT THE SAME as what the swp members, and X member are saying.
> 
> Poster after poster has attacked the “down to theory”, on the basis that it was a quantitive analysis of the class struggle.  The socialist outlook article is an absolutly right imo, that any such claim of a downturn in the class struggle based upon quantative analysis “Begger’s belief”.  Not one person from the swp has tried to defend a quantative analysis of the “downturn theory”, because that is not the swp analysis.
> 
> ...


----------



## Ray (Nov 19, 2004)

ResistanceMP3 said:
			
		

> The “downturn theory” was based upon a qualitive assessment of the nature of class struggle post 1974.  From 1945 to 1974-9ish there was a general ideological confidence of the British working class that they could fight for at least reforms of the capitalist system to make the world a better place. Because the post boom gave the bosses room to maneuver, and accede to reforms, so this ideological viewpoint was never tested to the point of crisis.  1974 – 79 labor government was the crisis. Labor government was the rock on which the ship of “post war boom reformist working class ideology” foundered.  The winter of discontent, Bennism, the steel workers strike, the print workers strike, and the miners’ strike, were the resulting wreckage that came as the ship foundered upon that rock was battered by the seas of class struggle.  That’s swp “downturn theory”.  If people want to attack the theory, the least they can do his attack the real thing instead of attacking strawmen.



The trouble is that this 'qualitative assessment' seems to have been just pulled out of the air by the SWP leadership. Sure, you can be too taken with one measurement or another of class confidence, but there doesn't seem to have been any objective basis for the decision that the nature of class struggle had changed. It seems to have been entirely a response to the *internal * demands of the SWP. 

The same is true of the end of the downturn. By any objective measurement, the downturn has not ended (since it began in the late 1980's), but the SWP's attachment to the theory did. Why? Because the internal situation of the SWP was such that the downturn theory was no longer convenient. 

There's nothing wrong with an organisation changing their working practice as they change in size, or as the surrounding left organisations change, or because they think the new approach will work better for them. The irritating thing is when these changes are dressed up in talk about drastic changes in the political landscape and the level of class consciousness that don't seem to exist.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 19, 2004)

How can there possibly be the total seperation of the qualitive and the quantitive as your summation of the theory ssems to suggest? It's an absurdity - the qualitive will of course be refelected in the quantitive - that's what would have given the theory some actual analytical power, if it had accurately describe what was happening in the real world - if the two had reflected each other. 

Instead you place yourself in the ridiculous position of arguing that the qualitive 'downturn' - something so significant that it entailed developing a whole new analysis, had no effect whatsoever on the quantitive  experience. In short, you offer an explanation for something that wasn't happening.

Sorry, without the quantitive backing up or reflecting the qualitive change you've outlined you've only served to further undermine the basis of the theory. A theory that sounds even more idealist the way you recount it.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Nov 19, 2004)

Hello Joe black;

You have made several good posts that I would like to respond to, but to keep things on track of what I was aiming for, can I respond to them later when the thread is dead?



			
				JoeBlack said:
			
		

> Yeah but if you read my post you'd see my point is not whether the down turn theory is right or wrong as a explanation for the real drop off in struggle.  I've left that to CR to obcess about.
> 
> My point was where the hell is the upturn that the SWP reckoned started to emerge in Oct 92.  I get that its meant to be slow motion thing but after 12 years you'd expect some sort of blip to start to show.
> 
> The bigger argument is that both downturn and upturn/slow mo theories were invented too serve the needs to the party - this is much clearer in relation to the upturn.


That is roughly the kind of issue I wanted to discuss in this thread.
When I first started the thread I sent a pm to Chuck saying; “Building a revolutionary org - would be interested in your views on this thread considering your comments about the swp. I'm not really going to respond, I hope, to the usual antagonists. But would be interested in discussing a topic which I think interests you as well.” 

As I said right at the beginning of this thread, I wasn’t really interested in discussing in particular the swp, but how should a revolutionary organization have related to the historical circumstances of the past decade.  Before there was any “blood on the carpet”  between chuck and I, I wanted to establish that we do both agree about previous historical circumstances.  I was interested in talking to chuck About this, because it is easier for people with a common understanding of the past, to come to a collective understanding of the present imo.  But I hope the discussion will interest you to, if chuck ever does expand’s on what he said in earlier threads. Hint chuck. 

__________________
Respect, ResistanceMP3. 

They stoop so low to reach so high.


----------



## JoeBlack (Nov 19, 2004)

ResistanceMP3 said:
			
		

> Not one person from the swp has tried to defend a quantative analysis of the “downturn theory”, because that is not the swp analysis.



Yeah and thats a good illustration of why all this scientific socialism stuff is bullshit.  But thats another discussion ...

You've yet to address my original point which was not based on the downturn theory but the transition to the '30's in slow motion' from the downturn.  But I guess the answer is the same ie a qualitative difference which the SWP leadership and their crystal ball could spot.




			
				ResistanceMP3 said:
			
		

> There was no revolutionary organization big enough to influence the movement.



Apart from the CP, IMG, WRP and the Militant all of whom were bigger then the SWP today.  ('not a revolutionary organisation you cry, well maybe true but lots of people say that about the SWP as well').




			
				ResistanceMP3 said:
			
		

> And so the working class movement was never given the opportunity of the Luxemburg choice “socialism or barbarism”.



So we are now in barbarism?




			
				ResistanceMP3 said:
			
		

> the qualitive change in the labor movement superstructure eventually resulted in quantative change in the base of the labor movement, the number of strike days.



Or in other words 'the torys were right, strikes were caused not by rank and file resentment but by the union leadership'.

Sorry to be harsh but this really is a load of crap that amounts to 'the SWP is right because the SWP is right' and ends up in some reactionary conclusions.


----------



## Ray (Nov 19, 2004)

ResistanceMP3 said:
			
		

> As I said right at the beginning of this thread, I wasn’t really interested in discussing in particular the swp, but how should a revolutionary organization have related to the historical circumstances of the past decade.



But you framed that discussion by assuming that the SWP's analysis of the last twenty years - downturn followed by slow-motion 1930's - was correct. If people don't agree on what the historical circumstances of the past decade have been, how can they discuss the correct response to those circumstances?


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Nov 19, 2004)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> How can there possibly be the total seperation of the qualitive and the quantitive as your summation of the theory ssems to suggest? It's an absurdity - the qualitive will of course be refelected in the quantitive - that's what would have given the theory some actual analytical power, if it had accurately describe what was happening in the real world - if the two had reflected each other.
> 
> Instead you place yourself in the ridiculous position of arguing that the qualitive 'downturn' - something so significant that it entailed developing a whole new analysis, had no effect whatsoever on the quantitive  experience. In short, you offer an explanation for something that wasn't happening.
> 
> Sorry, without the quantitive backing up or reflecting the qualitive change you've outlined you've only served to further undermine the basis of the theory. A theory that sounds even more idealist the way you recount it.




It reminded me of the opening chapter from 'The Retreat From Class', where Ellen Meiksins Wood went to some lengths to attack the trend in marxism that sought to grant ever greater autonomy to ideology; to the point where the economic base only determines in a last instance which can never actually be arrived at. This is one of the roads that Marxism Today went down, and as such it's all the more suprising to see an SWPer doing it...indeed claiming that it is the way the SWP as an organisation understands class politics in the 1980s.

Cheers - Louis Mac


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 19, 2004)

ResistanceMP3 said:
			
		

> Hello Joe black;
> 
> You have made several good posts that I would like to respond to, but to keep things on track of what I was aiming for, can I respond to them later when the thread is dead?
> 
> ...


 But you framed the discussion that you claim that you wanted within an acceptance of the downturn/upturn theory - for people who don't accept that theory to contribute they would have to deal with why they believed the theory is wrong - or you would simply just refer them back to your original post with its assumptions about the last 30 years. You can't base a point on something fundamental but then refuse to discuss that basis.


----------



## october_lost (Nov 19, 2004)

Why for smeg's sake do we need a revolutionary party?


----------



## JoeBlack (Nov 19, 2004)

ResistanceMP3 said:
			
		

> Hello Joe black



This obviously was posted when I was composing my last reply and I'm inclined to agree that the thread is being derailed a bit into a discussion on the 'downturn theory'.  

But leaving the specifics aside can you not see the problem with a revolutionary organistion (any revolutionary organisation) that sees the revolution being dependant on the brilliant ideas the leadership can pull out of their heads.  And that the leadership need not dirty their hands with any demonstration of an objective measure of these theories, they are simply true because they say they are.

Many years of observing the SWP and their take on Leninist history makes it apparent that this is not only the strategy today but that they have attempted to rewrite the Russian revolution into that strategy.  And unfortunatly because of the strength of Bookmarks this version of history (which is idealist) has really begun to seep into the left in general.

I actually prefer the Orthodox trot fixation on program to this 'what the leader dreamed last night' approach precisely because the leaders dreams demands the removal of amy collective memory/analysis of what he dreamed last decade and what actually happened.  Weirdness like Respect is one consequence of this.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Nov 19, 2004)

JoeBlack.  Like I say, you made several interesting posts with points I would like to respond to.  You seem to listen to what being said, and ask intuitive questions.  I don't think I will ever convince you, like me you have too well a established worldview ideology, but at least you'll better understand what you're in reality attacking. But there is no rush, so can I respond later?

Frats, Rmp3


----------



## nightbreed (Nov 19, 2004)

cockneyrebel said:
			
		

> Can any SWPer explain to me the down turn theory? As said how would it have been a down turn if the miner's had won? The opposite would have been the case and the UK would look very different today.
> 
> I presume the SWP didn't think the miner's were going to inevitably lose?



The SWP were so obsessed with the downturn theory that one month before the miners strike happened , Duncan Hallas saw the prospect as unlikely. When the miners did walk out at Cortonwood, they were caught completely by surprise.
If you look at the 80s as a whole , whole layers of the working class were involved in dispute in one way or another.From Nurses, civil servants and teachers to seamen, railwayworkers ,printers and of course the miners. 
The SWP were not very close to any of their predictions which to me were  not based on marxist analysis. For instance , Tony Cliff  ridiculed the poll tax disputes in Scotland at first , by refering as the non-payment campaign as
'trying to catch a bus without paying the fare'!!! How wrong he and his organisation ended up.


----------



## scawenb (Nov 19, 2004)

poster342002 said:
			
		

> Errr not so fast there, mate. Those struggles did (and still do) need to be fought. But the often embarresingly crass "top down" way in which they were fought by middle-class trendies with large-framed glasses and long jumpers saying the word "concerned" a lot did no end of damage to those same struggles and the rest of the class struggle as a whole IMO.


So the Chartists were just a bunch of middle class tossers along with those in the East End fighting fascism, the hunger marches were full of bespectacled jumper-wearers as were those fighting deportation or defending their communities from police attack in 1981 & 1984, the "top down" fight which burnt down prisons or opposed paying the poll tax, the "concerned" who fought back in Soweto, Derry and everywhere else Britain had an interest plus the numerous strike which have been about more than just working conditions.

Of course, the British Trade Unions are not "top down" middle class "concerned" who have never done any damage to the rest of the class struggle.

Still no answer to the question of whether the regulatory function of trade unions is revolutionary?


----------



## JoeBlack (Nov 19, 2004)

ResistanceMP3 said:
			
		

> I don't think I will ever convince you, like me you have too well a established worldview ideology, but at least you'll better understand what you're in reality attacking. But there is no rush, so can I respond later?



Sure, I mostly post in the quiet bits in work so its not like I'm going anywhere.

And I regularly change my mind as a result on discussion - its just I do so at a fairly slow rate.  I wouldn't bother otherwise.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 19, 2004)

Nice pat on the head thefor you there Joe:

"You seem to listen to what being said, and ask intuitive questions"

No book learnin' for you!


----------



## JoeBlack (Nov 19, 2004)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> Nice pat on the head thefor you there Joe:



Thats cause I'm a good boy and I don't disrupt the class like certain bad boys.

Which is funny because its not what I was like in school 
(my mother had dug out a load of old primary school reports when I was visiting the other night - now that was a weird experience.)


----------



## levien (Nov 19, 2004)

*Down turn up turn dobly do....*

As I understand it the down turn theory came to be based on observations made  gradually after 1968 centring primarily around the strength and confidence of shop stewards and the relationship of that to the labour party.  Cliffs writings go into the strength of the shop stewards 1930-68 as do other sources (esp Toryish books) and how that fuelled the power and confidence of the w/c generally.  In the early 70's IS experience with the shopstewards movement started to bring mixed messages back to the party about what was happening within the w/c.  The link between the shop stewards and the rank and file was weakening and the politcal leadership within the movement was dominated by Labourism making any challenge to this difficult.  The number of w/c activists who understood this were to few and two late alowing an objective change in the w/c to take place strengthening the labour party linked bueaucracacys and weaking the rank and file.  This allowed the bosses (and the Labour party in particular) to lay the seeds of sectionalism that would prove deverstating during the miners strike.

The SWP didn't recognise this theory until the 80's nor did cliff fully form it till this point.  This objective weakening of the rank and file and the domination of CP & LP influence lead to a collapse in w'/c strength shown clearly in how the miners were isolated and defeated.  The bosses where on the attack.  Activists failing to win industrially fled to a more green pasture and fought politically within the LP but coming from the colapsing of thir real strength this was bound to end in a rout.  And both did but that is not to say the miners strike defeat was inevitable.  They were still a strong group of workers and the SWP threw its self into miners support and solidarity work with an exaplanation of what was happening and what must happen to bring victory - allowing the swp to win activists and understand the general picture.

On the up turn and slow years later - off to a anti war protest!


----------



## TremulousTetra (Nov 19, 2004)

JoeBlack said:
			
		

> Thats cause I'm a good boy and I don't disrupt the class like certain bad boys.
> 
> Which is funny because its not what I was like in school
> (my mother had dug out a load of old primary school reports when I was visiting the other night - now that was a weird experience.)


sorry, i was trying to pay a compliment to someone who talks/debates, instead of bickering. bickering seems common to many forums, something about the medium imho.

I have listened to your crticisms, and will try ti intuitively answer. 

Rmp3


----------



## behemoth (Nov 19, 2004)

The Redgraves are forming a new revolutionary party.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/4025879.stm

How can they field three candidates with just two members?


----------



## october_lost (Nov 20, 2004)

weve already had a thread on the down-turn theory, and as typical swp hacks couldnt defend their shit then either....


----------



## TremulousTetra (Nov 21, 2004)

october_lost said:
			
		

> weve already had a thread on the down-turn theory, and as typical swp hacks couldnt defend their shit then either....


lol did you spend the whole thread attacking the wrong theory like in this one? 

If a quantitative analysis that a downturn occurred in 1974-79 "beggars belief”, shouldn’t that have sounded alarm bells that quantitative analysis may NOT have been what the author meant?  Every book should have a authors health warning IMO; “Do my words really mean what they say,,,,,, to YOU?” 

IMHO readers do not merely reflect what the author has written, just like changes in the base are not merely reflected in the superstructure.

Surely the reader 1st mediates what they read through their already assembled consciousness, secondly they react to what they read?  Is it possible the socialist outlook reader, like so many others, imposed his/her understanding of the theory, and then used this imposed understanding to consolidate their already assembled consciousness, that Cliff was wrong?  It wouldn’t be the first time in history someone has done something like that.

Likewise, anyone who suggests that the superstructure merely reflects what’s going on in the base, or vice versa, IMHO does not understand base and structure theory. A mirror reflects what it sees, passively unchanging.  Base and superstructure are A living thing, our society.  Base and superstructure are A,  contradictory whole which is dynamic, ever changing. There is no relationship between a person’s face and a mirror, but there is a dynamic antagonistic, contradictory relationship between base and superstructure.  Only an understanding of it as a DYNAMIC RELATIONSHIP can explain social evolution, surely?

__________________
Respect, ResistanceMP3. 

Every post should have a authors health warning; “Do my words mean what they say,,,,,, to YOU?”


----------



## TremulousTetra (Nov 21, 2004)

levien said:
			
		

> As I understand it the down turn theory came to be based on observations made  gradually after 1968 centring primarily around the strength and confidence of shop stewards and the relationship of that to the labour party.  Cliffs writings go into the strength of the shop stewards 1930-68 as do other sources (esp Toryish books) and how that fuelled the power and confidence of the w/c generally.  In the early 70's IS experience with the shopstewards movement started to bring mixed messages back to the party about what was happening within the w/c.  The link between the shop stewards and the rank and file was weakening and the politcal leadership within the movement was dominated by Labourism making any challenge to this difficult.  The number of w/c activists who understood this were to few and two late alowing an objective change in the w/c to take place strengthening the labour party linked bueaucracacys and weaking the rank and file.  This allowed the bosses (and the Labour party in particular) to lay the seeds of sectionalism that would prove deverstating during the miners strike.
> 
> The SWP didn't recognise this theory until the 80's nor did cliff fully form it till this point.  This objective weakening of the rank and file and the domination of CP & LP influence lead to a collapse in w'/c strength shown clearly in how the miners were isolated and defeated.  The bosses where on the attack.  Activists failing to win industrially fled to a more green pasture and fought politically within the LP but coming from the colapsing of thir real strength this was bound to end in a rout.  And both did but that is not to say the miners strike defeat was inevitable.  They were still a strong group of workers and the SWP threw its self into miners support and solidarity work with an exaplanation of what was happening and what must happen to bring victory - allowing the swp to win activists and understand the general picture.
> 
> On the up turn and slow years later - off to a anti war protest!


Spot on!    

I couldn't remember earlier where I had gleaned this understanding from, but I think now probably "a Marxist history of the labor party " by Tony cliff and Donny Gluckstien, best delineates this perspective , yes?

But like JoeBlack I think there may be problems with upturn theory.  And I initiated the thread, pming chuck,because he too expressed reservations about up turn theory in a a thread a monthish ago.  I titled the thread the way I did, and couched the initial post, so as to give a basis for discussion so those who believe in the necessity for a revolutionary organization, could discuss a revolutionary organization and its relationship to the historical circumstances of the last decade.  It might be interesting if you and some other S. W. [+ X members bolshieboy  ], might be prepared to discuss the upturn theory.  



__________________
Respect, ResistanceMP3. 

PS. How this thread can be 





> Originally Posted by Louis MacNeice
> Your latest thread on building a revolutionary org, where you seem to be trying to convince yourself that all of your party's twists and turns have been correct, is evidence of this.
> 
> Louis Mac


 is beyond me.
orginal post>



			
				ResistanceMP3 said:
			
		

> The party is now reorganizing again.  It is seeking to do what it has failed to do for a decade.  To try and create some sort of cohesive party organization, that can act in totally disjointed historical circumstances.  How is that to be done?
> 
> I don’t know.


"FAILED To do for a decade"!  perhaps every post should have a authors health warning; “Do my words mean what they say,,,,,, to YOU?”


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 21, 2004)

And you would presumably expect that one side of this dynamic relationship would be reflected in some manner in the other - in this case it isn't (and your summation of the theory effectively _seperates_ them anyway). Which, if you wish to be consistent, would lead to you discarding the theory as having no expalanatory power at all - to cling to it, despite it it being shown to be incorrect by _ your own criteria_ (dynamic feedback bewteen the two levels etc) is to simply argue that you (or Cliff, or The Party) can say anything you like, no matter what the concrete evidence as it reflects the qualitive conditions. As becomes clear was the intention following a close reading of your original post and esp the subsequent attempts at defending it.

You have not deepened anything with your last post, you've just _thrown away_ the quantative component - and you've thrown it away because reality didn't fit with the theory - but you can't admit that the theory was wrong, so you've taken the Brechtian*/Stalinist option and decided that reality must be altered to fit in with the theory. This is an absurd way to try and analyse things. Madness.

Anyway, enough of this primitive base/superstructure 1930s crap from me.

*After the uprising of the 17th June
The Secretary of the Writers Union
Had leaflets distributed in the Stalinallee
Stating that the people
Had forfeited the confidence of the government
And could win it back only
By redoubled efforts. Would it not be easier
In that case for the government
To dissolve the people
And elect another?


----------



## TremulousTetra (Nov 21, 2004)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> And you would presumably expect that one side of this dynamic relationship would be reflected in some manner in the other - in this case it isn't (and your summation of the theory effectively _seperates_ them anyway). Which, if you wish to be consistent, would lead to you discarding the theory as having no expalanatory power at all - to cling to it, despite it it being shown to be incorrect by _ your own criteria_ (dynamic feedback bewteen the two levels etc) is to simply argue that you (or Cliff, or The Party) can say anything you like, no matter what the concrete evidence as it reflects the qualitive conditions. As becomes clear was the intention following a close reading of your original post and esp the subsequent attempts at defending it.
> 
> You have not deepened anything with your last post, you've just _thrown away_ the quantative component - and you've thrown it away because reality didn't fit with the theory - but you can't admit that the theory was wrong, so you've taken the Brechtian*/Stalinist option and decided that reality must be altered to fit in with the theory. This is an absurd way to try and analyse things. Madness.
> 
> ...


lol, I said dynamic, not bloody instantaneous.  Read my thread above where I talk about the labor movement foundering upon the rock of the 1974 -79 labor government, and the subsequent Bennism, steel strike , and miners strike etc. being the reaction in the base.  

__________________
Respect, ResistanceMP3. 

Every post should have a authors health warning; “Do my words mean what they say,,,,,, to YOU?”


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 21, 2004)

I have read it - and it think your point is incoherent, and undermines itself - and you would simply not take seriously had it came from anyone but Cliff/your own Party. And no wonder as it's so flimsy, easily disproven and transparently driven by the internal needs of the Party, and more specfically by the factional needs of the then Party leader.

You seem to have some sort of fetish about other people misreading what you write, but make little effort to try and grasp other peoples posts - you've not really came back on any of the points raised in reply to you other than to say - but 'that's not what i meant'. Maybe not, but it is what you've wrote. Read back your own posts (maybe before you post them).

(BTW - All these criticisms apply to the up-turn as well - probably even more acutely)


----------



## TremulousTetra (Nov 21, 2004)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> I have read it - and it think your point is incoherent, and undermines itself - and you would simply not take seriously had it came from anyone but Cliff/your own Party. And no wonder as it's so flimsy, easily disproven and transparently driven by the internal needs of the Party, and more specfically by the factional needs of the then Party leader.
> 
> You seem to have some sort of fetish about other people misreading what you write, but make little effort to try and grasp other peoples posts - you've not really came back on any of the points raised in reply to you other than to say - but 'that's not what i meant'. Maybe not, but it is what you've wrote. Read back your own posts (maybe before you post them).
> 
> (BTW - All these criticisms apply to the up-turn as well - probably even more acutely)


I hold my hands up.  I'm always prepared to accept I'm fallible, and misunderstood what you've said. And perhap's if you had done the same, instead of telling me what I think, we might have got somewhere. As it is I've give up.  I'll just respond to the bits of your post which add to my discussion with other people.

