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.
....so you went from the SWP to IWCA eh....
