Britain under a "Trotskyist" Government?

[Random]

I really agree with you. It is quite embarrassing to sink to butchers level, but at least it has got there "cock" off my back.

 

[likesfish]

Thing was in a very british coup.
The idea that unilateral nuclear disarment and getting rid of the americans at the height of the cold war was ever remotely popular was nuts.

 

[Stay Beautiful]

Thing was in a very british coup.

Harry Perkins was a Trotskyite?!?

 

[emanymton]

No he wasn't, he was replying to a post that mentioned 'establishment' 'intervention' full stop - (maybe i'm naive in thinking that the 'establishment' and its interests actually crosses borders or maybe the 'establishment' actually does only conspire with people from the same state and wouldn't dream of actually linking up with others, like chile for example), which he then narrowed down to internal in his reply without saying so, which he only clarified after me forcing him to. Read the posts again, in proper order and without the new membership card in front of your eyes.

Yes, he was on about internal, no he didn't say that he was, that he'd narrowed a point about intervention full stop into one about internal intervention alone, no i didn't deserve to be called a liar for assuming that he was still referring to the intervention full stop as used in the post he was replying to. His incoherence was, as ever, the problem.

Right so you didn't make a mistake you are just being an arse?

If this is some ongoing thing between you two OK. But I can't imagine you are coming out of it well to anyone but your existing fanbase, of course I doubt anyone else is reading the thread anyway

 

[emanymton]

i thought you'd been banned

For what? Disagreeing with you?

 

[emanymton]

Go DIRECTLY to the Dustbin of History, do not pass Go, do not collect 200 roubles!

Eh I'm generally confused by this

 

[Fisher_Gate]

The interesting thing here is that hardly anyone has answered this, preferring to speculate about how malign forces would thwart the people's will. I can conclude from this that most lefties have little faith in the possibility of a far left party succeeding in winning power, and haven't ever really thought about what such a government would do if in that position. The only guide they have is a pamphlet written by a long dead Russian, and a book and TV series written by the former Parliamentary Under-Secretary at the Foreign Office.

I think that if it had any sense, it would call a general election and abide by the result. If it won, it would seek to implement its manifesto. If it lost but persisted in trying to run the government, I would hope that our allies abroad would apply strong and severe sanctions.

Assuming it won an election with a majority, I would imagine that we would see a range of policies agreed including nationalisation of utilities, remaining financial institutions, and a withdrawal from NATO and other miitary commitments overseas, as well as a disruption of good relations with a number of partners. The UK's standing in the EU would suffer and it might withdraw in due course. The consequent severe growth in unemployment and increases in the cost of living would be a source of considerable social unrest. The really interesting question is would be how it would deal with these pressures and how it would plan to mitigate them. That is one reason why democratic endorsement would be crucial.

That's what I think would happen.

Do others have an opinon on this?

In 1964, the trotskyist party in Sri Lanka (formerly Ceylon), the LSSP (Lanka Sama Samaja Party), had high hopes of winning an electoral majority in the parliament.

In the event they won a significant number of seats (I forget the exact number but it was about 20%), but came second to the pro-capitalist left-talking Sri Lankan Freedom Party of Mrs Bandaranaike.

The SLFP offered the LSSP a coalition government, which the LSSP accepted and a number of one time trotskyists took control of government ministries. The LSSP split over the issue and the LSSP was expelled from the Fourth International.

The coalition government fell in the general election the next year, though the LSSP actually increased its vote. The LSSP came back into government in 1970 though by then it had become a more obviously reformist left social democratic/stalinised party influenced by Allende in Chile and the 'Eurocommunist' developments. Although some left wing social measures were enacted by the LSSP, including nationalisations and workers rights, the LSSP declined rapidly, though they still (currently) have one seat in parliament as part of a pro-capitalist coalition.

The bones of this disaster have been picked over many times within the trotskyist movement.

The trotkyist movement in Bolivia in 1952 was a very powerful movement that thought it could win power too, though in a manner similar to bolsheviks.

 

[Random]

Eh I'm generally confused by this

Just chuckling at your attempt to hand down an authoritative judgment on what everyone should think about someone's posts.

 

[Random]

The SLFP offered the LSSP a coalition government, which the LSSP accepted and a number of one time trotskyists took control of government ministries. The LSSP split over the issue and the LSSP was expelled from the Fourth International.

have any radical parliamentary parties, like the Greens and the leninists, ever turned down a sniff of government power when it was offered to them?