No ill feelings comrade.  Social revolution, is social evolution, and diversity in social thought is as important in social evolution, as diversity of species is in natural evolution.  Good look in building the anarchist movement.    

Frats Rmp3


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 21, 2004)

Ok - fair play, i'm too busy for a proper argument atm anyway!


----------



## Chuck Wilson (Nov 21, 2004)

Implicit in the down turn theory was the theory of the rank and file organisation its independence from then trade union leadership and its ability to act independently.In that sense there is acse that that level of organisation was declining in the late 70s.Collegues shoulkd remember that IS had built a small but significant intervention amongst militants involved in rank and file action in the early and mid 70s.Other groups such as the IMG etc had looked to recruit from the 'isms' and I can remember (as I window shopped the left organisations) going to an IS meeting where when someone raised a query about imperialism and womens liberation and was told 'lets leave that to sort of thing to the IMG.Having later shared a squat with three IMG members I was reassured that they had indeed somewhat of a monopoly of concern for topics like this and after attending some candidate members meetings  joined IS/SWP.

There is no doubt in my mind that the SWP had an industrial base that allowed them to be the main opposition to the CP's Liason Committee for the Defence of Trade Unions despite losing a layer of experienced comrades around 1972.The WRP's All Trade Union Alliance did have a working class activist membership but in true pure Trot  fashion existed in a world of its own inhabited only by its front organisations and paranoia of other rival counter revolutionary groups and the state.

The early to mid 80s saw defeat after defeat after defeat for not only the rank andfile but for the trade union leadership themselves.Cliff described the Tories tactics as the 'salami tactic' in which theyn sliced off trade unions one by one. The Trade union leadership and sections of former militants increasingly backed getting the Labour Party reelected as the only tactic in reversing this decline.

it isn't the case that the Labour Party has been seen as right wing by a coherent opposition being built within the working class whose politics are in such a sharp and abrupt contrast with it. Instead the Labour Party shifted right supported by a layer of previoius activists who were by now determined to smash any opposition to the project of New Labour.

IS/SWPs  reliance on rank and file trade union activity as being the only barometer for class struggle meant that as long as the level of trade union  membership kept falling and the levelof strikes full stop kept falling that there could never be an upturn using the same definition.There is some truth in the arguement that , I think Ray puts across about the benefits of then down turn theory for the SWP as an organisation internally.However as I have described in previous posts the turn into insularity and a concentration on 'theory' and the reality of a downturn in industrial militancy meant that the organisation was late and initailly abstarct on both the miners strike and the poll tax and abstained from effective antifascist work.


----------



## october_lost (Nov 21, 2004)

ResistanceMP3 said:
			
		

> lol did you spend the whole thread attacking the wrong theory like in this one?


You can come out with all the witty remarks you want, but the fact remains the miners strike happened during the "down turn".
As Ive said numerous times everbody on the left jokes about this, but you fools cant see how stupid the theory actually is....


----------



## rebel warrior (Nov 21, 2004)

october_lost said:
			
		

> You can come out with all the witty remarks you want, but the fact remains the miners strike happened during the "down turn".
> As Ive said numerous times everbody on the left jokes about this, but you fools cant see how stupid the theory actually is....



I will read this thread and comment properly when I have more time, but this point about the miners strike happening in the downturn keeps popping up so I will try to deal with it.

Basically, the downturn theory did not say that there would not be struggle anymore - and that revolutionaries should not fight as hard as ever to support the struggles that did take place, but understand that the mood of the class in general was a defensive one.  Hence the miners strike was not one that saw the whole class go on the offensive - unfortunately and not to dismiss the solidarity of the labour movement that did take place and helped to keep the struggle going - but a *defensive bureaucratic mass strike*.  The Union bureaucracy was able to keep control of the thing, and in the end it tragically went down to defeat.  The downturn theory did not say it was inevitably going to be defeated as cockney implied - but the fact it was ultimately defeated does sort of validate the downturn theory, - sad but true.  

Now, there is not an 'upturn' as such in the industrial struggle yet - but a political and ideological upturn that those trying to build revolutionary organisations have to relate to, and try to help ensure an 'economic' upturn follows.


----------



## greenman (Nov 21, 2004)

Speaking from the point of view of one who was engaged in workplace, community and trades council based struggle in a mining community in the 1980s I have to say that the unfortunate effect of the "downturn" theory of our SWP comrades was to piss off, frustrate or disempower good activists.  

This was in an area where the SWP were the largest and most organised faction on the left, but did not have control over either the poll tax groups, miners support groups or trades council.

You basically had good working class activists suggesting actions and ways forward, only to be attacked and demobilised by an unholy alliance of SWPers fetishising the "downturn" and Euro-communists, tankies and soft labour, who all for their own reasons did not want any *serious* resistance to Thatcherism to get off the ground.  Many of these good activists were not "political animals" and so the effect of this was often to cause their eventual withdrawal from the field of struggle into private life.

Whatever you think about the downturn theory, in practice it objectively aided the negative effect of liquidationist euro-communism, new labour collaborationism and head-in-the-sand stalinism.  In other words it was another element of the left's own demobilisation and demoralisation of activists that took part in the post-miners strike period.  The miner's defeat made things difficult, doubtless, but in my personal experience these four currents listed above compounded and reinforced that feeling of defeat.


----------



## Groucho (Nov 21, 2004)

*The essence of stuff about Upturns & Downturns as understood by Grouchy*
*
1.* Any one dispute or struggle does not take part in a vaccuum but is influenced by the prevailing political mood and the _balance of class forces _ - relative strength of the bosses/Government verses the confidence and combativity of the working class.

*2.* The _political_ confidence of the working class and the _industrial _ combativity of the working class are related.

*3.* The upturns and downturns in the_ economy _ have an impact on working class militancy, strength and combativity.

There was undoubtedly a shift from high levels of confidence in the early 1970s characterised by victory to the lower levels of confidence in the late 1970s characterised by defeat, to the bitter defeats in the eighties to the stand-off in the nineties.

*History:* The rank and file in the form of the shop stewards movement was intact post WW2. The economic expansion in the post war period led toa kind of do it yourself reformism. The R&F through short sharp wild cat strikes won disputes hand over fist. The full time union bureaucrats played little role in many of these.  Social advance through political campaigning was also a feature in this period as ratified by law and Government. There was relative social concensus and reformism was strong and could claim to be working.

The beginnings of economic difficulties - the tailing off of the boom - saw a beginning of the slow down of reforms and the explosion of social movements demanding change at a faster rate than the system could or would afford to concede. By the early 1970s militant clas struggle saw a continuation of improvements in living standards at a time when bosses were trying to push back. The stakes were higher; do it yourself reformism no longer worked. There was a high level of solidarity and political generalisation: one out all out, never I mean NEVER cross a picket line. Massive generalisation. A miners strike brought down the Government. There was a split between the TU bureaucracy and the R&F - often bitter disputes ensued. The balance of power was with the R&F but victory in a harsher economic climate was now only possible through solidarity - joining together across industries in common class interests. This generalisation was thus industrial and political. Racism, sexism and other ruling class fostered ideologies were under attackand more and more were generalising leftwards. SWP initiated successful campaigns such as the Rank & File groups who formed an organised class conscious and influential body out of the most militant workers. 

The economic crises upped the stakes further. The ruling class acted through courts, the state - police, through the press etc to turn balance back in their favour. The economic downturn led there to be an army of unemployed workers and increasing job insecurity. Bitter disputes took place but began to be defeated. Solidarity became increasingly rare as in the harsher climate workers were less enclined to strike for fellow workers. Crucially the political deadweight of LP and CP was brought to bear, with TU bureaucracy succeeding in holding back struggle. Many shop stewards had enough allegience to LP or CP to accept their prognosis. CP stewards urged workers to cross picket lines - and succeeded. By the 'Winter of discontent' there were huge strikes against a Labour Government. They were defeated and many workers generalised politically in a right-wing direction. In the late 1970s the NF began to grow etc. and the idea that unions were a problem took hold among many. The right-wing became cocky.

Cliff argued in the late 1970s for the SWP to accept the changing balance of forces and that this would necessitate changes in the party operation. In retrospect it could be said the downturn started in the mid-seventies. (Decisions such as winding up the increasingly impotent and defunct Rank & File groups was taken).

The victory of Thatcher on a right-wing agenda, the scrapping of concensus showed the bosses were having all the laughs. Bitter disputes such as the print workers and miners were not workers going on the offensive but workers under attack desperately attempting to defend jobs and livleihoods. The stakes were high and industrial solidarity was essential to victory but was not forthcoming. many workers donated, there was plenty of low level solidarity but not joint action. During the miners strike, railworkers settled, Steel workers settled, dockers settled in disputes that could have opened a second front that Thatcher may not have survived. Had the miners won this could have been abreakthrough that ended the downturn. The defeat of the miners intrenched it. Workers started accepted defeats and job cuts often without a fight. The level of strikes declined. The political terrain moved rightwards.

After the defeat of Thatcher and Poll Tax in 1990 the Major Government was almost paralised and did very little apart from privatise the railways and talk to the IRA.

*Where are we now? Upturn, downturn, transitionary phase etc??*

In his last major speach Paul Foot earlier this year described the current situation unequivically as 'downturn'. We are not seeing a turn down - that happened late 1970s, still going down through 1980s. Since then in a fuckin' ditch would be a better description but we have seen the _beginnings of possibilties_ of our climbing out. 

Economically there has been a _slight upturn_. This could increase confidence, but the unemployment levels combined with casualisation mitigates the other way. The defeats of the eighties still bears down on union reps. The anti-union laws are largely complied with (in the 1970s 'upturn' attempts to introduce curbs on strikes were defeated by threats of general strikes. Thatcher succeeded in the 1980s 'downturn'.)  The levels of industrial action, though underestimated in calculations used, are still very low. BUT there have been a few significant victories. There have been illegal strikes in breach of the anti-union laws (these are not included in the figures!). Noteably in the post office. Attacks have in some cases been fended off successfully.  We have seen the largest political mobilisations ever. 

Either workers will fight - bringing strike levels, and political confidence up - or the political shift to the left will collapse at some point. There is simultaneously a growth of the right. Any predictions are not worth two shakes. 

To understand the period is key to how revolutionary organisations need to operate. Upturn/downturn is not something in the water or in the stars. These are changeable. A small revolutionary organisation cannot change downturn to upturn by willpower alone. One key breakthrough in this period though _could_ open the floodgates.

Forward to the upturn!!


----------



## Chuck Wilson (Nov 21, 2004)

ResistanceMP3 said:
			
		

> Hello Joe black;
> 
> You have made several good posts that I would like to respond to, but to keep things on track of what I was aiming for, can I respond to them later when the thread is dead?
> 
> ...




So if we could start all over again what would we do?

First of all I think the early 70s I.S. with its turn to industry ,not yet adopting the idea of building a party and a far more democratic regime (the national confrence and committee carried considerable more sway) was probably the IS/SWPs golden age.

No doubt that period in the 70s can be looked at nostagically but at the time there were a host of academics and politicians writing the working class off (embourgoisment theory,Crossland etc),there were still the cries of 'get back to russia' or what ever other horrible state cap they could think of, and the various 'isms' and the life style politics.

Somewhere in the early 90s there copuld have been an opportunity for relection inside the SWP instead of the constant scanning of the horizon for the next big thing.There was a small period where there was a push to get branches involved in local issues. (I had been attending a local meeting regarding the state of the local park and the Labour Council wanting to close the animal sanctuary that I used to take my son to and was very surprised that three SWP members turned up flogging the paper with no connections or prior knowledge and launched into an analysis of why Blair couldn't deliver etc) .Still an insular organisation from the downturn theory as a result of which its memership increasingly became more studenty and more detached from the local working class;the next big thing became bigger and bigger and until it was so big it was world politics.It seemed the less influence the SWP could have on the outcome the better the issue.Big tent politics I suppose.

I forget when the seamans strike was but Cliff had to come up  after my branch was reported for still pushing solidarity with the strikers rather than organising a public meeting on the russian revolution. I had known Cliff to say hallo to and chat to since my days at Tricos engineering, and he said to me 'did you join the party to collect money for strikers or to change the world?' When I said I thought we could do both it was no surprise that same evening that I was dropped from the conference slate.

I think it is true that there has been a decline in trade union membership, that there has been a decline in strikes,that there is no real labour movement.But the working class still exists and lives locally.The left ,including the SWP has deserted the local working class, a local working class with its dreary day today problems that take a lot of time to tackle, its not quite right views and a healthy suspicion of well educated articulate people who have only just moved in and don't look like they are staying.it's not to say that workers don't have views on world politics but is the working class the natural home of the current revo left?

Looking at the people on the SW banner headline, sorry but they don't look like the people who live near me or who I work with.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Nov 23, 2004)

Chuck Wilson said:
			
		

> So if we could start all over again what would we do?
> 
> First of all I think the early 70s I.S. with its turn to industry ,not yet adopting the idea of building a party and a far more democratic regime (the national confrence and committee carried considerable more sway) was probably the IS/SWPs golden age.


What I’m interested in here, is why did the swp adopt the idea of building a party?

On democracy.  I think you’d agree that the shrinking of the centre in the eighties was necessary. And you’ve already spoke about how there was a massive amount of debate about party politics and scrutiny of the party line in all branches, encouraged by the leadership.  I think this took to place of formal democratic structures.  However, I think it is a fair criticism that the swp has been slow to reintroduce formal democratic structures needed if there is to be a mass party. Party have eventually moved in that direction, whether those moves are good enough, or will go further, we will see.



> Somewhere in the early 90s there could have been an opportunity for relection inside the SWP instead of the constant scanning of the horizon for the next big thing.There was a small period where there was a push to get branches involved in local issues. (I had been attending a local meeting regarding the state of the local park and the Labour Council wanting to close the animal sanctuary that I used to take my son to and was very surprised that three SWP members turned up flogging the paper with no connections or prior knowledge and launched into an analysis of why Blair couldn't deliver etc) .Still an insular organisation from the downturn theory as a result of which its memership increasingly became more studenty and more detached from the local working class;the next big thing became bigger and bigger and until it was so big it was world politics.It seemed the less influence the SWP could have on the outcome the better the issue.Big tent politics I suppose.


 have to say I agree that swp has found it very difficult to throw off the party culture induced through the downturn.  I think the swp Tried very hard to retain as much cadre as possible from the eighties. Trying various twists and turns to break the self induced ‘sect’ culture. The last turn has seen a large number of eightie’s people leave. If it had carried on I do believe the swp would have disintegrated. However they’ve turned again.  In my area there aren’t many students. Mostly it’s eighties people, and new people. It is people who’ve managed to throw off the baggage of the eighties.  If you can get the mix right I do not think students are such a bad thing. Certainly a boon to us weary socialists.   And the students also played an important role in the working class movement of the sixties and seventies.







> I forget when the seaman’s strike was but Cliff had to come up  after my branch was reported for still pushing solidarity with the strikers rather than organising a public meeting on the russian revolution. I had known Cliff to say hallo to and chat to since my days at Tricos engineering, and he said to me 'did you join the party to collect money for strikers or to change the world?' When I said I thought we could do both it was no surprise that same evening that I was dropped from the conference slate.
> 
> I think it is true that there has been a decline in trade union membership, that there has been a decline in strikes,that there is no real labour movement.But the working class still exists and lives locally.The left ,including the SWP has deserted the local working class, a local working class with its dreary day today problems that take a lot of time to tackle, its not quite right views and a healthy suspicion of well educated articulate people who have only just moved in and don't look like they are staying.it's not to say that workers don't have views on world politics but is the working class the natural home of the current revo left?
> 
> Looking at the people on the SW banner headline, sorry but they don't look like the people who live near me or who I work with.



I have been thinking about responding to this post for a couple of days.  What I got stuck on, was the bit about you falling out because of ‘supporting a strike’.  

I was a bit surprised to read this, considering over the last ten years I’ve probably been supporting a strike once a month on average.  But then I noticed on my last reading, the word “still” supporting the seamans strike.  And this seems to me, possibly, to tie it in to your attitude about “big tent politics”. 

I’m guessing that you were “still” supporting the Seamans strike when in fact it was defeated, yes?  I’m guessing that you were supporting local park issue, even though it was not a mass ACTIVELY supported campaign in your area, yes?  And you know such loytalty deserves RESPECT.  But it also has to be said that that is a political strategy decision.  A decision that the swp had made many years earlier.  A decision about the first question on this post.  “What I’m interested in here, is why did the swp adopt the idea of building a party?”  <I think we will disagree about this, but if you’re interested that is the direction I would like the discussion to look at first.

I think I’m going to agree with you about many of the mistakes, and weaknesses of the swp over the last decade. But possibly disagree about the solutions.

Frats Rmp3


----------



## Chuck Wilson (Nov 23, 2004)

ResistanceMP3 said:
			
		

> What I’m interested in here, is why did the swp adopt the idea of building a party?
> 
> On democracy.  I think you’d agree that the shrinking of the centre in the eighties was necessary. And you’ve already spoke about how there was a massive amount of debate about party politics and scrutiny of the party line in all branches, encouraged by the leadership.  I think this took to place of formal democratic structures.  However, I think it is a fair criticism that the swp has been slow to reintroduce formal democratic structures needed if there is to be a mass party. Party have eventually moved in that direction, whether those moves are good enough, or will go further, we will see.
> 
> ...



I will have a think and reply to the big question although to be honest at the time I joined I wasn't aware of the whole significance of the arguement in moving to a party. I joined for activity and anything that stopped the activity ie like arguing over structures etc I saw as timewasting and a diversion from getting drunk on political activity.

The point of the example of the supporting the seamans strike was the fact it was still going on but the party leadership felt it was past its sell by date and that the branch needed to 'shift its emphasis'. In other words the 'big ideas' were more important than the collecting for strikers. I am sure at the end of the day they are to the party but equally sure that this is a more delicate mix for the strikers.

The 'big ideas' and the constant focus on building the party produced some of the worst apparachniks that I felt embarassed what I thought the organisation that had at its soul ie 'revolution from below '. At a branch meeting in Kilburn a particular comrade ( who I think had made a consciousss decsion at that point never to work) startled a number of us , when introducing a topic on an anti deportation campaign we were in , when he answered the rhetorical question 'why are we in this campaign' with the answer 'to recruit, at the end of the day it doesn't matter if she is deported'
Which again is abstractly true for the party but not the point where our intervention should start from.

I am not anti student, I went to PNL as a mature student myself and met quite a few ex SWP members and contacts including ex building workers and engineers who had done the same. But it is one thing to allow students to join and another to be  led by a national and local leadership of ex students who very often have spent more time working for the party than they have with the working class. 

A fond memory I have was in a pub in Rusholme when after yet another set piece with the student 'cadre' at the Manchester Poly, I asked one of them (who was harranging me over watching boxing I think) if she wanted a drink. After buying her a dounble JD and coke ( I had been expecting a somewhat more grateful and conservative request for half a mild) then sat down and lectured me on 'the real world' before announcing that she was off to Xmas with her mum to China.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Nov 25, 2004)

Hello chuck;

Thought I would give my answer to the question above.  

It seems to me that the socialist workers party made a lot of mistakes in the seventies.  One was the attitude to women.  Thankfully, the party learned from this mistake, and there are probably as many women members as men now.

Another mistake, which I think cliff in particular most bitterly regretted, was not recognizing the downturn earlier. The party regretted a loss of a lot of members to Bennism. This has had affects on theorizing in the nineteen nineties about upturn in my opinion, but it also had an effect on “turning to building the party”.

In my opinion my question above, “ why did S. W. turn to building the party”, is very important to understanding many of the criticisms of S. W.

Many of the anarchists and others criticize the S. W. “building S. W. before the movement”. Many believe that S. W. is not interested in building the movement at all, only in building S. W.. This leads some to believe in conspiracy theories about state control of S. W.. Or to other theories about S. W. been driven by ego’s, or a desire for power and and financial betterment in a worker’s states where S. W. members will be the new ruling class. However, it has to be said there is a big element of truth in the accusations. S. W. does recruit more aggressively than any other organization. Though I do not subscribe to the kind of statement you gave above about the anti deportations campaign, I must admit to having felt a little embarrassed at times at the amount of emphasis I have put myself on recruitment. But then the logic of recruitment placates this embarrassment and drives me on.

I think by any measure the labor government of 1974 – 79 was a watershed in British working class history. I would go so far to say that that government broke the confidence of the reformist working class consciousness, and laid the foundations for Thatcherism. Some 90%, including the communist party, of the working class organization had no other strategy beyond reformism. There was no serious alternative numerically strong enough to offer an alternative of revolution.  Social evolution abhors stasis.  And given the choice between reaction, and nothing else, the working class own mass chose reaction. No matter how many brave fights were fought, and how much revulsion was expressed about Thatcher, the fact of the matter remains that working class votes were absolutely key to eighteen years of Tory rule.  The total lack of working class leadership meant that a large swathe of working class people did not BELIEVE there was any alternative to “ you cannot buck the market".  

I think few on here may doubt there will be other situations in Britain where “ the ruling class is no longer able to rule in the same way, and the working class is no longer prepared to be ruled in the same way", a revolutionary crisis.  The absolute key lesson of the nineteen seventies was a purely practical question.  If you are not big enough to influence the working class movement, if you are not big enough to connect with the millions of workers, there will be no revolution.  

And so yes S. W. is obsessed with recruitment.  And rightly so in my opinion.  The tiny leftist movement in Britain today makes me wish all leftist organizations were obsessed too.  This aim does not detract from the working class movement, in fact quite the opposite.  If you want to recruit, then you want as many opportunities as possible.  This means you are always trying to involve as many people as possible.  You are always trying to create mass movements.  You are always trying to encourage the self activity of the working class.  And every time you recruit more people, the more you are able to connect with the working class here and now, and create a virtuous cycle of recruitment and increased self activity of the working class.  These recruitment to the party/movement, can be/should be mutually beneficial actions.  

If we don’t build a mass leftist organization big enough to influence the working class in a revolutionary crisis how else can there be a revolution? 

Respect, resistancemp3


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Nov 25, 2004)

ResistanceMP3 said:
			
		

> The absolute key lesson of the nineteen seventies was a purely practical question.  If you are not big enough to influence the working class movement, if you are not big enough to connect with the millions of workers, there will be no revolution.
> 
> And so yes S. W. is obsessed with recruitment.  And rightly so in my opinion.  The tiny leftist movement in Britain today makes me wish all leftist organizations were obsessed too.  This aim does not detract from the working class movement, in fact quite the opposite.  If you want to recruit, then you want as many opportunities as possible.  This means you are always trying to involve as many people as possible.  You are always trying to create mass movements.  You are always trying to encourage the self activity of the working class.  And every time you recruit more people, the more you are able to connect with the working class here and now, and create a virtuous cycle of recruitment and increased self activity of the working class.  These recruitment to the party/movement, can be/should be mutually beneficial actions.
> 
> ...



So working class self activity is the key to transforming society...oh no it's the existence of a sufficiently large revolutionary party. I think I detect the dialectic at work again here!  

Cheers - Louis Mac


----------



## Groucho (Nov 25, 2004)

Louis MacNeice said:
			
		

> So working class self activity is the key to transforming society...oh no it's the existence of a sufficiently large revolutionary party. I think I detect the dialectic at work again here!
> 
> Cheers - Louis Mac



Party AND class.  And party only as 'vanguard' to use an outmoded term _of the _ class, not separate. And there can be no 'vanguard' unless it is connected to the 'rearguard'.  Never party OVER class.


----------



## JoeBlack (Nov 25, 2004)

Groucho said:
			
		

> Party AND class.  And party only as 'vanguard' to use an outmoded term _of the _ class, not separate. And there can be no 'vanguard' unless it is connected to the 'rearguard'.  Never party OVER class.



Trotsky at the 10party congress in 1921 speaking of the Workers Opposition
"They have come out with dangerous slogans. They have made a fetish of democratic principles. They have placed the workers' right to elect representatives above the Party. As if the Party were not entitled to assert its dictatorship even if that dictatorship temporarily clashed with the passing moods of the workers' democracy !" Trotsky spoke of the "revolutionary historical birthright of the Party''. ''The Party is obliged to maintain its dictatorship . . . regardless of temporary vacillations even in the working class. . . The dictatorship does not base itself at every given moment on the formal principle of a workers' democracy. . . "
http://www.spunk.org/texts/places/russia/sp001861/1921.html


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Nov 25, 2004)

Groucho said:
			
		

> Party AND class.  And party only as 'vanguard' to use an outmoded term _of the _ class, not separate. And there can be no 'vanguard' unless it is connected to the 'rearguard'.  Never party OVER class.



As Joe has just elequently pointed out, while it may be rhetorically party and class, when push comes to shove it is party then class. At least Trotsky is honestly following the logic of vaguardism.

Louis Mac


----------



## JoeBlack (Nov 25, 2004)

ResistanceMP3 said:
			
		

> But then the logic of recruitment placates this embarrassment and drives me on.



Recognition that recrutiment has a dynamic of its own it a good starting point




			
				ResistanceMP3 said:
			
		

> The total lack of working class leadership meant that a large swathe of working class people did not BELIEVE there was any alternative to “ you cannot buck the market".



Nope - the reason why people believed this was because lots of 'working class leadership' had spent the previous decades telling those who listened that either social democracy or leninism was a workable alternative.  When both these went into melt down there was no alternative (that many people knew about).

But lets dig deeper

The bigger problem was that in the decades before this lots of socialist activists had followed the logic of recruitment and so refused to take any criticism of their parties politics seriously.  Tiny groups of splitters could be ignored the point was the exciting times we were living in comrades and the promise of a socialist 80's.  Now as the time to look outwards and leave the sectarians behind etc etc




			
				ResistanceMP3 said:
			
		

> If we don’t build a mass leftist organization big enough to influence the working class in a revolutionary crisis how else can there be a revolution?



Thats a valid question the problem is the assumption that the current mini mass organisation is going to pull the fight answers our of its arse 'in a revolutionary crisis' or indeed that the working class would listen.

The track record of the SWP is craven opportunism (Respect anyone) in the hope of 'building the party'.  All its major decisions have been shortsighted party building exercises at the expense of the movement.

Or in other words the 'the logic of recruitment' is a two sided sword and you liable to cut your own head off with the sharp side you have not yet noticed.  The other side your slashing at capitalism bit is actually blunt and rusty.


----------



## scawenb (Nov 25, 2004)

Talk of building the Party and being at the Vanguard of the mass movement of the revolutionary working class sounds like nonsense at the present.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Nov 26, 2004)

scawenb said:
			
		

> Talk of building the Party and being at the Vanguard of the mass movement of the revolutionary working class sounds like nonsense at the present.


So what are you saying here?  That revolutionaries should wait until there is a revolution before they try to intervene?

I see it more as a symbiotic relationship.  Revolutionary party feeds the growth of the movement and vice versa.

Rmp3


----------



## scawenb (Nov 26, 2004)

ResistanceMP3 said:
			
		

> So what are you saying here?  That revolutionaries should wait until there is a revolution before they try to intervene?
> 
> I see it more as a symbiotic relationship.  Revolutionary party feeds the growth of the movement and vice versa.


What I'm saying is revolutionaries have to build a movement before the idea of a Vanguard Party leading it makes any sense.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Nov 26, 2004)

JoeBlack said:
			
		

> Recognition that recrutiment has a dynamic of its own it a good starting point


 <  
But the best way to recruit is by achieving people's aims [Which because revolutionaries are working class too, is in our interest too ].  Therefore it is a virtuous cycle, a symbiotic relationship as said.  





> Nope - the reason why people believed this was because lots of 'working class leadership' had spent the previous decades telling those who listened that either social democracy or leninism was a workable alternative.  When both these went into melt down there was no alternative (that many people knew about).


Who was advocating lennism? Only a tiny tiny minority.  The vast majority were advocating reformism.  



> But lets dig deeper
> 
> The bigger problem was that in the decades before this lots of socialist activists had followed the logic of recruitment and so refused to take any criticism of their parties politics seriously.  Tiny groups of splitters could be ignored the point was the exciting times we were living in comrades and the promise of a socialist 80's.  Now as the time to look outwards and leave the sectarians behind etc etc


Maybe.




> Thats a valid question the problem is the assumption that the current mini mass organisation is going to pull the fight answers our of its arse 'in a revolutionary crisis' or indeed that the working class would listen.
> 
> The track record of the SWP is craven opportunism (Respect anyone) in the hope of 'building the party'.  All its major decisions have been shortsighted party building exercises at the expense of the movement.
> 
> Or in other words the 'the logic of recruitment' is a two sided sword and you liable to cut your own head off with the sharp side you have not yet noticed.  The other side your slashing at capitalism bit is actually blunt and rusty.


Maybe.  Maybe not.  

The short sighted aim for S. W. has to be how best to win the fight here and now.  For if we win the fight here and now the more likely we are to be listened to and recruit.  S. W. is always saying to the members "we have to fight in the here and now, proving that we are the best".

You said my question was a valid question, but you never answered it.

Why didn't the anarchist movement lead , connect, or how ever you do it, intervene to create revolution in the nineteen seventies?  And seeing as we all failed, what have you learned to improve so we don't fail in the future?  

Frats Rmp3


----------



## Groucho (Nov 26, 2004)

scawenb said:
			
		

> What I'm saying is revolutionaries have to build a movement before the idea of a Vanguard Party leading it makes any sense.



The SWP are not claiming to be leading the movement, still less that there exists a revolutionary movement of the working class.  Nor does the SWP claim that the SWP is the organisation that will lead the revolution; rather the SWP is an party which seeks to help build such organisation.

But, as RMP3 says, building a party dedicated to revolution and building the movement go hand in hand. You can do one without the other, but not to reach a successful conclusion.

There is a vaguely constituted international anti-capitalist movement within which the International Socialist Tendancy (which the SWP are part of) plays a minor but important role. There is an anti-war movement in which the IST in Britain and a few other countries such as Greece plays a significant role. But in no sense are we leading the movement.


----------



## cockneyrebel (Nov 26, 2004)

Would you really describe the SWP as “a party”? I thought the definition of a revolutionary party was that it had a significant part to play in the working class and was a significant part of the class? Are you really suggesting that 1000 odd members and fuck all representation in the trade unions meets this criteria? Surely the SWP is a “fighting propaganda group” (to use one of those catchy Marxist terms)…..

And do people in the SWP still use that cultish term “the party” when they talk…I’m sure I’ve seen people on U75 do it….


----------



## Groucho (Nov 26, 2004)

JoeBlack said:
			
		

> The bigger problem was that in the decades before this lots of socialist activists had followed the logic of recruitment and so refused to take any criticism of their parties politics seriously.  Tiny groups of splitters could be ignored the point was the exciting times we were living in comrades and the promise of a socialist 80's.  Now as the time to look outwards and leave the sectarians behind etc etc.



I certainly do not agree that the biggest problem was a failure to indulge in (what would have been) pointless and sectarian discussions with small groups of would be revolutionaries. No-one promised a socialist 80's (there may have been times in the early seventies where this seemed possible though).





			
				JoeBlack said:
			
		

> Thats a valid question the problem is the assumption that the current mini mass organisation is going to pull the fight answers out of its arse 'in a revolutionary crisis' or indeed that the working class would listen.
> .



There is no such assumption. We are far from either a revolutionary crisis (not as far as many think perhaps, but far enough) and we are far from having built the organisation(s) capable of taking forward the revolutionary process to a succesful outcome. A start has been made is all. 




			
				JoeBlack said:
			
		

> The track record of the SWP is craven opportunism (Respect anyone) in the hope of 'building the party'.  All its major decisions have been shortsighted party building exercises at the expense of the movement.



Not at all true. Indeed, if anything, building the wider movement (RESPECT, STWC etc) has been somewhat at the expense of building the party IMO. (Not that I see that as having been wholly undesirable - I certainly support these initiatives.) 

However, in disagreeing I am not dismissing the fact that there have been times when the SWP has been guilty of sectarianism, but that has never been a feature of the organisation.


----------



## Groucho (Nov 26, 2004)

cockneyrebel said:
			
		

> Would you really describe the SWP as “a party”? I thought the definition of a revolutionary party was that it had a significant part to play in the working class and was a significant part of the class? Are you really suggesting that 1000 odd members and fuck all representation in the trade unions meets this criteria? Surely the SWP is a “fighting propaganda group” (to use one of those catchy Marxist terms)…..
> 
> And do people in the SWP still use that cultish term “the party” when they talk…I’m sure I’ve seen people on U75 do it….



I am afraid you significantly underestimate the SWP membership. The SWP does not claim to be anything other than it is (the smallest mass party in the world?). FA representation in the TUs is not correct either. Neither is SWP influence insignificant.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 26, 2004)

How many members then Groucho? How many more then 1000 - and on what are you basing your answer.


----------



## Groucho (Nov 26, 2004)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> How many members then Groucho? How many more then 1000 - and on what are you basing your answer.



Significantly more than 1,000 but not nearly so many as we would like.

Sorry, but that is all you are getting. At least for now.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 26, 2004)

Less than 18 000?


----------



## cockneyrebel (Nov 26, 2004)

But the SWP isn’t a mass anything. It’s tiny.

The left hasn’t got a significant foot hold in any union outside the PCS and even there the rank and file is still very weak. The SWP has fuck all influence on the trade unions and you know it.

Most working class people have never even heard of the SWP let alone know what you’re about. How are you anything but insignificant in the working class?

And if you have significantly more than a 1000 members, where are they all? Why have you only got about 15-20 active members in Leeds? Why do you south London “super forums” only get 20-25 people for them when they are for the whole of SE/SW London? Why does RESPECT only have about 3,000 paper members?

How, by any defintion, can you describe yourself as a "revolutionary party"?!


----------



## Groucho (Nov 26, 2004)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> Less than 18 000?



Yes, but I'm off for a bit now, so sadly won't be able to play the 'more than 3,000?  Less than 15,000?' and so on game, until we hit a figure down to the nearest decimal point (not that I know such an accurate figure anyway)


----------



## cockneyrebel (Nov 26, 2004)

I know you don't know an accurate figure, because the SWP hasn't got one because they know they're in a fucked up state at the moment, and wouldn't even release them to members at the best of times.


But as said, the picture of the SWP around the country shows you are tiny and insignificant in the wider picture....


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 26, 2004)

Groucho said:
			
		

> Yes, but I'm off for a bit now, so sadly won't be able to play the 'more than 3,000?  Less than 15,000?' and so on game, until we hit a figure down to the nearest decimal point (not that I know such an accurate figure anyway)



Well, 18 000 was a figure offered by one of your members a year or so ago on here - i wasn't actually playing that game.

Have a nice weekend 

(Udo/RW, that doesn't apply to you clowns).


----------



## TremulousTetra (Nov 28, 2004)

JoeBlack said:
			
		

> Trotsky at the 10party congress in 1921 speaking of the Workers Opposition
> "They have come out with dangerous slogans. They have made a fetish of democratic principles. They have placed the workers' right to elect representatives above the Party. As if the Party were not entitled to assert its dictatorship even if that dictatorship temporarily clashed with the passing moods of the workers' democracy !" Trotsky spoke of the "revolutionary historical birthright of the Party''. ''The Party is obliged to maintain its dictatorship . . . regardless of temporary vacillations even in the working class. . . The dictatorship does not base itself at every given moment on the formal principle of a workers' democracy. . . "
> http://www.spunk.org/texts/places/russia/sp001861/1921.html


I don’t think that quote was a very honest for three reasons.

1.	once again it shows a failure to recognize different people can read the same article from different perspectives, and come to different conclusions. Particularly in this thread where I have demonstrated the vast majority of contributors to the thread had totally misunderstood “downturn theory”, perhaps people should be prepared to be a bit more open minded about alternative perspectives.  [people constantly castigate S. W. for not acknowledging its mistakes, but not one person has said “ fair cop resistance, we got that wrong, “ downturn theory” was not a quantitative analysis”.]
2.	I don’t think, cobbling together a bunch of half sentences, out of context, can be said to be a fair attempt to fairly reflect the authors true intentions.  It shows rather the author of the quote had an agenda he wished to fulfill from his reading, and so pick and mixed a bunch of words to fit his agenda imo.  I’m not saying we don’t all do that, but it is plain this was what this author did.
3.	I think there is a bit of hypocrisy, ‘cause I do not think any revolutionaries on this forum would advocate “fetishising of democratic principles”.  Let me explain that.  By 1935 and a majority of people in Germany would probably have voted for hitler.  That means revolutionaries should say, “oh well, fair enough, the people have spoken we have to adhere to the democratically decided decision”?  Are a whole load of other dodgy examples.  If a democratic majority voted for Castro, would we support him?  Saddam Hussein?  George Bush?  If people voted for hanging in this country?  No, in the main revolutionaries in any form of society go against the will of majority of the people, most of the time.  We swim against the “common sense view” most of the time, because the “common sense view” most of the time coincides with the views put by the ruling class.  And so the very decision to be a revolutionary, is a decision to refuse to submit to the will of the majority.  

We can disagree about historical events.  We can view Kronstadt from different perspectives, and we can view the events of Seattle from different perspectives.  But I don’t think either of us can take a holier than thou attitude.  There is no revolutionary purism.  The honesty is to recognize we are all trying to achieve the same thing.  

ResistanceMP3


----------



## rednblack (Nov 28, 2004)

ResistanceMP3 said:
			
		

> The honesty is to recognize we are all trying to achieve the same thing.
> 
> ResistanceMP3



more braindead lies from the scumbag trot

you want to establish an authoritarian state run by "the party" where the word of the self perpetuating elite of the central committee is law - anarchists don't


----------



## TremulousTetra (Nov 28, 2004)

Groucho, I personally did not intend to respond to the usual knee jerk posts that are attracted to these kind of threads, but I think if we have to be honest in discussing how to build a revolutionary organization, we will have to acknowledge that what cockney rebel and butch are saying is partially fact.  If my district is anything to go by S. W. has been decimated numerically by recent events.  By the shift in party organizing policy are a couple of years ago. And the most recent change is a recognition of that decimation.

What is ironic about Butch pointing this out, is it is precisely using the type of organizational models that Butch advocates which led to the decimation of the party.

ResistanceMP3


----------



## TremulousTetra (Nov 28, 2004)

scawenb said:
			
		

> What I'm saying is revolutionaries have to build a movement before the idea of a Vanguard Party leading it makes any sense.


Which does not negate the idea of organizing revolutionaries to build a movement.  Whether you want a title this organizing of revolutionaries as a " Vanguard party", or something else is up to you, all I want to do is build the movement and in the process build an organization of revolutionaries who can argue within that movement to take the movement to the social revolution conclusion.

Frats


----------



## Udo Erasmus (Nov 28, 2004)

cockneyrebel said:
			
		

> And if you have significantly more than a 1000 members, where are they all? Why have you only got about 15-20 active members in Leeds? Why do you south London “super forums” only get 20-25 people for them when they are for the whole of SE/SW London?



Interesting in my town, that has an incredibly weak and small SWP - though it is now growing, our last "super forum" with Jonathan Neale on his book "What's wrong with America" attracted over 60 people, of which around 40 or more were non-members. And we regularly have got 20-25 people to many of our meetings in the last 2 years - I suggest that Cockney is fibbing!

Cockney likes to say that the SWP are totally insignificant and small, but as Trotsky said "a small axe can cut through the largest oak - _if it is sharp enough_

The fact is that SWP and to a lesser extent the Socialist Party (and more in their Militant days than present) are on a qualitatively different plane to WP, CPGB, AWL and other sects.

While small compared to the Labour Party or even the Communist Party in it's heyday, the SWP with it's network of branches up and down England and Wales was able to launch the STWC almost a week after 9.11. The SWP has the size to be able to initiate left wing rank and file groups in the unions.

And Cockney's claim that most Working class people have never heard of the SWP is a little bit disengenuous. If any working class person was asked to name a marxist person, they would either say no, or they would say - them Socialist Workers (a few years ago they might have said Militant Tendency). WP, Sparts, CPGB, AWL etc. are not even on the map.

The SWP is the most well known organisation on the left, simply because they put the most work in - Their is a WP branch and CPGB member in my town and I have never ever seen a Workers Power member visit a picket line.

I don't want to descend into a WP vs. SWP silly discussion - but it is clear that the SWP has been successful in having some presence, whereas other left wing groups are virtually invisible.

I had heard of the Socialist Workers Party years before I became active in left wing politics - I only heard of the other sects when I joined the Socialist Alliance - that was the first time I had come across them, I'd never seen any posters for these groups or seen them on the streets or even heard them mentioned in the media.


----------



## Groucho (Nov 28, 2004)

ResistanceMP3 said:
			
		

> Groucho, I personally did not intend to respond to the usual knee jerk posts that are attracted to these kind of threads, but I think if we have to be honest in discussing how to build a revolutionary organization, we will have to acknowledge that what cockney rebel and butch are saying is partially fact.  If my district is anything to go by S. W. has been decimated numerically by recent events.  By the shift in party organizing policy are a couple of years ago. And the most recent change is a recognition of that decimation.
> 
> What is ironic about Butch pointing this out, is it is precisely using the type of organizational models that Butch advocates which led to the decimation of the party.
> 
> ResistanceMP3



Decimation? I don't think there has been a decimation, or anything like a decimation. The organisational tightness was exploded in order to invest in the movement(s). This went too far(not the investment in STWC/RESPECT etc but the explosion). Consequentally a number of comrades became used to operating autonomously or semi-autonomously. Great! But this has not always been brought back to party structures (what party structures?) to enable dissemination of best practice, or critical assessment. A larger number of comrades fell into inactivity. In many areas we had no real way of keeping comrades together and no-one responsible for party co-ordination. Farcicle! It was never intended thus but as an extreme we had the centre and then a load of comrades and groups of comrades operating autonimously, so democratic accountability ceased to operate. I have deliberately overstated the case. 

In bringing people back into an organisationally tighter SWP we are finding comrades who have been quietly active in their own workplace or wherever but who felt abandoned by their party. These comrades by and large see RESPECT as a great thing, but have not been part of it (or even joined). Who can blame them as they have not been part of the SWP either, even though they wanted to be!

I wonder if you agree with me that SW has improved immeasurably in style and content in recent weeks? While Martin Smith as party Organiser - with his very personable manner combined with a political hardness - will, I am sure, help bring the organisation back into a proper structure. Martin is always prepared to take time to win the argument with comrades - and he listens as well. Chris Harman as ISJ editor will be brilliant.


----------



## rednblack (Nov 28, 2004)

fucking hell!

i've read some shit before but...


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 28, 2004)

if we're watching an argument about the numbers of paper tigers, i mean members, the swp has, i'd suggest 2,800 as a maximum. after all, there are 2,800 members of the ruc and we all know that the swp are a major part of that.


----------



## JoeBlack (Nov 29, 2004)

ResistanceMP3 said:
			
		

> I don’t think that quote was a very honest for three reasons.
> 
> 2.	I don’t think, cobbling together a bunch of half sentences, out of context, can be said to be a fair attempt to fairly reflect the authors true intentions.  It shows rather the author of the quote had an agenda he wished to fulfill from his reading, and so pick and mixed a bunch of words to fit his agenda imo.  I’m not saying we don’t all do that, but it is plain this was what this author did.ResistanceMP3



Err its not a bunch of half sentences out of context.  It's from Trotkys speech to the 10th party congress where the issue of party or class was being discussed by the Bolsheviks in power.  In other words these are not ideas but policy, they illustrate what was happening on the ground.  

I will admit to being lazy mostly because this one quote is so self-explanatory in exploiding any claim that trotsky stood for socialism for below.  But if you can spin a context that you think makes it acceptable go right ahead.


----------



## fanciful (Nov 29, 2004)

dead right trotsky wasn't for socialism from below. He wasn't an anarchist. He was for socialism from above and below. There's no point having a state if you don't use it. The purpose of the seizure of power is to allow the workers to use both methods. Which the bolsheviks did.


----------



## october_lost (Nov 29, 2004)

IMO in order to survive trots have had to spout more and more rehtoric which is libertarian sounding, but this still doesnt change the fact that their ideas are crap....


----------



## fanciful (Nov 29, 2004)

whatever.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Nov 30, 2004)

I nearly left pint 2 out, and should have. There seems little mileage in discussion of a point we are never going to agree about.  More interesting are the general questions for all revolutionaries I've raised, but no one has commented on.  

You may be interested in commenting on points two and three above , and the points I've raised, repeated below.  I know I would be interested in an alternative view.  