 

[Fisher_Gate]

have any radical parliamentary parties, like the Greens and the leninists, ever turned down a sniff of government power when it was offered to them?

Trying to think of an example at governmental level, but an example that returns us to the point of the thread ...

on the current UK local government level, the six Respect councillors in Tower Hamlets have refused to join with the ruling Labour group, whereas all four 'Left Alliance'/I-cannot-believe-it's-not-Respect councillors who were part of the SWP's 'principled' side in the split (including one who was a paid up SWP member) all joined the ruling Labour group earlier this year to ensconce their positions in the local state and so they can be Labour candidates next May.

That says a massive amount to me about the ability of the SWP (leadership and membership) to gauge these sorts of things at the present time.

 

[The39thStep]

In 1964, the trotskyist party in Sri Lanka (formerly Ceylon), the LSSP (Lanka Sama Samaja Party), had high hopes of winning an electoral majority in the parliament.

In the event they won a significant number of seats (I forget the exact number but it was about 20%), but came second to the pro-capitalist left-talking Sri Lankan Freedom Party of Mrs Bandaranaike.

The SLFP offered the LSSP a coalition government, which the LSSP accepted and a number of one time trotskyists took control of government ministries. The LSSP split over the issue and the LSSP was expelled from the Fourth International.

The coalition government fell in the general election the next year, though the LSSP actually increased its vote. The LSSP came back into government in 1970 though by then it had become a more obviously reformist left social democratic/stalinised party influenced by Allende in Chile and the 'Eurocommunist' developments. Although some left wing social measures were enacted by the LSSP, including nationalisations and workers rights, the LSSP declined rapidly, though they still (currently) have one seat in parliament as part of a pro-capitalist coalition.

The bones of this disaster have been picked over many times within the trotskyist movement.

The trotkyist movement in Bolivia in 1952 was a very powerful movement that thought it could win power too, though in a manner similar to bolsheviks.

Anil Moonesinghe who was elected as an MP for the LSSP was a former associate of Tony Cliff

 

[poster342002]

What would actually happen?

It would be like living under a regime run by your immediate boss from work. Which it would be. The rest of us would be expected to get back to doing as we're fucking well told.

 

[dennisr]

Anil Moonesinghe who was elected as an MP for the LSSP was a former associate of Tony Cliff

The main grouping within the LSSP who refused to take positions in the coalition government are now the Sri Lankan section of the CWI - the international grouping that includes the Socialist Party in England and Wales

 

[TremulousTetra]

The main grouping within the LSSP who refused to take positions in he coalition government are now the Sri Lankan section of the CWI - the international grouping that includes the Socialist Party in England ans Wales

several other posters, have made the comment about what I'm going to ask.

Aren't you also impressed with, how few responses there has been from the usual suspects [ie pick butch] who constantly berate Trotskyist's? Why do you think they haven't put on the meat on the bones, after constant claims to be able to predict what an SW regime [in particular] would be like?

 

[Carousel]

Aren't you also impressed with, how few responses there has been from the usual suspects [ie pick butch] who constantly berate Trotskyist's? Why do you think they haven't put on the meat on the bones, after constant claims to be able to predict what an SW regime [in particular] would be like?

There's nothing to be gained from further analysis of the left other than the conjuring of a mental sensation. Besides being two-a-penny, criticisms of the left are doomed to be as inconsequential as thieir target. Indeed, the phenomenon of "the left" is more than adequately auto-critiqued by actual reality.

 

[scawenb]

The problem for the Trotskyists is that there are so few examples of them doing anything like governing.

The Stalinists had their USSR, Warsaw pact, Albania and North Korea. The Maoists have their China, Nepal, Indian Provinces, etc. The Euro-Communist had their Italian Cities. The Third Worldists had their Cuba, the Liberation Movements had their South Africa, Ireland and Palestine, The Socialists had their Scandinavia and 1945 Britain, even the Anarchists had Spain, Ukraine and Denmark.

But the only Trotskist experiment I can think of is Liverpool with Sri Lanka, Spain and Latin America when it may have had short lived control of certain areas.

It makes it very difficult to defend a political position if you cannot give a concrete example of it ever working as you predicted - particularly against the chrage of utopianism. Also because there is not a concrete example to defend or debate its shortcomings it means that Trotskism can escape any criticism by abstract theory. This is the reason for its endurance, its popularity with disseffected youth, its constant splits and its small size.