			
				ResistanceMP3 said:
			
		

> *to joe*You said my question was a valid question, but you never answered it.
> 
> Why didn't the anarchist movement lead , connect, or how ever you do it, intervene to create revolution in the nineteen seventies?  And seeing as we all failed, what have you learned to improve so we don't fail in the future?
> 
> Frats Rmp3






			
				ResistanceMP3 said:
			
		

> *to sca*Which does not negate the idea of organizing revolutionaries to build a movement.  Whether you want a title this organizing of revolutionaries as a " Vanguard party", or something else is up to you, all I want to do is build the movement and in the process build an organization of revolutionaries who can argue within that movement to take the movement to the social revolution conclusion.
> 
> Frats






			
				ResistanceMP3 said:
			
		

> Groucho, I personally did not intend to respond to the usual knee jerk posts that are attracted to these kind of threads, but I think if we are to be honest in discussing how to build a revolutionary organization, we will have to acknowledge that what cockney rebel and butch are saying is partially fact.  If my district is anything to go by S. W. has been decimated numerically by recent events.  By the shift in party organizing policy are a couple of years ago. And the most recent change is a recognition of that decimation.
> 
> What is ironic about Butch pointing this out, is it is precisely using the type of organizational models that Butch advocates which led to the decimation of the party.
> 
> ResistanceMP3




Frats ResistanceMP3


----------



## TremulousTetra (Dec 1, 2004)

Groucho said:
			
		

> Decimation? I don't think there has been a decimation, or anything like a decimation. The organisational tightness was exploded in order to invest in the movement(s). This went too far(not the investment in STWC/RESPECT etc but the explosion). Consequentally a number of comrades became used to operating autonomously or semi-autonomously. Great! But this has not always been brought back to party structures (what party structures?) to enable dissemination of best practice, or critical assessment. A larger number of comrades fell into inactivity. In many areas we had no real way of keeping comrades together and no-one responsible for party co-ordination. Farcicle! It was never intended thus but as an extreme we had the centre and then a load of comrades and groups of comrades operating autonimously, so democratic accountability ceased to operate. I have deliberately overstated the case.
> 
> In bringing people back into an organisationally tighter SWP we are finding comrades who have been quietly active in their own workplace or wherever but who felt abandoned by their party. These comrades by and large see RESPECT as a great thing, but have not been part of it (or even joined). Who can blame them as they have not been part of the SWP either, even though they wanted to be!


Deecimation may to have over stated the point, [though I would estimate in my area we have lost a tenth of the membership].  All the rest you say about comrades feeling abandoned by the party, and working in their own workplaces and fields of interest does comply with my experience too.  

the word decimation is unimportant, the points I was trying to make was how ironic it was that butcher's was pointing this out, when it was the methods that butchers advocates that were specifically the preconditions to the decline in the membership.  Perhap's it explains something.  [I must point out, I am being wise after the event.  I fully supported the move to less centrally organized districts, But have been wondering for some time when the party would move to correct over zealous nature of the change.]

And that brings me to the thread question again.  It does seem to me that because revolutionaries are constantly swimming against the domination in the people's heads of ruling class ideas, that we do need to organize to support each other, not just rely upon the strength and will of the individual.  

Frats Rmp3
PS



> I wonder if you agree with me that SW has improved immeasurably in style and content in recent weeks? While Martin Smith as party Organiser - with his very personable manner combined with a political hardness - will, I am sure, help bring the organisation back into a proper structure. Martin is always prepared to take time to win the argument with comrades - and he listens as well. Chris Harman as ISJ editor will be brilliant.



Yes, but I am somewhat perplexed as to why it has taken so long for this change.


----------



## poster342002 (Dec 1, 2004)

fanciful said:
			
		

> dead right trotsky wasn't for socialism from below. He wasn't an anarchist. He was for socialism from above and below. There's no point having a state if you don't use it. The purpose of the seizure of power is to allow the workers to use both methods. Which the bolsheviks did.


Just a shame that they felt that in order to preserve the revolution it was necessary to destroy it.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 1, 2004)

"the word decimation is unimportant, the points I was trying to make was how ironic it was that butcher's was pointing this out, when it was the methods that butchers advocates that were specifically the preconditions to the decline in the membership. Perhap's it explains something. [I must point out, I am being wise after the event. I fully supported the move to less centrally organized districts, But have been wondering for some time when the party would move to correct over zealous nature of the change.]"

You keep saying this with reference to me - what posts of mine in this thread are you reffering to?


----------



## Ray (Dec 1, 2004)

ResistanceMP3 said:
			
		

> the word decimation is unimportant, the points I was trying to make was how ironic it was that butcher's was pointing this out, when it was the methods that butchers advocates that were specifically the preconditions to the decline in the membership.



Yes, I've often heard anarchist visitors to the UK come away confused, because everyone had always told them that the SWP were Leninists, but in fact they acted just like anarchists. "Surely" they would say, "if the SWP were actually Leninists they would ban factions, or operate under democratic centralism, or use a slate method for electing a leadership, or try to take over other campaigns? We saw none of these things! You must be mistaken."


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 1, 2004)

That's what i'm confused about - is he actually arguing that the SWP has recently been operating on anarchist organisational principles and that this is the reason for their haemorrhaging of members? That would be the worst argument ever made on here surely?


----------



## Ray (Dec 1, 2004)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> That's what i'm confused about - is he actually arguing that the SWP has recently been operating on anarchist organisational principles and that this is the reason for their haemorrhaging of members? That would be the worst argument ever made on here surely?



The worst argument this week, certainly, but I've seen some serious contenders for the all-time award (and I've only been here a few months).


----------



## Chuck Wilson (Dec 1, 2004)

Weekly Worker ( whose political reporting is akin to the 3.am girls ) has recently had a couple of articles which don't seem to wholly bear Groucho's analysis out. In a nutshell the culture in the party during the down turn , ie highly centralised,'Blood on the carpets', no opposition etc,didn't lend itself well to the 'upturn'.Comrades not used to working in purely SWP audiences fiind it hard to operate in unity leading to allegations ofsectarianism.SWP exhausts itself losing members who were clearly flaggng under the new turn and the exhortations of newer well meaning but apparachnik type comrades.Tries to find beaurcratic solutions to enegage in the new mood ie splitting branches etc.


Not so much acting as anarchists but more resembling a day trip outing for the heavily institutionalised .

Long standing SWP member John Molyneux  then raises the question of democracy in the party and relates that for fifteen years the CC has been undefeated conjuring up visions of either the highest form of political leadership since the era of the small Stalinist states or the blind following the blind as in the small Stalinist states. Although the Weekly Worker analysis is full of flaws it does set out to cover very much the same ground as some of the discussion on here regarding the SWP and the downturn and the future prospects of the SWP .


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 1, 2004)

Couple of those articles:

Worries, tensions and opening the floodgates 

Mutiny stirs against east London potentates


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 3, 2004)

Ray said:
			
		

> The worst argument this week, certainly, but I've seen some serious contenders for the all-time award (and I've only been here a few months).


 I've got a better one - RW declared last year, just prior to his Party's Peoples Assembly in London, that "It is a little bit like the beginnings of a situation of dual power, with PAs exposing the Parliament for the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie it represents. "


----------



## Ray (Dec 3, 2004)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> I've got a better one - RW declared last year, just prior to his Party's Peoples Assembly in London, that "It is a little bit like the beginnings of a situation of dual power, with PAs exposing the Parliament for the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie it represents. "



 

 

 

 

emoticons fail me


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 3, 2004)

Ray said:
			
		

> emoticons fail me


likewise!


----------



## Groucho (Dec 3, 2004)

For the record.

I agree with John Molyneux.

However, I doubt he would recognise his position from the articles in the WW!!


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 3, 2004)

The ones that they quoted _verbatim_ from the pre-confernce bulletin you mean?


----------



## Groucho (Dec 3, 2004)

ResistanceMP3 said:
			
		

> And that brings me to the thread question again.  It does seem to me that because revolutionaries are constantly swimming against the domination in the people's heads of ruling class ideas, that we do need to organize to support each other, not just rely upon the strength and will of the individual.
> 
> Frats Rmp3
> PS
> ...



Yes, it was a failing. I agree entirely.


----------



## Groucho (Dec 3, 2004)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> The ones that they quoted _verbatim_ from the pre-confernce bulletin you mean?



Not the quotes, the way they quote Molyneux saying one thing and then suggest he meant something quite different!


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 3, 2004)

Expand on that then - what they infer seems patently clear and a correct interpretation of his actual words.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 4, 2004)

Ray said:
			
		

> "Surely" they would say, "if the SWP were actually Leninists they would ban factions, or operate under democratic centralism, or use a slate method for electing a leadership, or try to take over other campaigns? We saw none of these things! You must be mistaken."



Not a particularly good check list there Ray.

The "Leninist" Socialist Party doesn't ban factions, doesn't use a slate system and isn't particularly prone to trying to take over campaigns. For that matter, I can't even remember if we call our organisational model democratic centralism or demorcratic unity these days.

Still, your general point is certainly right. I don't agree with anarchist methods and I don't agree with the SWP's methods either but they are hardly the same thing!

As for Rebel Warrior and dual power - it still brings a grin to my face every time I remember that thread and it was a year ago or more.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Dec 6, 2004)

Groucho said:
			
		

> Not the quotes, the way they quote Molyneux saying one thing and then suggest he meant something quite different!


  No,,, that never happens. 

 Downturn theory.   

Frats Rmp3


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 6, 2004)

Where you still haven't shown that anyone at all has read the theory  wrong - you've simply asserted it - and then ignored all crititicisms of your own misreading. So go roll your fucking ugly eyes elsewhere.


----------



## Ray (Dec 6, 2004)

Nigel Irritable said:
			
		

> I can't even remember if we call our organisational model democratic centralism or demorcratic unity these days.



What's the difference?


----------



## JoeBlack (Dec 6, 2004)

ResistanceMP3 said:
			
		

> I nearly left pint 2 out, and should have.



Good typo (or is it?)  I often feel that way the next day.

As to the question about the anarchist movement in the 70's.  I don't know much about the British anarchist movement back then but I have the impression it was too small to make a significant contribution to revolution even if revolution was on the agenda.

I'm in Ireland and the situation here would have been worse as the 1970's really only started to see the emergence of an anarchist movement here and by movement I mean a dozen people.  That decade was dominated by the politics of the armed struggle in more ways than one so that although the movement tiny as it was ended up with Ireland's longest serving political prisoners. See http://www.anarchy.be/anarchie/teksten/murray.html

I was just a kid then although now I know people who were active in that period.  But given the nature of it there is little that can be said beyond noting that this would have been a hard time for anarchism to grow in any circumstances.


----------



## The Disappeared (Dec 6, 2004)

ResistanceMP3
With all due respect, (no pun intended) your first post is very European (maybe even more very British).

In South America (S.A.) there is a very recent history of revolution and in all the countries I can think of there are still revolutionary groups working to overthrow the governments.

I understand that there are big differences between Europe and S.A. as we have had to put up with interference from the Yankees for years and years and most groups have grown from an anti-imperialist stand point.

If you look at most of the revolutionary groups in S.A. they have been made up from many different political groups, from Anarchist, to Marxist, to Nationalist. 

If you look at Cuba and the Great revolution there, Castro forces were made up from many opposing groups who had one common goal, to release Cuba from the imperialist Yankees, it's major failing was to trust the Soviet Union, which in the end failed both Cuba and the Cuban people.

I will stop now as I think this thread is aimed more at European /UK posters and I don't want to derail it.


----------



## scawenb (Dec 6, 2004)

Ray said:
			
		

> What's the difference?


Socialist Party Constitution, clause 4, part 4, 'Democratic unity', section A): "Based on the ideas of democratic unity, we believe that after full discussion we then agree to act collectively. All members of the Socialist Party are entitled to express their opinions and campaign for their views within party structures, whilst making every effort to arrive at common agreement. Every member agrees to work to implement current decisions of the governing bodies of the party" ('Draft constitution' Members Bulletin No24, November 1997 - http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/297/moreres.html)

As Lenin described it, democratic centralism consisted of "freedom of discussion and criticism, unity of action". The democratic aspect of this methodology describes the freedom of members of the political party to discuss and debate matters of policy and direction, but once the decision of the party was made by majority vote, all members were expected to follow that decision unquestioningly in public. This latter aspect represented the centralism. The doctrine of democratic centralism served as one of the sources of the split between the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks. (http://www.artpolitic.org/infopedia/de/Democratic_centralism.html)


----------



## Ray (Dec 6, 2004)

Could you pick out the difference between those two paragraphs?


----------



## TremulousTetra (Dec 7, 2004)

Chuck Wilson said:
			
		

> Weekly Worker ( whose political reporting is akin to the 3.am girls ) has recently had a couple of articles which don't seem to wholly bear Groucho's analysis out. In a nutshell the culture in the party during the down turn , ie highly centralised,'Blood on the carpets', no opposition etc,didn't lend itself well to the 'upturn'.Comrades not used to working in purely SWP audiences fiind it hard to operate in unity leading to allegations ofsectarianism.SWP exhausts itself losing members who were clearly flaggng under the new turn and the exhortations of newer well meaning but apparachnik type comrades.Tries to find beaurcratic solutions to enegage in the new mood ie splitting branches etc.


many of those criticisms are echoing what the party leadership themselves have said.  I myself have been guilty of just getting on with the job,  and not paying enough credence to cementing unity with non swp in a united front through proper meetings and discussion.  Frustration rather sectarianism and was the impetus though, as you know.  



> Not so much acting as anarchists but more resembling a day trip outing for the heavily institutionalised .


 Never meant to suggest they were acting like butcher's, god forbid , but it is undeniable they moved to a less centrally organized organization, something Some anarchists advocate [Though they find it very difficult to agree about anything  ].  



> Long standing SWP member John Molyneux  then raises the question of democracy in the party and relates that for fifteen years the CC has been undefeated conjuring up visions of either the highest form of political leadership since the era of the small Stalinist states or the blind following the blind as in the small Stalinist states. Although the Weekly Worker analysis is full of flaws it does set out to cover very much the same ground as some of the discussion on here regarding the SWP and the downturn and the future prospects of the SWP .


Well as Groucho points out, words are always open to misinterpretation.  Whether John MOLYNEUX intended to say what W. P. suggests he intended to say is another matter.  

As I said in the beginning, I'm not particularly interested in the "future prospects of the swp" in this thread, more interested in the point that Joe black raises.  


Greetings resistancemp3


----------



## TremulousTetra (Dec 7, 2004)

JoeBlack said:
			
		

> Good typo (or is it?)  I often feel that way the next day.
> 
> As to the question about the anarchist movement in the 70's.  I don't know much about the British anarchist movement back then but I have the impression it was too small to make a significant contribution to revolution even if revolution was on the agenda.
> 
> ...


* " I have the impression it was too small to make a significant contribution to revolution even if revolution was on the agenda."  *  I find this sentence very important.  It strikes me as a wholey logical observation.  it seems blatantly obvious to me that this was THE crucial problem for any form of revolutionary, [not disregarding the fact that good politics would be needed too].  It seems to me that from this flows the logic that we have to concentrate to the 'masses' to the right of the revolutionary movement, rather than concentrating on the minutea of differences in the revolutionary movement.  Of course I'm not not disregarding the fact that good politics would be needed too, each organization needs to praxis its politics, but each organization/individual 'praxising' their politics does not require an argument amongst the revolutionaries until there is ONE omnipresent political viewpoint.  Diversity amongst revolutionary thoughts is a good thing.  Each organization/individual should practice their political viewpoint, concentrating on the masses, and finding practice, not debate, which is the most suitable methods of delivering our common aims IMHO.  

Frats comrade.


----------



## Hawkeye Pearce (Dec 7, 2004)

Surely any "revolutionary organisation" has to accept the fact that all the previous analysis that came from all the lefty groups has been fundamentally wrong.  By sticking with outdated Marxist formula of there being only two classes left in the end (proletariat and bourgeoisie) they got caught out by what happened in Britain and the USA with Thatcher and Reagan.  Truth was that there was a section of the upper working class who began to identify their interests as lying with the upper classes and the political right who promised to make them rich.  The defection of this group virtually en masse to the Tories throughout the 1980's destroyed the trade union movement and the labour party and eventually all the old forms of socialism.  What you have now in western capitalist societies is a much more fragmented working class with old workers parties that don't even pretend to be different from the openly right wing conservative parties.  Therefore you are left with a working class that is divided and to a certain extent demoralised in Britain today.  What exists now is a very poor (and in many ways getting poorer) section of the working class who were previously loyal to labour becoming uttelry disillusioned with politics or turning to the far right.  The failure of the "left" to accept this and come up with new strategies condemns them to irrelevancy in my estimation.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Dec 7, 2004)

Ray said:
			
		

> Could you pick out the difference between those two paragraphs?


NO!


----------



## TremulousTetra (Dec 7, 2004)

Hawkeye Pearce said:
			
		

> Surely any "revolutionary organisation" has to accept the fact that all the previous analysis that came from all the lefty groups has been fundamentally wrong.  By sticking with outdated Marxist formula of there being only two classes left in the end (proletariat and bourgeoisie) they got caught out by what happened in Britain and the USA with Thatcher and Reagan.  Truth was that there was a section of the upper working class who began to identify their interests as lying with the upper classes and the political right who promised to make them rich.  The defection of this group virtually en masse to the Tories throughout the 1980's destroyed the trade union movement and the labour party and eventually all the old forms of socialism.  What you have now in western capitalist societies is a much more fragmented working class with old workers parties that don't even pretend to be different from the openly right wing conservative parties.  Therefore you are left with a working class that is divided and to a certain extent demoralised in Britain today.  What exists now is a very poor (and in many ways getting poorer) section of the working class who were previously loyal to labour becoming uttelry disillusioned with politics or turning to the far right.  The failure of the "left" to accept this and come up with new strategies condemns them to irrelevancy in my estimation.


You raise some good points about "underclass theory", the nature of class, Thatcherism/Reaganism, and working class solidarity which would be due books of their own, let alone threads.  But just to take up one point of your thread.  is it not also true that many amongst this "upper section of the working class" have seen their wages and conditions deteriorate most over the last twenty years?  Teachers social workers ect ect.  I think you will also find that we are still one of the most unionized countries in the world on one hand, and that there has always been in working class history of massive fluctuations in trade union membership. "the end of the working class" has been proclaimed many times since the beginning of the last century, And it's a argument that Marxist are fully familiar with. But I believe that Marxs arguments about "the prolertarianisation of the middle class's" is as true today as it ever was.  The quantitative nature of the working class has always changed, but the quality of nature hasn't.  Working class people are still the ONLY people who have the interest/power to change the world.  

Respect Rmp3

Edited to add;

there are indeed many problems for revolutionaries.  But I think many people would agree with revolutionaries that a radical change is needed, there is something about the nature of capitalist society which does not satisfy 'the peoples needs', And so some sort of revolution would be 'welcome'.  if you accept this, how would you suggest revolutionaries should reorganize themselves to achieve the aim of "government by the people for the people".


----------



## Hawkeye Pearce (Dec 7, 2004)

ResistanceMP3 said:
			
		

> You raise some good points about "underclass theory", the nature of class, Thatcherism/Reaganism, and working class solidarity which would be due books of their own, let alone threads.  But just to take up one point of your thread.  is it not also true that many amongst this "upper section of the working class" have seen their wages and conditions deteriorate most over the last twenty years?  Teachers social workers ect ect.  I think you will also find that we are still one of the most unionized countries in the world on one hand, and that there has always been in working class history of massive fluctuations in trade union membership. "the end of the working class" has been proclaimed many times since the beginning of the last century, And it's a argument that Marxist are fully familiar with. But I believe that Marxs arguments about "the prolertarianisation of the middle class's" is as true today as it ever was.  The quantitative nature of the working class has always changed, but the quality of nature hasn't.  Working class people are still the ONLY people who have the interest/power to change the world.
> 
> Respect Rmp3
> 
> ...



You are right about the upper working class ultimately being fucked over by the system i wasn't suggesting that they weren't.  My point is that the class make up of western capitalist states has become much more complex than many "lefty" groups will acknowledge.


----------



## Hawkeye Pearce (Dec 7, 2004)

To expand this point further there are an awful lot of very poor people who voted for Bush in the US election yet his policies will screw them even more and make their economic situation far worse.  Why is this?  
There are an awful lot working class people in Britain who supported the Iraq invasion.  Why is this?
Its questions like this that any force looking for radical change needs to answer if it is going to be taken even remotely seriously.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Dec 7, 2004)

Hawkeye Pearce said:
			
		

> You are right about the upper working class ultimately being fucked over by the system i wasn't suggesting that they weren't.  My point is that the class make up of western capitalist states has become much more complex than many "lefty" groups will acknowledge.


That's just not true.  It deals with the issue in the particular abstract way, but you may be interested in listening to "From clockwork through chaos to complexity" 1993 McGARR, Paul.  Recognizing the complexity of society, is a integral part of dialectical materialism.  

Respect resistancemp3


----------



## TremulousTetra (Dec 7, 2004)

Hawkeye Pearce said:
			
		

> To expand this point further there are an awful lot of very poor people who voted for Bush in the US election yet his policies will screw them even more and make their economic situation far worse.  Why is this?
> There are an awful lot working class people in Britain who supported the Iraq invasion.  Why is this?
> Its questions like this that any force looking for radical change needs to answer if it is going to be taken even remotely seriously.


An awful lot of people supported the Czar in Russia, and then went on to be revolutionaries.  Can you explain that?    There are plenty of socialist workers publications that have Explained this process, but you have to be prepared to read/listen to them with a open mind.   

Respect ResistanceMP3


----------



## Hawkeye Pearce (Dec 7, 2004)

I will reply to this but i have a meeting.  More later.


----------



## scawenb (Dec 7, 2004)

Hawkeye Pearce said:
			
		

> You are right about the upper working class ultimately being fucked over by the system i wasn't suggesting that they weren't.  My point is that the class make up of western capitalist states has become much more complex than many "lefty" groups will acknowledge.


I think that is often true. They talk about the workers and the bosses as if the forces for socialism line up on one side and the forces for imperialism line up against them. That has never been true and if they ever read the Marxist texts they base thier politics on they would find a long-running debate on the subject. Why if the working class is the agent of revolutionary change why does it not act in the western capitalist states?

AS far back as 1858 Engels write to Marx, "the fact that the English proletariat is actually becoming more and more bourgeois, so that the ultimate aim of this most bourgeois of all nations would appear to be the possession, alongside the bourgeoisie, of a bourgeois aristocracy and a bourgeois proletariat. In the case of a nation which exploits the entire world this is, of course, justified to some extent. Only a couple of thoroughly bad years might help here." (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1858/letters/58_10_07.htm)

By 1885 he spelt it out more directly, "'The truth is this: during the period of England's industrial monopoly the English working class have, to a certain extent, shared in the benefits of the monopoly. These benefits were unequally parcelled out amongst them; the privileged minority pocketed most, but even the great mass had, at least, a temporary share now and then. And that is the reason why, since the dying-out of Owenism, there has been no Socialism in England. With the breakdown of that monopoly, the English working class will lose that privileged position; and it will find itself generally – the privileged and leading minority not excepted – on a level with its fellow-workers abroad. And that is the reason why there will be Socialism again in England." (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1885/03/01.htm)


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 7, 2004)

Note the two very important qualifying conditions in the second text though:

By 1885 he spelt it out more directly, "'The truth is this: *during the period of England's industrial monopoly* the English working class have, to a certain extent, shared in the benefits of the monopoly. These benefits were unequally parcelled out amongst them; the privileged minority pocketed most, but even the great mass had, at least, a temporary share now and then. And that is the reason why, since the dying-out of Owenism, there has been no Socialism in England. *With the breakdown of that monopoly*, the English working class will lose that privileged position; and it will find itself generally – the privileged and leading minority not excepted – on a level with its fellow-workers abroad. And that is the reason why there will be Socialism again in England."


----------



## TremulousTetra (Dec 7, 2004)

scawenb said:
			
		

> I think that is often true. They talk about the workers and the bosses as if the forces for socialism line up on one side and the forces for imperialism line up against them.


Socialist worker members continually make the point that you'll never see the social forces of workers and bosses lining up against each other In a straightforward clear fashion.  It is precisely this argument that negates the anarchist view of revolution in my view, and suggests the need for a "vanguard party ".  but hey, diversity of thought in the social evolution is a good thing.  I believe no one has proven in practice there is only one method for revolutionaries.  So make my day, build a mass movement.  


> That has never been true and if they ever read the Marxist texts they base thier politics on they would find a long-running debate on the subject. Why if the working class is the agent of revolutionary change why does it not act in the western capitalist states?
> 
> AS far back as 1858 Engels write to Marx, "the fact that the English proletariat is actually becoming more and more bourgeois, so that the ultimate aim of this most bourgeois of all nations would appear to be the possession, alongside the bourgeoisie, of a bourgeois aristocracy and a bourgeois proletariat. In the case of a nation which exploits the entire world this is, of course, justified to some extent. Only a couple of thoroughly bad years might help here." (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1858/letters/58_10_07.htm)
> 
> By 1885 he spelt it out more directly, "'The truth is this: during the period of England's industrial monopoly the English working class have, to a certain extent, shared in the benefits of the monopoly. These benefits were unequally parcelled out amongst them; the privileged minority pocketed most, but even the great mass had, at least, a temporary share now and then. And that is the reason why, since the dying-out of Owenism, there has been no Socialism in England. With the breakdown of that monopoly, the English working class will lose that privileged position; and it will find itself generally – the privileged and leading minority not excepted – on a level with its fellow-workers abroad. And that is the reason why there will be Socialism again in England." (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1885/03/01.htm)


Which kind of substantiates the argument I made above, that this is a very long running and familiar debate for Marxists.  Marx thought hawkeye was wrong, and so do I.    

Respect resistancemp3


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 7, 2004)

ResistanceMP3 said:
			
		

> Socialist worker members continually make the point that you'll never see the social forces of workers and bosses lining up against each other In a straightforward clear fashion.  It is precisely this argument that negates the anarchist view of revolution in my view, and suggests the need for a "vanguard party ".  but hey, diversity of thought in the social evolution is a good thing.  I believe no one has proven in practice there is only one method for revolutionaries.  So make my day, build a mass movement.



You're fucking obssesed mate - if you're going to make these snide criticisms spell it out so that we can talk about it - not this nonsense bundling of stuff together. That above para maks no sense whatsoever (aside from the end)..


----------



## scawenb (Dec 7, 2004)

ResistanceMP3 said:
			
		

> Which kind of substantiates the argument I made above, that this is a very long running and familiar debate for Marxists.  Marx thought hawkeye was wrong, and so do I.


So you would agree that this labour aristocracy benefiting from imperialist superprofits is at the basis of Opportunism which infects the working class movement and explains why there has not been revolution in the imperialist countries since 1848?


----------



## Hawkeye Pearce (Dec 7, 2004)

So marx thinks i'm wrong.  Thats some feat considering he died 99 years before i was born.  I see your still defending the dried out husk that is vanguardism despite the fact that everywhere it has been tried it has led to authoratarianism and usually ended in total failure.  Vanguardist parties go wrong at the very beginning when the see the "masses" as needing to be led by the "enlightened few" which was the basis of lenin's argument and look where his logic led.  Trotsky himself before leaping changing his mind warned that the party would substitue itself for the working class, then the central committee for the party and finally a dictator for the central committee.  Funny how thats exactly what happened isn't it.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Dec 7, 2004)

scawenb said:
			
		

> So you would agree that this labour aristocracy benefiting from imperialist superprofits is at the basis of Opportunism which infects the working class movement and explains why there has not been revolution in the imperialist countries since 1848?


No, though that is partially true, it is far too simplistic for a Maex Engles view or indeed that of modern day Marxists.  The real world is far more complicated from a Marxist viewpoint. 

Frats Rmp3


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 7, 2004)

So you agree that Lenin was wrong then?


----------



## Hawkeye Pearce (Dec 7, 2004)

Want to build a "revolutionary" organisation first step go back to issues that affect working class people in their day to day lives.  Which means stop banging on about the war as if its the only thing happening in the world.  Make it clear you oppose it and why but don't make it the be all and end all because you'll meet working class people who were in favour of it then what do you do?  
Truth is working class people have been on the receiving end of a thirty year class war waged by the ruling class and the poorest parts of the country don't have the confidence in many cases to fight for improvements in their own workplaces and communities let alone care about a far away war.  Sad but true i think and something you'll have to find a way to deal with that.  The sad fact is that if your looking for the revolution you'll have a bloody long wait.


----------



## JoeBlack (Dec 7, 2004)

ResistanceMP3 said:
			
		

> it seems blatantly obvious to me that this was THE crucial problem for any form of revolutionary, [not disregarding the fact that good politics would be needed too].  It seems to me that from this flows the logic that we have to concentrate to the 'masses' to the right of the revolutionary movement, rather than concentrating on the minutea of differences in the revolutionary movement.



This is pretty much a statement of the obvious, why dress it up as the SWP position?  Apart from the sparts (and maybe WP?) I don't think anyone on the left sees the way forward as "concentrating on the minutea of differences in the revolutionary movement".

However the "minutea of differences in the revolutionary movement" is not irrelevant, look at the number of attacks on anarchism the SWP have published since 1999 for instance.  The problem is the SWP use the logical argument in the first paragraph to hide from having to deal with any and all criticisms of their party whether it is external or internal.

RMP3 you seem to think this is OK because it has worked.  But actuallly iit hasn't.  The SWP blew the opportunity it had in running the anti-war movement and ending up alientating 10 ot 100 times the number it won over.  A lot of this is down to its inability to deal with policial debate (rather than party approved monologue).


----------



## davgraham (Dec 7, 2004)

*be blessed with doubt, rather than cursed with certainty*

Yet another potentially interesting thread which is about to be de-railed on the question of 'vanguard party'.

This is a treble pity

1 Because this is a non question - from the point of view of history it is entirely solved. Workers will just not submit to be being led in this way. A model developed for social conditions in Tsarist Russia is utterly inappropriate for our needs. Just as I am not willing to submit to the arbitrary authority of any central committee,  I am also not prepared to endure [yet another] 'discussion' of this.

2 Because the real question - as to why in modern society the 'proletariat' has largely only created 'reformist' type organisations may be productively researched. I would certainly look forward to that. We might want to look at how or if, revolutionary minorities can exist within such organisms. We might want to look at the modern role of trade unionism and the possibilities of utilising these institutions in today's reality. We might want to venture an opnion on whether permanent revolutionary organisation can be created and can last in a non-revolutionary situation.

[Answer : very probaby it depends . . . .] I am not an anarchist but within that tradition I am well aware that these issues have been researched. We should look at their conclusions

3 It sometimes is better to look at what your enemies are saying, rather than your [so-called] friends. Henry Ford [of 'history is bunk' fame] said, 'why should I worry about [revolutionary] workers when I can get one half of the working class to shoot the other half?'  This neatly sums up our dilemma, how can solidarity break through the 'normal' individualistic, competitive appearance of social reality. Notice I did not say how can a revolutionary minority break through on behalf of a wider movement. 

As a tentative hypothesis I would hazard that revolutionary minorities can truly only exist when they represent such a trend or practise within society - that is they have no social validity if they are merely 'self-declared'. Revolutionary minorities announce themselves by their social innovation - by finding new ways to prosecute the class struggle, by sometimes 'subverting' the received wisdom. For that reason selective quotations from great chunks of Marx do not impress me much, although I hope I have learned and extracted all I can from the old man.

Both Marx and Engels were products of the 19th C ie they wanted at all costs to be 'scientific' and avoid 'utopianism' by ascribing qualities to movements that did not possess them, hence Marx could be cruel to individuals and harsh on say 'English trade unionists' whom he privately despised for their 'freindly societies' and so on.

Today we pay much more attention to such 'subjectivity' [or we should do] in order to tease out its contradictions, find its weak points in the hope of using them as leverage. 

Can the thread address these issues and can we have less finger waving from the adherents of a once radical social democracy?

Please

Gra


----------



## TremulousTetra (Dec 7, 2004)

Hawkeye Pearce said:
			
		

> Want to build a "revolutionary" organisation first step go back to issues that affect working class people in their day to day lives.  Which means stop banging on about the war as if its the only thing happening in the world.  Make it clear you oppose it and why but don't make it the be all and end all because you'll meet working class people who were in favour of it then what do you do?
> Truth is working class people have been on the receiving end of a thirty year class war waged by the ruling class and the poorest parts of the country don't have the confidence in many cases to fight for improvements in their own workplaces and communities let alone care about a far away war.  Sad but true i think and something you'll have to find a way to deal with that.  The sad fact is that if your looking for the revolution you'll have a bloody long wait.


From my point of view, which may not necessarily be correct, your second paragraph contradicts your first.  

You explain to me how British working class had been on the receiving end of a ruling class offensive for some 30 years.  You explain to me how this has sapped their confidence. Couldn't agree with you more.  and all of this means as you recognize in your last sentence that the working class is not Confident to fight YET over "issues that affect the working class" in general.  The current concentration on the war is a reflection of the historical circumstances where the working class seems more confident to act over ideological issues rather than over issues of economics and conditions.  so we start from where the working class is confident, and then link it to the economics and conditions issues.  Same process as you are saying, just the other way around.  

Socialist worker is arguing for strike action as part of the antiwar movement, in rebuttal to the argument "2 million marched last time and it didn't work".  This strike action as part of the antiwar movement is an aim wholey in the interests of the antiwar movement, period.  However it could also hopefully spark more confidence then to strike over economics and conditions issues too [we hope].

In the end only militancy and self organization from the working class can can extract victories over the war, economic issues and conditions.  

Frats Rmp3


----------



## TremulousTetra (Dec 7, 2004)

Hawkeye Pearce said:
			
		

> So marx thinks i'm wrong.  Thats some feat considering he died 99 years before i was born.  I see your still defending the dried out husk that is vanguardism despite the fact that everywhere it has been tried it has led to authoratarianism and usually ended in total failure.  Vanguardist parties go wrong at the very beginning when the see the "masses" as needing to be led by the "enlightened few" which was the basis of lenin's argument and look where his logic led.  Trotsky himself before leaping changing his mind warned that the party would substitue itself for the working class, then the central committee for the party and finally a dictator for the central committee.  Funny how thats exactly what happened isn't it.


Which does not answer this point ;





> Originally Posted by scawenb
> I think that is often true. They talk about the workers and the bosses as if the forces for socialism line up on one side and the forces for imperialism line up against them.



you've not said yet, are you in favor of a social revolution so there is government by the people for the people instead of the current dictatorship of money?  If so, how do we get past the dilemma that the "dominant ideas in any society of those of the ruling class"?  

Even during a revolution the ruling class will organize to defeat that revolution.  They cannot possibly do it without the assistance of working class soldiers, sailors, policeman, and many many other working class people.  Should we not be as organized to fight for the social revolution?

Frats Rmp3

PS. Every form of organization for social revolution has failed so far.  Does that mean all forms of organization is negated?  Butch Doesn't seem detered by the failure of the Spanish civil war, and quite rightly so in my opinion.  

“It is often said that ‘the germ of all Stalinism was in Bolshevism at its beginning’. Well, I have no objection. Only, Bolshevism also contained many other germs, a mass of other germs, and those who lived through the enthusiasm of the first years of the first victorious socialist revolution ought not to forget it. To judge the living man by the death germs which the autopsy reveals in the corpse – and which he may have carried in him since his birth – is that very sensible?”


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 7, 2004)

Bolshevik Germs are deadly = and we've done your misunderstandings of Serges's path already.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Dec 7, 2004)

JoeBlack said:
			
		

> This is pretty much a statement of the obvious, why dress it up as the SWP position?


 I didn't dress it up as a solely swp position.  I said it was logical.  





> Apart from the sparts (and maybe WP?) I don't think anyone on the left sees the way forward as "concentrating on the minutea of differences in the revolutionary movement".


many on here are obsessed with the notion that only a demise of the swp can see a flowering of their own organizations.  Totally inflates the important of the swp in my opinion, and hides the paucity of their own politics Possibly.  



> However the "minutea of differences in the revolutionary movement" is not irrelevant,[/qoute]I emphasized that they are not irrelevant
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## scawenb (Dec 7, 2004)

ResistanceMP3 said:
			
		

> Every form of organization for social revolution has failed so far.


But surely of all the forms of organisation Trotskyism has failed the most.

Labourites have their government - which while not perfect is at least power.
Fabians have their slow but sure gradualism which they can always point to.
Stalinists have their Cuba and North Korea as well as a 70 years of the USSR.
Maoists have Nepal and Peru as well as the Chinese revolution.
Anarchists have Mexico and Argentina and the examples of Spain, Christinia and Ukraine.

But what does Trotskyism, and expecially the variety advocated by the SWP, have to offer except that the Russian Revolution happened?


----------



## TremulousTetra (Dec 7, 2004)

scawenb said:
			
		

> But surely of all the forms of organisation Trotskyism has failed the most.
> 
> Labourites have their government - which while not perfect is at least power.
> Fabians have their slow but sure gradualism which they can always point to.
> ...


you can still not articulate a logical alternative way of organizing , in the face of your own observation that the historical forces of the working class and ruling class will not just symmetrically line up and fight out this battle for social revolution.  I've seen nothing, in anarchist thoughts for example, that goes beyond some kind of hope that there is something inherent in the nature in the working class that will overcome the real problem.  

Respect resistancemp3


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 7, 2004)

"for example"

Am i  the only one fed up of this outdated bullshit?


----------



## Ray (Dec 8, 2004)

ResistanceMP3 said:
			
		

> many on here are obsessed with the notion that only a demise of the swp can see a flowering of their own organizations.



Many? Like who? 

(You can think the left would be better off without the SWP without thinking it must die before your own group can grow)


----------



## TremulousTetra (Dec 8, 2004)

Ray said:
			
		

> Many? Like who?


Many like all the stupid swp obsessed threads in this forum talking about people's teeth , looks etc., as if these things were of any consequence.  And even the criticisms.  does anybody seriously believe that their organization would listen to criticisms of their organization from the swp?   



> (You can think the left would be better off without the SWP without thinking it must die before your own group can grow)


So is your group growing?  Is your group the paradigm for revolutionary organization?  

fraternal greetings comrade


----------



## Ray (Dec 8, 2004)

ResistanceMP3 said:
			
		

> Many like all the stupid swp obsessed threads in this forum talking about people's teeth , looks etc., as if these things were of any consequence.  And even the criticisms.  does anybody seriously believe that their organization would listen to criticisms of their organization from the swp?



There are plenty of critics of the SWP - they're the largest group on the left, and have a lot of influence, so of course there are going to be plenty of critics. 

But I asked you to point to the people who "are obsessed with the notion that only a demise of the swp can see a flowering of their own organizations". 




			
				ResistanceMP3 said:
			
		

> So is your group growing?  Is your group the paradigm for revolutionary organization?



I'm not in a group. I'm a supporter of the WSM, which is growing. I think the organisational model it uses is good, and useful for the kind of work that it carries out. I think its *a* useful paradigm, but not the *only * useful paradigm, and probably insufficient on its own.


----------



## scawenb (Dec 8, 2004)

ResistanceMP3 said:
			
		

> you can still not articulate a logical alternative way of organizing , in the face of your own observation that the historical forces of the working class and ruling class will not just symmetrically line up and fight out this battle for social revolution.  I've seen nothing, in anarchist thoughts for example, that goes beyond some kind of hope that there is something inherent in the nature in the working class that will overcome the real problem.


I'm not an anarchist. However, all the alternatives I listed have shown that at least  in certain concrete historical conditions that their methods of organisation have proved to work. They have more proof that their ideas are more than utopian.

Can you point to any evidence of Trotskyist organisation ever making any such gains? I can only think of Sri Lanka where they shared power for a brief and unglorious period. While many Trotskyists can claim some success in the Russian Revolution for the SWP it was quickly doomed to turn state capitalist.

It is no good just saying you're right and everyone else is wrong. Over more than a century you must be able to point to some evidence that your ideas can work.


----------



## cockneyrebel (Dec 8, 2004)

> they're the largest group on the left, and have a lot of influence,



They may be the largest left group but all that shows is the pathetic state of revolutionary organisations in the UK. They don't have a lot of influence at all. Their influence on the working class and trade unions is totally insignificant.

The only time they have influence is when they have a totally disproportionate amount of influence to their size like in the STWC and ESF and I would agree that in these situations their politics/tactics are a problem.



> I'm not in a group. I'm a supporter of the WSM, which is growing. I think the organisational model it uses is good, and useful for the kind of work that it carries out.



So how many members has the WSM got then?



> Anarchists have Mexico and Argentina and the examples of Spain, Christinia and Ukraine.



Sorry how can anarchos point to any of these examples.

Mexico and Argentina?!

Ukraine ended in utter failure and the makhnovists ended up getting nowhere and in Spain the CNT ended up in a capitalist/stalinist government!

I can't see where anarchists can point to anywhere where their ideas have worked. Anarchists have never overthrown a capitalist state, that's for sure. When they got the chance in Spain, they joined it!

And saying what can trotskyists offer apart from the russian revolution is a pretty big "apart from"! It's the only time a capitalist state has been overthrown by left revolutionary forces.

As for Labourites and Fabians, they are pro-capitalist, so obviously they could point to successes!

And I think you'd struggle to call North Korea, Cuba, China or Nepal "successes"....unfortunately, the history of revolutionary forces is so far a history of defeat....


----------



## Chuck Wilson (Dec 8, 2004)

Ray said:
			
		

> There are plenty of critics of the SWP - they're the largest group on the left, and have a lot of influence, so of course there are going to be plenty of critics.
> 
> But I asked you to point to the people who "are obsessed with the notion that only a demise of the swp can see a flowering of their own organizations".
> 
> ...



Ray , what is the WSM and what is its organisational model?


----------



## Ray (Dec 8, 2004)

cockneyrebel said:
			
		

> So how many members has the WSM got then?



About 20, I think. Which is more than it had when I was a member, which is why I said it was growing.


----------



## cockneyrebel (Dec 8, 2004)

So the WSM is just another on the long list of revolutionary organisations that is utterly insignificant....hardly an inspiration....


----------



## Ray (Dec 8, 2004)

Chuck Wilson said:
			
		

> Ray , what is the WSM and what is its organisational model?



They're a platformist anarchist group, in Ireland. 
http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/wsm.html
The constitution and stuff is on that site, and this site
http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/anarchism/platform.html
gives you some idea of what platformism is.


----------



## Ray (Dec 8, 2004)

cockneyrebel said:
			
		

> So the WSM is just another on the long list of revolutionary organisations that is utterly insignificant....hardly an inspiration....



And I said anything else... where exactly?   

(of course, it very much depends on how you define 'significant'. The SWP is not going to lead a revolution any time soon, but if you're opposed to the Iraq war, then it has a significant effect on your political activity.)


----------



## cockneyrebel (Dec 8, 2004)

> of course, it very much depends on how you define 'significant'. The SWP is not going to lead a revolution any time soon, but if you're opposed to the Iraq war, then it has a significant effect on your political activity



That's why I made the comments about the STWC and ESF.....


----------



## Ray (Dec 8, 2004)

cockneyrebel said:
			
		

> That's why I made the comments about the STWC and ESF.....



Well, you need to pick a definition of 'significant' and stick to it, don't you? Because you seem to spend half the time arguing that the SWP, WP, WSM, and everyone else is completely insignificant, and half the time starting threads about what the SWP is up to.


----------



## Chuck Wilson (Dec 8, 2004)

Can I add the unit of "hardly an inspiration" to the unit measurement of membership of revolutionary groups? It should apply to organisations with members of around 20 and it should, I think come before memberships of 80-90 which are " not of significance".


----------



## scawenb (Dec 8, 2004)

cockneyrebel said:
			
		

> And saying what can trotskyists offer apart from the russian revolution is a pretty big "apart from"! It's the only time a capitalist state has been overthrown by left revolutionary forces.


But Stalinist, Leninists, Maoists, anarchists and even Fabians welcomed the Russian Revolution. Not only was Trotsky only converted to the Revolution at the last minute he remain in opposition for most of the time. Unlike Trotsky and most other Trotskyist, Cliff see the USSR as State Capitalist by at least 1928. So you only claim  is not only a one-off shared by others but from your point of view actually indicates that there was something severely wrong with it organisational methods.


----------



## cockneyrebel (Dec 8, 2004)

> Because you seem to spend half the time arguing that the SWP, WP, WSM, and everyone else is completely insignificant, and half the time starting threads about what the SWP is up to.



Actually if I do start threads about the SWP it is almost always in the context of the STWC, ESF, SA, RESPECT, GR etc where they do have an influence.

As said though, their influence in the working class and trade unions is utterly insignificant....

scawenb trotskyists would that without the methods of the bolsheviks the revolution in Russia wouldn't have been successful and that the bolsheviks were correct in saying the revolution had to spread to stop the bureaucracy taking over and becoming a dictatorship....


----------



## Chuck Wilson (Dec 8, 2004)

cockneyrebel said:
			
		

> As said though, their influence in the working class and trade unions is utterly insignificant....



Bloodyhell cockney we are now drawing up a new scale for measuring the effectiveness of the size of membership of revolutionary groups.Exciting times.

By the way, if you have some time I would appreciate a some explaination of the perspective on 'pre-revolutionary' periods.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Dec 9, 2004)

cockneyrebel said:
			
		

> Actually if I do start threads about the SWP it is almost always in the context of the STWC, ESF, SA, RESPECT, GR etc where they do have an influence.
> 
> As said though, their influence in the working class and trade unions is utterly insignificant....


This is pretty much stating the obvious.  All the way through this thread I think most people have argued that the revolutionary left is insignificant.  Question of the thread is as chuck puts is what do we do in the here and now to ensure we are politically significant enough in a revolutionary crisis.
Frats rmp3


----------



## scawenb (Dec 9, 2004)

So does anyone want to offer any evidence that Trotskyism has been shown to work in practice (even briefly) without just slagging someone else off?

Or do we have to just take your word for it that it is obviously the correct form of organisation?


----------



## TremulousTetra (Dec 9, 2004)

davgraham said:
			
		

> Yet another potentially interesting thread which is about to be de-railed on the question of 'vanguard party'.
> 
> This is a treble pity
> 
> ...


Discussing the minutiae  of left wing politics in public is I’ve always felt is somewhat embarrassingly elitist.  I also feel it is something which offers little mileage in greater understanding, it just opens a Pandora’s box of “he said, she said”.  We seriously need to get past the arguments whether Lenin was right about the “labour aristocracy” for example.
The point of the thread for me like you Gras is 





> Today we pay much more attention to such 'subjectivity' [or we should do] in order to tease out its contradictions, find its weak points in the hope of using them as leverage.


Even though I disagree with some of your interpretations, And lennin's development of Marx and Engels words, I would be far more interested in you developing what you meant by that Second to last sentence.  

Frats Rmp3


----------



## cockneyrebel (Dec 9, 2004)

scawenb other than the russian revolution, there's not a lot. But then I can't think of any other examples of any revolutionary movements being successful, whatever their politics.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Dec 9, 2004)

scawenb said:
			
		

> But Stalinist, Leninists, Maoists, anarchists and even Fabians welcomed the Russian Revolution. Not only was Trotsky only converted to the Revolution at the last minute he remain in opposition for most of the time. Unlike Trotsky and most other Trotskyist, Cliff see the USSR as State Capitalist by at least 1928. So you only claim  is not only a one-off shared by others but from your point of view actually indicates that there was something severely wrong with it organisational methods.


Severely wrong or just plain wrong?  Lennin was wrong about labor aristocracy and trotsky was wrong about deformed workers state according to Socialist worker.  Socialist worker cannot prove they're Categorically right about lennin and Trotsky, you cannot prove S. W. wrong by your spurious game imho.

What do you propose is the best way for revolutionaries to organize in the here and now considering we have to be big enough and organized enough to be Significant a revolutionary situation?    

Frats Rmp3


----------



## TremulousTetra (Dec 9, 2004)

Ray said:
			
		

> Many? Like who?
> 
> (You can think the left would be better off without the SWP without thinking it must die before your own group can grow)


It took a little bit of goading admittedly, but it didn't Take me long to get the usual response.  



			
				DoUsAFavour said:
			
		

> and that explains why the left is so small in the UK, because the SWP drains the life and spirit out of newbies.


----------



## scawenb (Dec 9, 2004)

ResistanceMP3 said:
			
		

> Socialist worker cannot prove they're Categorically right about lennin and Trotsky, you cannot prove S. W. wrong by your spurious game imho.


I wasn't saying you were wrong - I was just asking for concrete evidence that what you believe is possible in the real world. 

Perhaps it just me but I find it difficult to believe in a theory which after 150 years has, in your view, so little evidence to show it is more that utopian wishfulness.

You may well be right but I do think you need more proof if anyone is going to take your word for it.


----------



## Ray (Dec 9, 2004)

ResistanceMP3 said:
			
		

> It took a little bit of goading admittedly, but it didn't Take me long to get the usual response.



Congratulations. Act like a twat and you manage to piss off someone (on a different board). And this is supposed to tell us something about the *rest * of the left?


----------



## TremulousTetra (Dec 10, 2004)

Ray said:
			
		

> Congratulations. Act like a twat and you manage to piss off someone (on a different board). And this is supposed to tell us something about the *rest * of the left?


I deny that, I was not behavng like pickman,,,, well maybe I was.     You asked for example, got one so easy, because the point was, it's "the USUAL response".  

the idea that 3000 members of the swp can stop the revolutionary left talking, engaging, and recruiting the 60 million people of this country is laughable in the extreme , but that is what passes as anarchist 'politics', ON THIS BOARD, [Only thank good fortune]. 

ResistanceMP3


----------



## Ray (Dec 10, 2004)

ResistanceMP3 said:
			
		

> the idea that 3000 members of the swp can stop the revolutionary left talking, engaging, and recruiting the 60 million people of this country is laughable in the extreme , but that is what passes as anarchist 'politics', ON THIS BOARD, [Only thank good fortune].



So you couldn't find examples of people actualy saying that on this board, so you went out and pushed somebody on another board into saying it, and you think this demonstrates the obsession of many anarchists on here? 

I think it demonstrates something a little different...


----------



## TremulousTetra (Dec 10, 2004)

scawenb said:
			
		

> I wasn't saying you were wrong - I was just asking for concrete evidence that what you believe is possible in the real world.
> 
> Perhaps it just me but I find it difficult to believe in a theory which after 150 years has, in your view, so little evidence to show it is more that utopian wishfulness.
> 
> You may well be right but I do think you need more proof if anyone is going to take your word for it.


I don't think any real marxists have said "socialism is inevitable".  Rosa Luxembourg summed it up best, "the choice is socialism of barbarism".  in other words the future is pregnant with Contradictory possibilities.  

So is it possible?  There is thousands of years of evidence out there for you to look at and come to a conclusion.  I've looked at what I can and come to the conclusion it is possible.  But I'm never going to delude myself that I can take somebody with a substantial ideology already in place, and through debates alone negate their lifelong experience, and convince them that I'm right.  it does happen, but it's rare.  no, ideas change in struggle.

Want a better world, I suggest you take up the struggle for that world in the best way choose [as I see you are at marks and Spencers].  Only through testing your theories in practice will we come [I believe ] to the same way of looking at the world.

So I ask again, how will you standing outside of marks and Spencers change the world?  I'm not being facetious, I'm asking for a brief outline of the bigger game plan.  How can the revolutionary left be influential enough in a revolutionary crisis to convince working classes to choose a anarchism/Socialisism rather than the barbarism they've chose so many times before?

let me put  it another way.  From MY study of history I don't think that the working class needs educating about direct action.  when needs must, the working class have been far more inventive in this area .  I don't think the working class need convincing by socialists of the need for revolution, the revolutionary crisis that capitalism has/will create, will do that.  What I think is needed is a group of the working class big enough, with enough credibility, to influence those in a revolutionary crisis that socialism is possible, and the viable game plan for a better future.  Building that organization and credibility has to start today.

Frats Rmp3


----------



## TremulousTetra (Dec 10, 2004)

Ray said:
			
		

> So you couldn't find examples of people actualy saying that on this board, so you went out and pushed somebody on another board into saying it, and you think this demonstrates the obsession of many anarchists on here?
> 
> I think it demonstrates something a little different...


Didn't have to find, dumped in my lap.


----------



## kropotkin (Dec 10, 2004)

Having a group that influene others by having a propaganda function is totally different from the glorious vanguard who will lead them, capture the state and administer it on their behalf.

The former is something that pretty much all revolutionaries would agree with- the latter is an idea that has lost any credibility and hopefully will be consigned to the dustbin of history.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Dec 10, 2004)

kropotkin said:
			
		

> Having a group that influene others by having a propaganda function is totally different from the glorious vanguard who will lead them, capture the state and administer it on their behalf.
> 
> The former is something that pretty much all revolutionaries would agree with- the latter is an idea that has lost any credibility and hopefully will be consigned to the dustbin of history.


Yes, a good job of the Stalinists have been consigned to the dustbin of history.


----------



## scawenb (Dec 10, 2004)

ResistanceMP3 said:
			
		

> I don't think any real marxists have said "socialism is inevitable".  Rosa Luxembourg summed it up best, "the choice is socialism of barbarism".  in other words the future is pregnant with Contradictory possibilities.


What about the _Communist Manifesto _ just as one example?


> The development of modern industry, therefore, cuts from under its feet the very foundation on which the bourgeoisie produces and appropriates products. What the bourgeoisie, therefore, produces above all are its own gave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable.


----------



## scawenb (Dec 10, 2004)

ResistanceMP3 said:
			
		

> let me put  it another way.  From MY study of history I don't think that the working class needs educating about direct action.  when needs must, the working class have been far more inventive in this area .  I don't think the working class need convincing by socialists of the need for revolution, the revolutionary crisis that capitalism has/will create, will do that.  What I think is needed is a group of the working class big enough, with enough credibility, to influence those in a revolutionary crisis that socialism is possible, and the viable game plan for a better future.  Building that organization and credibility has to start today.


I agree with you on that. But your specific theory does not seem to have any credibility and would actually indicate that Socialism is NOT possible. It only historical game plan soon transformed into State Capitalism.

It is a theory which oddly (for you) seems only to have convinced a small number of people in the imperialist countries (with the exception of Sri Lanka). From the Zapatistas to the Nepalese rebels, from South Africa to Cuba the working class have always been influenced by other viable game plans. As an example of scientific socialism yours is a theory which has never been tested. It doesn't mean it is not right - it just makes it very difficult to convince anyone that it is possible, as you have shown.


----------



## october_lost (Dec 10, 2004)

> What I think is needed is a group of the working class big enough, with enough credibility, to influence those in a revolutionary crisis that socialism is possible, and the viable game plan for a better future. Building that organization and credibility has to start today.


Revolutionary vanguards are by their very nature incapable of pulling together a mass movement, instead they replicate divisions and internal disputes which sour the _autonomy_ of the working class, all because of their obsessions about party politics....


----------



## TremulousTetra (Dec 14, 2004)

scawenb said:
			
		

> I agree with you on that. But your specific theory does not seem to have any credibility and would actually indicate that Socialism is NOT possible. It only historical game plan soon transformed into State Capitalism.
> 
> It is a theory which oddly (for you) seems only to have convinced a small number of people in the imperialist countries (with the exception of Sri Lanka). From the Zapatistas to the Nepalese rebels, from South Africa to Cuba the working class have always been influenced by other viable game plans. As an example of scientific socialism yours is a theory which has never been tested. It doesn't mean it is not right - it just makes it very difficult to convince anyone that it is possible, as you have shown.


Well I accept it hasn't been tested to a successfull conclusion, but neither has any other strategy.  None of the examples you cite above have achieved communism/anarchism.  Communism/anarchism it is widely acknowledged cannot exist in one country.  And even in these single countries, I think few would argue that actual communism/anarchism exists.  Yes I concede that maybe these examples may have achieved more reforms to the capitalist system than revolutionaries have, but unless we achieve social revolution these reforms will eventually be claimed back by the swamp that is capitalism imo.

But this Is getting off the question I asked, which I am very interested in your opinion on considering we agree on so much.  So I ask again, how will you standing outside of marks and Spencers change the world? I'm not being facetious, I'm asking for a brief outline of the bigger game plan. How can the revolutionary left be influential enough in a revolutionary crisis to convince working classes to choose a anarchism/Socialisism rather than the barbarism they've chose so many times before?

Respect Rmp3


----------



## TremulousTetra (Dec 14, 2004)

scawenb said:
			
		

> What about the _Communist Manifesto _ just as one example?





> The development of modern industry, therefore, cuts from under its feet the very foundation on which the bourgeoisie produces and appropriates products. What the bourgeoisie, therefore, produces above all are its own gave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable.


 I think a better writer would have wrote a revolutionary crisis will result in;  





> a revolutionary reconstitution of society or in the common ruin of the contending classes


 KM in CM  

Frats Rmp3


----------



## TremulousTetra (Dec 14, 2004)

october_lost said:
			
		

> Revolutionary vanguards are by their very nature incapable of pulling together a mass movement, instead they replicate divisions and internal disputes which sour the _autonomy_ of the working class, all because of their obsessions about party politics....


So what mass movement with NO divisions and internal disputes has your method of organization delivered ?

Frats comrade


----------



## scawenb (Dec 14, 2004)

ResistanceMP3 said:
			
		

> Well I accept it hasn't been tested to a successfull conclusion, but neither has any other strategy.  None of the examples you cite above have achieved communism/anarchism.  Communism/anarchism it is widely acknowledged cannot exist in one country.  And even in these single countries, I think few would argue that actual communism/anarchism exists.  Yes I concede that maybe these examples may have achieved more reforms to the capitalist system than revolutionaries have, but unless we achieve social revolution these reforms will eventually be claimed back by the swamp that is capitalism imo.


I never asked you to show me a strategy that has achived communism/anarchism - that is just silly. But most others have bigger or smaller "experiments" or achievement (IMO more than just capitalist reforms) by which their validity can be assessed - yours just seems to be stated.

Another world may be possible but is it proveable?


----------



## TremulousTetra (Dec 14, 2004)

scawenb said:
			
		

> I never asked you to show me a strategy that has achived communism/anarchism - that is just silly. But most others have bigger or smaller "experiments" or achievement (IMO more than just capitalist reforms) by which their validity can be assessed - yours just seems to be stated.
> 
> Another world may be possible but is it proveable?


That's the point isn't it, it's your opinion?  In my opinion Cuba is not a great achievement.  It is a state capitalism.  In other words, just a reform of capitalism.  I have to admit out of  all state capitalist societies it is possibly the best.  Indeed it is probably better for the working class than many capitalist countries.  But it still has some terrible aspects.  In my opinion Guevarism has bestowed upon revolutionaries a negative legacy.  But that comes from my perspective of how revolutionaries should organize.  In my opinion the shortcut of a "dedicated elite minority" can never substitute for the self organization of the working class.  The emacipation of the working class has to be the act of the working class.

Anyway, if you don't want to expand on your ideas that's OK with me. have a nice day and, 

respect resistancemp3


----------



## scawenb (Dec 15, 2004)

There you go so those who see Cuba as a model give you some concrete evidence and an example by which you can judge whether you think it is a correct or workable strategy. As I keep saying Anarchist, Stalinists, Maoists. some Trotskyists and even Fascists have something to show and debate beyond the "my strategy is right and yours is pants!"

That why for me of all the different positions I've considered (and I think many have good arguments) yours has always been the least credible.


----------



## Chuck Wilson (Dec 15, 2004)

ResistanceMP3 said:
			
		

> In my opinion the shortcut of a "dedicated elite minority" can never substitute for the self organization of the working class.  The emacipation of the working class has to be the act of the working class.



Most on here won't diagree with your last sentence but seeing as the SWP sees that as being achieved through a vanguard party and  professional revolutinaries , doesn't this take us back to the question of the relationship between party and class and indeed Leninism to Marxism?


----------



## TremulousTetra (Dec 16, 2004)

Chuck Wilson said:
			
		

> Most on here won't diagree with your last sentence but seeing as the SWP sees that as being achieved through a vanguard party and  professional revolutinaries , doesn't this take us back to the question of the relationship between party and class and indeed Leninism to Marxism?


Did you not as a member go through the distinction between the SW view of the role of a vanguard, and the @ and Guevarist modle of the 'vanguard'?  You must know "the shortcut of a "dedicated elite minority" can never substitute for the self organization of the working class. The emacipation of the working class has to be the act of the working class." was a constant theme of all SW analysiss?  

Frats Rmp3


----------



## TremulousTetra (Dec 16, 2004)

scawenb said:
			
		

> There you go so those who see Cuba as a model give you some concrete evidence and an example by which you can judge whether you think it is a correct or workable strategy. As I keep saying Anarchist, Stalinists, Maoists. some Trotskyists and even Fascists have something to show and debate beyond the "my strategy is right and yours is pants!"
> 
> That why for me of all the different positions I've considered (and I think many have good arguments) yours has always been the least credible.


Of course you may believe that the examples you cite have achieved is some kind of success, I don't.  For me they prove the failure of such stratergies.  How quick did cuba move to state capitalism? Day 1 or 2?

The only example that has achieved a brief social revolution was russia imo. And both trotsky and lenin were further vindicated by their prediction of it's demise imo.

IMO this is old ground with little room for profit for people like us, with well established 'idologies'. But you don't want to discuss our personal 'modles'.  So.........

Frats Rmp3

BTW I'm a Marxist, leninist, trotskyist, cliffist, not a trotskyist.


----------



## Chuck Wilson (Dec 16, 2004)

ResistanceMP3 said:
			
		

> Did you not as a member go through the distinction between the SW view of the role of a vanguard, and the @ and Guevarist modle of the 'vanguard'?  You must know "the shortcut of a "dedicated elite minority" can never substitute for the self organization of the working class. The emacipation of the working class has to be the act of the working class." was a constant theme of all SW analysiss?
> 
> Frats Rmp3



Yes I think that theoretically SWP comrades are taught the diffrence between a Leninist model and a Guevarist model. ( actually the idea of the SWP national comitte being armed and leading a coup in Britain is something that should be on Little Britain) 

The SWP have traded for years in a mantra of 'socialism from below' Cliff was a great one man act as a speaker in propounding this to public audiences. In contrast to the moribund Labour Party,always waiting for the next election the beaurocratic dicatorships of the state caps, the men in suits etc the tradition of socialism from below with its basis on activity, self emancipation and democracy is a brave and bold alternative.

But in practice how does the SWP operate ,both internally as an organisation and then within  working class communities ( and I suppose within other classes in Respect, UAF etc)? It operates as an elite Leninist vanguard.


----------



## levien (Dec 16, 2004)

You should read marxism and the party scawenb I'll lend you my copy if you want. It is probably a clear account then either my nor Rmp3 will be able to provide over the net.


----------



## Flavour (Dec 16, 2004)

saw you on the 142 t'other day trebor lad

you ain't seen me.... right?

(quit the SWP)


----------



## levien (Dec 16, 2004)

*Utopianism, self activity and Lenninism*

"Perhaps it just me but I find it difficult to believe in a theory which after 150 years has, in your view, so little evidence to show it is more that utopian wishfulness."

The nitty gritty of it can be gone through in books on the failed German revolution etc.  But I've always thought the instinctive ness of it is our greatest strength.  The utopianism you talk about reflects the best of what you think about yourself and the world before it is squashed out of you by school/work/life.  Some mass actions events discussions can bring that side out a little in people and as you can see a material expression of the "utopian" movement and seeds of what it could become.  One of the tasks of revolution is being able to carry the lessons of the past and the current situation to show that the other world is really possible.  Those lessons lie in Russia 1917, Germany 1919, Red (was it Year/months?) in Italy, 1968 and the antiwar movement of today/.  A form of rev organisation needs to look at how it is spreading the confidence of people to express their "best side" in movements which challenge the common sense of the world today.  I think the SWPs form of organisation has helped maintain the biggest and most inclusive anti-war movement against those who would have lead it down a dead end and has allowed the SWP to help start to forge a real left alternative to the “pragmatism” of new labour.  The SWP’s form of organisation has allowed it to maintain a key influence in the anti war movement against both the ultra-left and the auto-labour types despite our smaller size and to convince the majority of anti-war activists of our strategy and ideas in the antiwar movement 

On the SWP's exact ideas on organisation Marxism and the Party is probably the best source.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Dec 16, 2004)

levien said:
			
		

> You should read marxism and the party scawenb I'll lend you my copy if you want. It is probably a clear account then either my nor Rmp3 will be able to provide over the net.



Or alternatively scaweb could trust the evidence of their experience and the record of practice of the SWP and see how at odds it is with the party's professed adherence to socialism from below.  

Cheers - Louis Mac


----------



## levien (Dec 16, 2004)

Er no. Pm me who you are and i'll tell you.  Thought you were in WP.  But you have to many posts for it to be anyone obvious.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 16, 2004)

"Those lessons lie in Russia 1917, Germany 1919, Red (was it Year/months?) in Italy, 1968 and the antiwar movement of today"

Sounds like fair and accurate comparisons to me. Very similiar situations all - well spotted cliffy.


----------



## levien (Dec 16, 2004)

If you say so Butch..... cos I didn't.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Dec 16, 2004)

levien said:
			
		

> "Perhaps it just me but I find it difficult to believe in a theory which after 150 years has, in your view, so little evidence to show it is more that utopian wishfulness."
> 
> The nitty gritty of it can be gone through in books on the failed German revolution etc.  But I've always thought the instinctive ness of it is our greatest strength.  The utopianism you talk about reflects the best of what you think about yourself and the world before it is squashed out of you by school/work/life.  Some mass actions events discussions can bring that side out a little in people and as you can see a material expression of the "utopian" movement and seeds of what it could become.  One of the tasks of revolution is being able to carry the lessons of the past and the current situation to show that the other world is really possible.  Those lessons lie in Russia 1917, Germany 1919, Red (was it Year/months?) in Italy, 1968 and the antiwar movement of today/.  A form of rev organisation needs to look at how it is spreading the confidence of people to express their "best side" in movements which challenge the common sense of the world today.  I think the SWPs form of organisation has helped maintain the biggest and most inclusive anti-war movement against those who would have lead it down a dead end and has allowed the SWP to help start to forge a real left alternative to the “pragmatism” of new labour.  The SWP’s form of organisation has allowed it to maintain a key influence in the anti war movement against both the ultra-left and the auto-labour types despite our smaller size and to convince the majority of anti-war activists of our strategy and ideas in the antiwar movement
> 
> On the SWP's exact ideas on organisation Marxism and the Party is probably the best source.



So are you saying contrary to the evidence presented on these boards by other members of the SWP (past and present) that the oraganisational methods of the SWP have remained constant and true to those set out in Marxism and the Party? If so you're approaching RW's level of self-delusion...keep up the good work!  

Cheers - Louis Mac


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 16, 2004)

levien said:
			
		

> If you say so Butch..... cos I didn't.


 Oddly enough you did, and in the quote i posted. You compared the positive lessons we can draw from some of the critical revolutionary periods of the last 100 years with those from a dying and failed anti-war movement.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Dec 16, 2004)

levien said:
			
		

> If you say so Butch..... cos I didn't.



Is this some sort of record in the 'goldfish memory' stakes...it only takes levien 19 mins to forget what they wrote...no wonder they're able to the SWP's history as one of consitency, afterall it only lasts 18 mins at most.

Go on lev give us another, I should be working but this too good to miss.

Many thanks - Louis Mac


----------



## levien (Dec 16, 2004)

No I didn't say they were the same I said a rev org needs to put forwards the lessons learned from the past and current situations.  The STW movement is the dominate factor for the progressive movement in the current instance.  It is also probably the most wide spread and definately the most organised expression of part of that "utopian" good sense that I was replying to.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 16, 2004)

So, aside from the banality that we need to learn "from the past and current situations." - you've picked out a few of the key situations from a revolutionary perspective, presumably because they all demonstrate these positive lessons - and that these moments of crisis for the state highlight these to the nth degree. Which still leaves the question of just why you've included the dying anti-war movement amongst these moments. What precisely are the positive lessons we can draw from it?Oddly enough, i do think that there are lessons that can be drawn from the many failures of the current anti-war movement. Needless to say they'll differ somewhat from yours. 'Vote RESPECT'


----------



## Chuck Wilson (Dec 16, 2004)

levien said:
			
		

> I think the SWPs form of organisation has helped maintain the biggest and most inclusive anti-war movement against those who would have lead it down a dead end and has allowed the SWP to help start to forge a real left alternative to the “pragmatism” of new labour.  The SWP’s form of organisation has allowed it to maintain a key influence in the anti war movement against both the ultra-left and the auto-labour types despite our smaller size and to convince the majority of anti-war activists of our strategy and ideas in the antiwar movement
> 
> On the SWP's exact ideas on organisation Marxism and the Party is probably the best source.



Every things all right then? Sorry I must have been mistaken and confused a rapidly declining membership, lack of influence within the working class and a number of failed projects with an opportunity to at least 'MOT'  a form of  organisation and politics that has been running round in circles since the Trots were kicked out of the CP. But its obviously onwards and upwards!


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 16, 2004)

It's been nothing but for the last what 75 or so years?


----------



## levien (Dec 16, 2004)

And i don't think its dying (the stw movement that is).  Esp as its seems to be begining to pick up again.  I think it was Lukac who pointed out that the tradition you stand in can only generalise from what is happening today while a the task of revolutionaries is to pick up on the nature of the period. The current period is one of mass social movements of which the movemnt against the war is the starting point.


----------



## levien (Dec 16, 2004)

Chuck Wilson said:
			
		

> Every things all right then? Sorry I must have been mistaken and confused a rapidly declining membership, lack of influence within the working class and a number of failed projects with an opportunity to at least 'MOT'  a form of  organisation and politics that has been running round in circles since the Trots were kicked out of the CP. But its obviously onwards and upwards!



While other revolutionary movements have obviously been claiming the alligence of millions and destroying states in county after county?

Trotskyism survived stalinism and has informed and influenced several significant (but small) revolutionary organisations.  The SWP has certainly faired better then any other revolutionary movement in Britain.  And if Respect gets reasonable votes and March 19th is a success will be in a very good position to start attracting new activists to independant revolutionary activity.

btw membership has not decreased we still have 8'000 members if we still calculated membership figures in the way we did before we changed our membership proceedures. But we anounced two types of member and the weekly worker just announced the number who pay subs, reregistared and are in one of the new style branches.  Excluding over 4000 who are still members but haven't been reregistared inc at least 4 in our branch for example.  But i really don't want to go over this again.


----------



## Ray (Dec 16, 2004)

levien said:
			
		

> btw membership has not decreased we still have 8'000 members if we still calculated membership figures in the way we did before we changed our membership proceedures. But we anounced two types of member and the weekly worker just announced the number who pay subs, reregistared and are in one of the new style branches.  Excluding over 4000 who are still members but haven't been reregistared inc at least 4 in our branch for example.  But i really don't want to go over this again.



 
Your loyalty to the SWP puts the central committee to shame! Of course the party is gloriously growing - its counter-revolutionary to say otherwise!


----------



## levien (Dec 16, 2004)

Membership hasn't decreased but the activity of wide layers of it has.  The reason we changed the way membership is calculated was to give a more accurate veiw of actvitity.  Those 4000 members are people who do a bit of party activity most weeks.  It allows branches and districts to look honestly at what new people are being won to the party and how many older members are starting to do stuff regularly again.


----------



## Ray (Dec 16, 2004)

levien said:
			
		

> Membership hasn't decreased ...



That's it cliffy, keep holding the line...


----------



## Chuck Wilson (Dec 16, 2004)

levien said:
			
		

> While other revolutionary movements have obviously been claiming the alligence of millions and destroying states in county after county?
> 
> Trotskyism survived stalinism and has informed and influenced several significant (but small) revolutionary organisations.  The SWP has certainly faired better then any other revolutionary movement in Britain.  And if Respect gets reasonable votes and March 19th is a success will be in a very good position to start attracting new activists to independant revolutionary activity.
> 
> btw membership has not decreased we still have 8'000 members if we still calculated membership figures in the way we did before we changed our membership proceedures. But we anounced two types of member and the weekly worker just announced the number who pay subs, reregistared and are in one of the new style branches.  Excluding over 4000 who are still members but haven't been reregistared inc at least 4 in our branch for example.  But i really don't want to go over this again.



Levien, your original comments that I responded to related to the SWP's success in Britain being influenced by the party structure.Your first sentence , I think then tries to apply my response to other revolutionary projects in the world. ( although you do confuse counties with countries).

 What is the significance of Trostskyism surviving Stalinism  ? The world Stalinist parties are probably bigger and  probably more influnetial in some countries. Stalinisms legacy still has the monoploy on what even the people closest to Trotskyism think of when the phrase socialist state is thought of.

And which Trostkyism ( sound like a reasonable idea for a magazine for the independent activist who has yet to sign up to a revo group) are we talking about ? The Trostskyism of the International Bolshevik League- the Sparts and their cartoon politics? The eccentric fence sitters of the AWL? The small but perfectly formed WP?

In some parts of the world  feudalism survives it doesn't mean that it is the future. Similarly whilst DVD players have survived video they might well be made obsolete by a newer format.

How ever it is true to say that the SWP is the largest revo group on the left, and has been  for the past 25 years or so ,apart from a two/three year period where Militant were the market leader. But it is also true to say that the SWP is significanly weaker within the working class than it was, that its membership has fallen ( look at the number of branches for christs sake, at one time you could go on a pretty good pub crawl just by visting the pubs on Wed and Thurday nights that the Manchester branches met in) and for example that using the yardstick of ANL mark 1( ie success) that UAF has failed. 

It is  precsiely the  lack of RESPECTS roots within the local working class that influences your remark 'if RESPECT gets reasonable votes'. If it was serious, if it was rooted then then SWP would be in a position to say where its main challenge would be and who its main challenges are.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Dec 16, 2004)

levien said:
			
		

> Membership hasn't decreased but the activity of wide layers of it has.  The reason we changed the way membership is calculated was to give a more accurate veiw of actvitity.  Those 4000 members are people who do a bit of party activity most weeks.  It allows branches and districts to look honestly at what new people are being won to the party and how many older members are starting to do stuff regularly again.



The omniscient lev knows what 4000 erstwhile SWpers are up to...but can't remember what they themself have  said from one post to the next!  

More more - Louis Mac


----------



## mutley (Dec 16, 2004)

At the risk of regetting butting in here when this has obviously gone on for a while (and i can't be arsed to read it all) what the fuck...

The swp is probably SLIGHTLY smaller, than it was in the late 90's. However the way it operates is utterly different.

We used to have a very strong routine, which was maintained and prioritised above all else, involving the weekly meetings, sat sale, building our own events etc.

That routine has gone, and good bleedin' riddance i say, as we are 10 or 50 times more involved in Respect, STW etc. This means that the average swp member is much more involved in activities that involve significant layers of non-swp people and so on. This, to me is a good thing. The old routine of spending jan/feb re-registering people, March to July building Marxism, August and sept getting ready to lobby the labout party and the rest of the year doing the appeal lead to some quite big Marxisms but fuck all else. 

We used to put huge amounts of energy into dropping the paper to and maintaining contact with a layer of passive members. Now we don't.

The down-side of what we do now is that we have lost contact with some members because we've not got the time to maintain the relationship. 
Hence we're not as big. And hence the current emphasis on rebuiding a branch structure, but still with less time to do so than we used to spend on it. 

The post above about how you used to be able to do a good pub crawl around the manchester branches is true i'm sure, but what were the people in those branches doing - meeting on a Wednesday, to build a sale on a Saturday, to build a meeting on the Wed, to build a sale etc etc.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Dec 16, 2004)

mutley said:
			
		

> At the risk of regetting butting in here when this has obviously gone on for a while (and i can't be arsed to read it all) what the fuck...
> 
> The swp is probably SLIGHTLY smaller, than it was in the late 90's. However the way it operates is utterly different.
> 
> ...




i think you should have a word with Cliffite because he claims the SWP hasn't changed the way it operates and that all the time it's been following the approach laid out in Marxism and the Party...I think you should get your stories straight.

Cheers - Louis Mac


----------



## mutley (Dec 16, 2004)

Marxism and the Party is a book that lays out some general principles. It does not specify the exact weight that should be given to party building in the narrow sense as opposed to work in united fronts, or similar short-term tactical stuff. It gives some guidance in general principles. But deciding when it's time to batten down the hatches and have internalised routines, and when to open up and throw caution to the wind is something that is concrete, and has to be judged.

Now the question of whether the swp or any other organisation is actually applying *general * rules and principles correctly in a *specific* situation is a whole other ball game. So if cliffite (Levien?) is arguing that the general principles haven't changed then me and him/her agree, and they're quite neatly outlined in Marxism and the Party. It's how we're applying them and the weight given to different bits that has changed.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Dec 16, 2004)

mutley said:
			
		

> Marxism and the Party is a book that lays out some general principles. It does not specify the exact weight that should be given to party building in the narrow sense as opposed to work in united fronts, or similar short-term tactical stuff. It gives some guidance in general principles. But deciding when it's time to batten down the hatches and have internalised routines, and when to open up and throw caution to the wind is something that is concrete, and has to be judged.
> 
> Now the question of whether the swp or any other organisation is actually applying *general * rules and principles correctly in a *specific* situation is a whole other ball game. So if cliffite (Levien?) is arguing that the general principles haven't changed then me and him/her agree, and they're quite neatly outlined in Marxism and the Party. It's how we're applying them and the weight given to different bits that has changed.



Well done mutley...good to see you getting back in step nice and quickly.

Cheers - Louis Mac


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 16, 2004)

Louis MacNeice said:
			
		

> Well done mutley...good to see you getting back in step nice and quickly.
> 
> Cheers - Louis Mac


 The general idea being that the party is right no matter what it does or when it does it.


----------



## mutley (Dec 16, 2004)

Louis MacNeice said:
			
		

> Well done mutley...good to see you getting back in step nice and quickly.
> 
> Cheers - Louis Mac



whatever... (yawn)


----------



## TremulousTetra (Dec 17, 2004)

mutley said:
			
		

> whatever... (yawn)


Mutley you're wasting your time with louis and butch. louis is  incapable Of reading a post without distorting it to his agenda.  Butch is incapable of accepting there are some things he doesn't know.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Dec 17, 2004)

ResistanceMP3 said:
			
		

> Mutley you're wasting your time with louis and butch. louis is  incapable Of reading a post without distorting it to his agenda.  Butch is incapable of accepting there are some things he doesn't know.



RMP3 why not go and read Lev's and Mutley's posts and see for your self the way in which that flatly contradict each other...which is what I was pointing out.

For that matter you might like to contrast some of your own posts detailing the changes in SWP organisational policy with those of Lev and his we've always been doing the right thing take on the party's history.

Louis Mac

p.s. what do you think my common agenda is in these posts:

"You can choose to elect councillors with a proven track record of working to a shared agenda with the more powerful council bureaucracy, or you can choose to elect councillors who are committed to pursuing the interests of the communities they come from (in the case of the IWCA working class communites), regardless of the interests of the council bureaucracy. These are the real, albeit limited choices that face voters come the local elections; I know which one I prefer and which one more effectively exposes the contradictions between the rhetoric and reality of local representative democracy. The option of not taking part does nothing in and of itself to expose this contradiction and of course gives those backing the first option a free run. None of which of course precludes political acitivity outside of the electoral arena.

Cheers - Louis Mac?"​
&

"It must be true [the renaming of Christmas as Winterval] because Hayley mentioned it on the Archers the other day, and she's got a brummy accent so she'd know.

Cheers - Louis Mac"​


----------



## TremulousTetra (Dec 17, 2004)

Chuck Wilson said:
			
		

> Yes I think that theoretically SWP comrades are taught the diffrence between a Leninist model and a Guevarist model. ( actually the idea of the SWP national comitte being armed and leading a coup in Britain is something that should be on Little Britain)
> 
> The SWP have traded for years in a mantra of 'socialism from below' Cliff was a great one man act as a speaker in propounding this to public audiences. In contrast to the moribund Labour Party,always waiting for the next election the beaurocratic dicatorships of the state caps, the men in suits etc the tradition of socialism from below with its basis on activity, self emancipation and democracy is a brave and bold alternative.
> 
> But in practice how does the SWP operate ,both internally as an organisation and then within  working class communities ( and I suppose within other classes in Respect, UAF etc)? It operates as an elite Leninist vanguard.


So how in your Experience did sw, even if only on a theoretical level, destinguish between the "dedicated elite minority" of the anarchist modle, and SW relationship to the class?

Frats Rmp3


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 17, 2004)

Go on then, what's the '"dedicated elite minority" of the anarchist modle'


----------



## cockneyrebel (Dec 17, 2004)

Levien what was also said was:



> On Sunday, Susanne Jeffrey, speaking for the central committee, claimed that there were.....3,345 current members.



Now somehow you try and change that to say that there are actually 8000 members. You can't get much clearer than saying the current membership is: 3,345.

And how can you seriously say the SWP membership hasn't significantly declined? As chuck said look at the amount of branches, look at the size of marxist forums, look at the same faces week in week out doing the stalls.

Your "super" marxist forums for the whole of South London got 40-50 people to them between them for fucks sake. RESPECT, which you say has a healthy amount of non-SWP members has about 3,000 members in total. Marxism only attracted about 3000 people in total. It really is like 1984.....


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 17, 2004)

Hey CR, do you know what the '"dedicated elite minority" of the anarchist modle' is? Is that what anarchists on here argue for?


----------



## cockneyrebel (Dec 17, 2004)

I think I met them at the MayDay meetings.

Or it could be the leadership of the CNT in the Spanish Civil War leading the anarchos into a capitalist government....

Or Makhno who thought it was ok to shoot people at meetings....

Fucking authoritarians you anarchos.....


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 17, 2004)

Yeah the "dedicated elite" of 2 million. He doesn't have a chuffin' clue does he?

And it _is_ right to kill mass murdering anti-jewish pogromists at meetings.


----------



## cockneyrebel (Dec 17, 2004)

Damn right, see don't be afraid of saying you support executions or shutting down anti-working class parties/organisations.....

or grain requisitioning....

You should have a word with that liberal Ray.....


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 17, 2004)

...or forced collectivisation and the setting up of isolators and labour camps eh?


----------



## cockneyrebel (Dec 17, 2004)

What you anarchos don't even support labour camps? Not even for the royal family?

Fucking hell, are tractors allowed or any food other than bean curd


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 17, 2004)

Don't be daft - just 'cos we'll shoot you as soon as you try and put on your liittle chekist uniform...


----------



## cockneyrebel (Dec 17, 2004)

I like my chekist uniform quite baggy actually....

Also would have to fit in with my bling.....

As it goes rednblack has already seen my pimp suit at marxism....dapper I tell, very dapper....


----------



## editor (Dec 17, 2004)

ResistanceMP3 said:
			
		

> In 1979 Cliff believed that the working class in Britain had entered a downturn.


He's a clever one, alright.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 17, 2004)

oh wow!


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Dec 17, 2004)

cockneyrebel said:
			
		

> I like my chekist uniform quite baggy actually....
> 
> Also would have to fit in with my bling.....
> 
> As it goes rednblack has already seen my pimp suit at marxism....dapper I tell, very dapper....



Strangely enough dapper was not one of the words he used to describe it..now what was it he said...no I'm too polite to repeat it.   

Cheers - Louis Mac


----------



## Groucho (Dec 17, 2004)

editor said:
			
		

> He's a clever one, alright.



Reported post! Can we ban all images of the supposed popular entertainer commonly referred to as Sir Cliff Richard or that poxy Christian?

He is a well known sadistic mysogonist "Gonna lock her up in a trunk...". His 1950s fantasies about harming women are just the tip of a very unpleasant iceburg. His sadism knows no bounds. Those Xmas 'songs' are not the hideous result of naive Christianity and poor taste you know..

Obviously I cannot bring U75 into disrepute by making accusations without evidence so let's just say *Jill Dando*, *Princess Diana*, cocaine dealing to the Royals, 'Christian' satanic mafia....

So please...no more CR


----------



## cockneyrebel (Dec 17, 2004)

> Strangely enough dapper was not one of the words he used to describe it..now what was it he said...no I'm too polite to repeat it.



Anyone who doesn't think that a black suit with flame design and gold buttons isn't dapper obviously hasn't got a fucking clue....

Can't believe I wore that to Marxism. I went straight from an all-nighter at a 70s club . Left the black cowboy hat behind though.....

I've not got an electric blue narrow pin stripe suit with white cow boy had as well.....


----------



## scawenb (Dec 17, 2004)

levien said:
			
		

> But I've always thought the instinctive ness of it is our greatest strength.  The utopianism you talk about reflects the best of what you think about yourself and the world before it is squashed out of you by school/work/life.  Some mass actions events discussions can bring that side out a little in people and as you can see a material expression of the "utopian" movement and seeds of what it could become.  One of the tasks of revolution is being able to carry the lessons of the past and the current situation to show that the other world is really possible.


Instinciveness, utopianism, discussions. As a starting point, it all strikes me as idealism not scientific socialism or historical materialism. We may FEEL that a new society is possible and may be able to convince people by discussion that we are right and everyone else is wrong but that has neccessary corrolation to reality. 

You big argument is to hold-up the organisation of the SWP in the STWC but that just exposes the weakenss of your argument. The millions who took to the street were spontaneous and not organised. they include lots of middle britain, middle class people. I saw more carrying copies of the Daily Mail than the Socialist Worker. They came out regardless of the work of STWC. Since then it has just been decline. It didn't match millions in other countries who were not organised along Cliffite lines.

I'm not attack the STWC just your use of it as a concrete model which aids your argument.


----------



## scawenb (Dec 17, 2004)

levien said:
			
		

> While other revolutionary movements have obviously been claiming the alligence of millions and destroying states in county after county?
> 
> Trotskyism survived stalinism and has informed and influenced several significant (but small) revolutionary organisations.  The SWP has certainly faired better then any other revolutionary movement in Britain.  And if Respect gets reasonable votes and March 19th is a success will be in a very good position to start attracting new activists to independant revolutionary activity.


I presume the first question was supposed to be ironic but actually it is true. Other movement have claimed the alligence of far more than Cliffism. Trotskism has survived Stalinism in the wealthier Imperialist countries but other than Sri Lanka, it hasn't touch the vast majority of the working class in the oppressed countries. Where is the Cliffite mass social movement in Iraq or Columbia, Peru, Sudan, Nepal, etc.? In Britain by you figures the SWP has not grown to become the biggest but by default of the others decline. It may be evidence they are wrong but not that you are right.

As for the "If" then that is more evidence of wishful utopianism rather than hard evidence. It has already stood in elections and not done very well.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Dec 29, 2004)

Chuck Wilson said:
			
		

> Most on here won't diagree with your last sentence but seeing as the SWP sees that as being achieved through a vanguard party and  professional revolutinaries , doesn't this take us back to the question of the relationship between party and class and indeed Leninism to Marxism?


I do find it curious chuck, that someone who was in the SWP for so long can not distinguish the vangaurd elite modles of ANARCHISTS guevarists ect and the leninist vangaurdism the swp has ALWAYS subscribed.  However, it does as you say "take us back to the question of the relationship between party and class".  this was the whole point of the thread.  The thread wasn't meant to have an open to discussion with people like Butch, it was mean't to establish our, mine and your, common ground so you could develop your criticisms of present day swp, and more importantly what a better model or party is or could be.  I wasn't shocked that you had criticisms of the swp , but I am shocked that you now seem to be saying that the SWP was always wrong to have a vanguard modle.  So could you present your views more clearly. ie What is the difference betwean 'vangaurd' "de-centralised, clandestine security conscious groups" Totally unaccountable to the working class "Conspiring to both inspire and destroy. Educate and obliterate."  and a vanguard party seeking to do the same in your opinion?  and more importantly what is a better model or party is or could be?

Frats Rmp3

PS. Sorry it's took me so long to respond, I have been a bit busy.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 29, 2004)

What's the '"dedicated elite minority" of the anarchist modle'?


----------



## Chuck Wilson (Dec 29, 2004)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> What's the '"dedicated elite minority" of the anarchist modle'?



More importantly what is a "modle" ?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 29, 2004)

Chuck Wilson said:
			
		

> More importantly what is a "modle" ?


 Absolutely - maybe that was Cliffs pronounciation of the term, and in much the same way devout Muslims seek to copy the physical traits of the prophet, RMP3 is copying the old man...


----------



## TremulousTetra (Dec 29, 2004)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> Absolutely - manybe that was Cliffs pronounciation of the term, and in much the same way devout Muslims seek to copy the physical traits of the prophet, RMP3 is copying the old man...


manybe ?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 29, 2004)

ResistanceMP3 said:
			
		

> manybe ?


 I've removed the offending 'n' as it was causing you some trouble. You're on dangerous ground bringing up the spelling of other posters btw.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 29, 2004)

Chuck Wilson said:
			
		

> More importantly what is a "modle" ?


one of those airfix kits put together by a five-year-old, y'know, the ones which have glue  everywhere and look nothing like a  spitfire or whatever they're supposed to be.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Dec 29, 2004)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> I've removed the offending 'n' as it was causing you some trouble. You're on dangerous ground bringing up the spelling of other posters btw.


unlike you middle class idiots I don't get worked up about about people's spelling.  but I do like to highlight your hypocrisy.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 29, 2004)

I've never ever brought up anyones spelling on here. Not once. 

What makes you think that i'm middle class?

Keep up the stroppin' though.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 29, 2004)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> I've never ever brought up anyones spelling on here. Not once.
> 
> What makes you think that i'm middle class?
> 
> Keep up the stroppin' though.


more to the point, what makes him think there's more than one butchers?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 29, 2004)

Oh, i'm an idiots. Surely RMP3 wouldn't be making a crude generalisation about everyone that disgrees with him could he? That would be purile, juvenile and beneath such a steadfast non-sectarian like himself i would have thought?


----------



## TremulousTetra (Dec 29, 2004)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> more to the point, what makes him think there's more than one butchers?


  Here's the other middle class idiot to get his knickers in a twist.  You can't resist them can you PM.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 29, 2004)

ResistanceMP3 said:
			
		

> Here's the other middle class idiot to get his knickers in a twist.  You can't resist them can you PM.


 What makes you think i'm middle class? 

I've never, not once, attacked people for the quality of their spelling in my three years on here. You've now been told this, to continue to persist in the claim will move you onto lying rather than just being stupidly wrong.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 29, 2004)

ResistanceMP3 said:
			
		

> Here's the other middle class idiot to get his knickers in a twist.  You can't resist them can you PM.


you remind me of the newsagent in the famous madness song, with yr constant references to underwear.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 29, 2004)

Nice man george, newsagent on the corner,
Not very rich, but never any poorer,
Jaunty old george, a happy sixty-three,
Not very tall, but healthier than me.
He whistles timeless tunes as he saunters down the street,
Springs in his legs and elastic in his feet.

But in the middle of the night,
He steals through your garden,
Gives your hosiery a fright,
And doesn’t say pardon.
As soft as a breeze,
With an arm full of underwear,
On his hands and knees,
Dreams about the knicker scare.

Hello there george, newsagent on the corner,
How’s the old car, yes the climate’s getting warmer,
Chatty old george as you get your morning paper,
Read about the knicker thief, underwear taker.
Bids you ’good day’, as you wander out the door,
Never closes early, always cleans the floor.

But when darkness hits the town,
And there’s washing on your line,
Get your knickers down,
Before the dreaded sign.
When the clock strikes eight,
And you’re snuggled up in bed,
He’ll be at the garden gate,
Filling underwear with dread.

Nice man george, newsagent on the corner,
He was closed today, maybe gone to mow the lawn,
I had to go further down the road to get me current bun,
Hello - isn’t that george on page one ?
No it couldn’t be, but yes it is,
Difficult to see from these photofits.

But they are after him,
Of that you can be sure,
They’ve called him on the phone,
They’ve knocked on his door.
A-but he’s gone away,
Gone to stay with some mates,
He got the papers early,
And saw his own face.


----------



## Chuck Wilson (Dec 29, 2004)

*Moving completely off the subject*




			
				butchersapron said:
			
		

> Absolutely - maybe that was Cliffs pronounciation of the term, and in much the same way devout Muslims seek to copy the physical traits of the prophet, RMP3 is copying the old man...



Or Professor Stanley Unwin??

I have fond memories of Cliff and his wife at Skegness . Bamberry had decided to abolish the final of the football competition in case it deterred the steel hearted Bolshevik cadre from following his instructions that the North London branches should go instead to Molesworth (?) or somewhere to join some peace picket. As usual the Harlesden Hammers, in various disguises and personnel changes, had made it to the the near summit of footballing mastery for which most of us went to Skegness for. We managed to pursuade the organisers to let us have the barrel of beer anyway and as we were knocking as many pints down our throats as possible Cliff and Chanie strolled by and remarked how sporting in a socilaist way that the winners and losers were sharing the spoils of their collective endevours. Obviously this was an example of the socialism from above modle rather than the from below modle.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jan 4, 2005)

Chuck Wilson said:
			
		

> But in practice how does the SWP operate ,both internally as an organisation and then within  working class communities ( and I suppose within other classes in Respect, UAF etc)? It operates as an elite Leninist vanguard.


Still don't understand this.  How do you see the swp as more elite than what the anarchists or Guevarists do?  in fact you've been looking for some time now, have you found anybody organization that does not work as a vangaurd? and if so who and how?  

Frats Rmp3


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jan 4, 2005)

somewhere in this thread when I made the point that some of this forum see the swp at the main enemy I was challenged.  Perhaps you ever challenged me may look at the "i think it's time the swp stopped living in the past " thread".  Justin makes some very good point in my opinion.  

Frats ResistanceMP3


----------



## Chuck Wilson (Jan 5, 2005)

ResistanceMP3 said:
			
		

> Still don't understand this.  How do you see the swp as more elite than what the anarchists or Guevarists do?  in fact you've been looking for some time now, have you found anybody organization that does not work as a vangaurd? and if so who and how?
> 
> Frats Rmp3



I am not sure that I did say that the SWP were more elite than what the anarchists and the Guevarists do.
Come to think of I am not sure what Guevarists do full stop or even what they are or where they are.Whilst there is now doubt some form of legacy somewhere from the liitle motor big motor theory of Regis Debray ( apart from a position in the French Govt) perhaps in the hazy Maoist horizons of the Shining Path,I have never had the pleasure of bumping in to a local branch of Guevarists in North West London or Manchester.
As for anarchists you may have a point about the elitist and substitutionalist nature of some of the theory ( and the occasional practise) that individuals and organisations hold.I am always particularly fond of the cartoon image of the anarchist with a bomb a dn the cartoon politics that some how see kicking it off with the Police on a demo will somehow ignite the spark of revolution in the repressed working class. And whilst I hate to start a sentence with and, what have the anarchists achieved in Britain?

Having said that, whilst Marx has had the most influential crtique of capitalism and the dynamics of what drives history, revolution itself is not the sole preserve of Marxism. I would suggest that the vanguardism of Lenninism has probably had its day as an effective form of political organisation, Yes it was associated with success but so was the 2-3-5 formation.

So, an organisation that doesn't work as a vanguard? Try the IWCA- 'the trade union for the community'.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jan 11, 2005)

Chuck Wilson said:
			
		

> I am not sure that I did say that the SWP were more elite than what the anarchists and the Guevarists do.
> Come to think of I am not sure what Guevarists do full stop or even what they are or where they are.Whilst there is now doubt some form of legacy somewhere from the liitle motor big motor theory of Regis Debray ( apart from a position in the French Govt) perhaps in the hazy Maoist horizons of the Shining Path,I have never had the pleasure of bumping in to a local branch of Guevarists in North West London or Manchester.
> As for anarchists you may have a point about the elitist and substitutionalist nature of some of the theory ( and the occasional practise) that individuals and organisations hold.I am always particularly fond of the cartoon image of the anarchist with a bomb a dn the cartoon politics that some how see kicking it off with the Police on a demo will somehow ignite the spark of revolution in the repressed working class. And whilst I hate to start a sentence with and, what have the anarchists achieved in Britain?
> 
> ...


Yep! I essentially agree with this balanced view in this last post.  I agree with the sentiment “I am not sure that I did say that the SWP were more elite than what the anarchists and the Guevarists do.”

In my view, all revolutionaries operate as what could be called ‘an elite’ minority.  I mean my view when I try to look at things as if I’m not a revolutionary.  Looking at revolutionary organization from view of the vast vast majority of people, probably some 99.999% of people, who are not revolutionaries.  We must appear a small committed minority, seeking to achieve something, for many various reasons, that the vast majority of people do not feel there is a need for or a possibility of, revolution.

Also revolutionaries do have to make mistakes.  Revolutionaries are going to err on the side of “ultra leftism” “substitutionism” sometimes, and to be fully honest at other times they will “water down their politics to much” and/or be “workerist”.  So sometimes they going to be elite, And sometimes [ I can’t think of the appropriate word for sublimating ones revolutionary politics into the still prevalent wc reformism] the opposite of that.

The swp has always been organized as a Leninist Vanguard party. But I don’t think you can say the swp has intentionally set out to be a *ELITE* Leninist Vanguard  party.  In fact the stated aim to members has always been the opposite, it has always been argued at branches should “sink roots” “ become organically connected to the locality” [ more workplace wise than community perhaps].

Hmmmm.  Though I still want to say what I’ve said above, answering you is making me ponder.  I think I’m beginning to understand what you’re getting at, and have had concerns over the same issue myself in the past if I am understanding you correctly.  

Is what you’re trying to highlight the fact that the swp has never cultivated the network of roots, become rooted in the localities of branches, in the way the communist party achieved in the nineteen thirties?  If so, I have expressed concerns on here before.  I have said I do admire the way anarchists say they develop such roots, and the way the IWCA attempt to do this, and that a “dream team” would be if we could somehow fuse some organization and operation of the revolutionary left groupings without submitting anyone’s philosophy to another’s.  I DO I think the philosophy of other left organizations does make such networking more central to the practice, and so desirable, but there are other elements of such philosophies that seem less desirable.  In the past I have been inclined to dwell on the possibility the way swp operates on a national basis is a strength, but possibly also a weakness in stifling such networking in localities.

In my opinion smashing of the party branch organization was an attempt to fertilize such networking, but this may have had the deleterious effects we both fear.  I’m not sure what the solution is, but I’m not inclined to throw the baby out with the bathwater, yet!


Lastly, considering your own comments about the IWCA being a “trade union for the community”, do you personally consider them a revolutionary organization?  Do you still Consider revolution your objective [ no insult intended]? If so, how have your ideas evolved away From the emphasis you must have had in the past upon workplace to the community as the key organizing point for revolution? 

Frats ResistanceMP3


----------



## Chuck Wilson (Jan 12, 2005)

ResistanceMP3 said:
			
		

> Yep! I essentially agree with this balanced view in this last post.  I agree with the sentiment “I am not sure that I did say that the SWP were more elite than what the anarchists and the Guevarists do.”
> 
> In my view, all revolutionaries operate as what could be called ‘an elite’ minority.  I mean my view when I try to look at things as if I’m not a revolutionary.  Looking at revolutionary organization from view of the vast vast majority of people, probably some 99.999% of people, who are not revolutionaries.  We must appear a small committed minority, seeking to achieve something, for many various reasons, that the vast majority of people do not feel there is a need for or a possibility of, revolution.
> 
> ...



Very quickly.Yes at time the SWP have held some of the early CP up as model of good practise ie anti fash work (linked with local working class resistance to things like housing and eviction, advice centres etc) , unemployed work, organising amongst the rank and file etc. Obviously we can pick and choose good examples rather than by the whole package of the CP. However the CP built ,and to a large extent sustained,  roots both within the community and the workplace.The SWP has although theortically seeing the workplace as paramount have never sustained their workplace organisation and the insular miserable years of the down turn period (theory was right in my book but the conclusions for practise disasterous) pretty much ruined what ever they had.

Whilst the SWP dies seem to have turned to the community rather than the branch its not the working class community they have turned to. One of your mebers was on here today arguing that RESPECT shoudl try and attract UKIP supporters.

What Red Action and the IWCA have done is to embark on building resistance within working class communities by steady and at times frustratingly slow local work. There is no attempt at short cuts and instant success which is what I view the SWP as being after.

The conclusion that the SWP could have reached via the downturn theory ((although it hasn't changed for years the opening page from the Red Action website still lists the fall in strikes etc) was that trade unions were not delivering , that the working class was still alive but the far right now had a strategy of organising and recruiting form the working class on social issues and that local working communities were the new battle ground against New Labour/Libs/Tories and the far right.

Do I think that the IWCA are revolutionary ? Depends whaty you mean by revolutionary. Lenin once said that revolutionaries should be the greatest reformists in that they should try and eke out of the sytem every possible reform that would benefit the working class. The SWP called them residents association in bomber jackets.Take your pick.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jan 17, 2005)

Chuck Wilson said:
			
		

> Very quickly.Yes at time the SWP have held some of the early CP up as model of good practise ie anti fash work (linked with local working class resistance to things like housing and eviction, advice centres etc) , unemployed work, organising amongst the rank and file etc. Obviously we can pick and choose good examples rather than by the whole package of the CP. However the CP built ,and to a large extent sustained,  roots both within the community and the workplace.The SWP has although theortically seeing the workplace as paramount have never sustained their workplace organisation and the insular miserable years of the down turn period (theory was right in my book but the conclusions for practise disasterous) pretty much ruined what ever they had.
> 
> Whilst the SWP dies seem to have turned to the community rather than the branch its not the working class community they have turned to. One of your mebers was on here today arguing that RESPECT shoudl try and attract UKIP supporters.
> 
> ...



I think all the members of the swp and myself would agree with the problems you point out, a “ lack of sufficient rootedness” [ for want of a better term].  As someone who spent many years trying to forge such links, mostly with workplaces admittedly, I’m not entirely convinced just an adaptation of the response to “Down Turn theory” you outline of “a long hard slog” would have paid dividends.  I’m even less convinced about attempting such a program in my own community, which I have studied long and hard to try and find a way to do what you suggest.

However, as I’ve said before I might be completely wrong.  A diversity of approaches to building a revolutionary alternative is not a bad thing.  I really do wish the IWCA have success, and if they do that we all learn from it.  



> Do I think that the IWCA are revolutionary ? Depends whaty you mean by revolutionary. Lenin once said that revolutionaries should be the greatest reformists in that they should try and eke out of the sytem every possible reform that would benefit the working class. The SWP called them residents association in bomber jackets.Take your pick.


I'm more interested in your pick.  You was a revolutionary and so I wonder do they satisfy , in that they have some kind of program inclination to revolution as a end objective, your desire for revolution ?  I so far have not been able to spot any program or inclination of the organization in that direction.  

Frats resistancemp3


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jan 17, 2005)

ResistanceMP3 said:
			
		

> I'm more interested in your pick.  You was a revolutionary and so I wonder do they satisfy , in that they have some kind of program inclination to revolution as a end objective, your desire for revolution ?  I so far have not been able to spot any program or inclination of the organization in that direction.
> 
> Frats resistancemp3




So you don't think 'total social change' would be revolutionary then?

Louis Mac


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jan 17, 2005)

Louis MacNeice said:
			
		

> So you don't think 'total social change' would be revolutionary then?
> 
> Louis Mac


Hey, Point me to what I have 'missed'.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jan 17, 2005)

ResistanceMP3 said:
			
		

> Hey, Point me to what I have 'missed'.



‘Total social change’ is presented as the ultimate IWCA objective. Can you explain in precise terms what is meant by this expression?

Well, in the economic arena, in dealing with what are otherwise presented as intractable problems, from pensions to railways, the private sector is constantly promoted as the ultimate saviour. But if the privatisation principle holds good in the economic sphere it would be illogical to deny its vitality in the political sphere.

And it is not denied. Increasingly, the model at national and local level is government by the few for, inevitably, the betterment of the few. In short, minority rule in minority interests.

The alternative vision is the democratisation of both politics and the economy: ‘total social change’. The means to bring it about is the self-conscious independent movement of the immense majority in the interests of the immense majority.​
Just one example taken from the national website, which you claim to have studied.

Louis Mac


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jan 17, 2005)

> Just one example taken from the national website, which you claim to have studied.


 I've claimed to have looked at the website several occasions , I've never claimed to have studied it.  



			
				Louis MacNeice said:
			
		

> ‘Total social change’ is presented as the ultimate IWCA objective. Can you explain in precise terms what is meant by this expression?
> 
> Well, in the economic arena, in dealing with what are otherwise presented as intractable problems, from pensions to railways, the private sector is constantly promoted as the ultimate saviour. But if the privatisation principle holds good in the economic sphere it would be illogical to deny its vitality in the political sphere.
> 
> ...


No that does not read to me as advocating revolution.  Sure, democratizion of both politics and economy would bring about social revolution, but the present ruling class would never allow such democratizion without A revolution, overthrow of the current class system, would they?  also, you have that quotes, but you have other quotes like " working class rule in working class areas ". what about all the other areas?  If as most anarchist's and socialist agree you cannot have revolution in one country, how can you have it just in working class areas?  

as chuck said, it depends what you mean by Revolutionary.


PS. I'm not saying that the IWCA has to be revolutionary.  Respect isn't.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jan 17, 2005)

ResistanceMP3 said:
			
		

> I've claimed to have looked at the website several occasions , I've never claimed to have studied it.
> 
> No that does not read to me as advocating revolution.  Sure, democratizion of both politics and economy would bring about social revolution, but the present ruling class would never allow such democratizion without A revolution, overthrow of the current class system, would they?  also, you have that quotes, but you have other quotes like " working class rule in working class areas ". what about all the other areas?  If as most anarchist's and socialist agree you cannot have revolution in one country, how can you have it just in working class areas?
> 
> ...



Well RMP3 here's another bit from the web site where the possibility of reform is rejected; so that's total social change as the explicit desired outcome, an outcome which cannot be reached by reform, so the remaining option is...revolution (unless the SWP has disocvered some third road, neither reform nor revolution but...what?). 

Just because we don't use your prefered and outdated forms of language, please don't try to dismiss the absolutely radical and progressive aims of the IWCA; each time you do so it just makes your claims to wish us well all the more hollow.

"So from the outset, it follows that it [the IWCA] has rejected not only Labour, but entryism, and the prospect of reform, be that reform either of Labour itself or the economic system."​
Louis Mac


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jan 17, 2005)

Louis MacNeice said:
			
		

> Well RMP3 here's another bit from the web site where the possibility of reform is rejected; so that's total social change as the explicit desired outcome, an outcome which cannot be reached by reform, so the remaining option is...revolution (unless the SWP has disocvered some third road, neither reform nor revolution but...what?).


 OR the IWCA has.  An ordinary working class person, Perhaps with little knowledge of political history,  is meant to read the quote "So from the outset, it follows that it [the IWCA] has rejected not only Labour, but entryism, and the prospect of reform, be that reform either of Labour itself or the economic system." and know that we will need to have a Revolution to achieve true political and economic democracy?  [btw Where on the site is this quote.]



> Just because we don't use your prefered and outdated forms of language,


 by outdated forms of language I can only guess you mean plain English.  rofl


> please don't try to dismiss the absolutely radical and progressive aims of the IWCA;


 I'm not trying to, I'm just trying to understand something that is not explained very well on your site.  


> each time you do so it just makes your claims to wish us well all the more hollow.
> Louis Mac


 You just have no comprehension do you?  To not want to see the IWCA, and indeed the rest of those to the left of the labor party , do well is totally illogical to me.  Individual SW members might have taken personal pleasure in the demise of some organizations or individuals, but the SW leadership have always argued along the lines "the bigger the pond to swim in, the better".  I would rather see bigger in every form the left Today , labour party, communist party, IWCA, swp ECT ECT, it would be so much easier to win battles.  There is absolutely nothing for the swp, Or anyone else,  to gain from a smaller revolutionary left.  your logic bewilders me.     

Frats resistancemp3


----------



## Chuck Wilson (Jan 17, 2005)

ResistanceMP3 said:
			
		

> I think all the members of the swp and myself would agree with the problems you point out, a “ lack of sufficient rootedness” [ for want of a better term].  As someone who spent many years trying to forge such links, mostly with workplaces admittedly, I’m not entirely convinced just an adaptation of the response to “Down Turn theory” you outline of “a long hard slog” would have paid dividends.  I’m even less convinced about attempting such a program in my own community, which I have studied long and hard to try and find a way to do what you suggest.
> 
> However, as I’ve said before I might be completely wrong.  A diversity of approaches to building a revolutionary alternative is not a bad thing.  I really do wish the IWCA have success, and if they do that we all learn from it.
> 
> ...



We might be at slightly cross purposes here resistance. I was a member of the SWP  but now I am not. Can't quite hold together the  





> You was a revolutionary and so I wonder do they satisfy , in that they have some kind of program inclination to revolution as a end objective, your desire for revolution ?


 I like to think of myself a someone who still is a pro working class revolutionary   but not a Trot and no longer supporting democratic cemtralism  or most of the baggage that the Trot/Lennisnit left comes in.

If I sounded obtuse it was because I was probably  trying to be too clever. I didn't want to end up agreeing a definition of revolutionary that is proved by someone bringing out an organsiations rule book or constitution and then pointing to a line where it has 'we are revolutionary' written and  somehow that proves they are revolutionary.There a loads of self styled revolutionary parties on the left all who have a line somewhere that proudly says that they are 'revolutionary' and all of whom have no conection with the actual agents of historical change themselves.They are in a fashion very similar to those people at the airport you see who are holding out a name of somebody who everybody including the person they are trying to attract walks by paying no attention.

With regards to 'a long hard slog' it made me think when in the past twenty years did the SWP have a long hard slog at anything? It does seem to have been a history of frantic , almost panicky, switches from one campaign to another  especailly since the 'political upturn' broke out.I do think it is sad when here and on other sites you get the posts that say for example Bristol had at one time a fairly large SWP branch or Newcastle did or Manchester did, and then you ask where is the continuity within the local working class community? 

Without wanting to sound rude I don't really think that what the SWP or the revo left  characterise IWCA as  will have much impact on its development. Respect and the IWCA are hardly likely to meet each other on the door step canvassing are they?

I think Louis's posts are as near to an A_Z of the IWCA site that you will find.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 17, 2005)

RMP3

you might find you had more joy if you stopped trying to counterfeit links and built some genuine ones.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jan 18, 2005)

Chuck Wilson said:
			
		

> We might be at slightly cross purposes here resistance. I was a member of the SWP  but now I am not.


 I know you are no longer a member of the swp.  You’ve lead me to believe you are thinking of being, or are, a member of the IWCA. 





> > Can't quite hold together the “You was a revolutionary and so I wonder do they satisfy , in that they have some kind of program inclination to revolution as a end objective, your desire for revolution ?”  I like to think of myself a someone who still is a pro working class revolutionary   but not a Trot and no longer supporting democratic cemtralism  or most of the baggage that the Trot/Lennisnit left comes in. If I sounded obtuse it was because I was probably  trying to be too clever. I didn't want to end up agreeing a definition of revolutionary that is proved by someone bringing out an organsiations rule book or constitution and then pointing to a line where it has 'we are revolutionary' written and  somehow that proves they are revolutionary.There a loads of self styled revolutionary parties on the left all who have a line somewhere that proudly says that they are 'revolutionary' and all of whom have no conection with the actual agents of historical change themselves.They are in a fashion very similar to those people at the airport you see who are holding out a name of somebody who everybody including the person they are trying to attract walks by paying no attention.
> 
> 
> Ah, discern the intentions of the IWCA now RE-revolution, I THINK.  Sort of, the IWCA sets out before the working class all the aspects of ‘truth’ of the revolutionary socialist perspective which are palatable, ie. the need for more democracy in both the economic and political arena, without preempting how the working class overcomes the problems of resistance from the ruling class it will inevitably face. Yes?  [ I perceive problems with that strategy, but I won’t go into them as it makes Louis tetchy, and call me a liar if their raise are criticism. ]
> ...


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jan 18, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> RMP3
> 
> you might find you had more joy if you stopped trying to counterfeit links and built some genuine ones.


 Please explain what attempts of MINE to build links were attempts to counterfeit links.  Don't bother.  You're talking rubbish as usual.  You have no knowledge of what I tried to do, and therefore have no knowledge of their nature.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jan 18, 2005)

ResistanceMP3 said:
			
		

> I know you are no longer a member of the swp.  You’ve lead me to believe you are thinking of being, or are, a member of the IWCA.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jan 18, 2005)

Louis MacNeice said:
			
		

> RMP3 - how can the IWCA say how the democratisation of the economy will come about? Will it face opposition from those who have an interest in maintaining the status quo? Yes. Do we know what form that will take and what responses the working class will develop to that opposition? In the absence of history as something which simply repeats itself, the answer must be no. Using the imagery and language of Russia circa 1917 or Paris circa 1968, limits possibilities rather than opening them up (indeed the SWP recognises this in part by choosing socialist rather than communist for its name - unfortunately it is unable to pursue the logic of its own position in this regard); what matters is the content of the change we are able to help produce rather than the label we attach to it.


 Fair enough, that confirms the opinion I had, and it's a perfectly reasonable political position imo.  Not one I agree entirely with For practical reasons , but a perfectly reasonable political position.  [We might personally agree more about labels etc, more than you think.  ]  

Frats comrade, ResistanceMP3


----------

