Campaign for a New Workers Party

[Das Uberdog]

ffs arseholes, I again notice a significant lack of enthusiasm for interpreting the information in my posts in the manner in which it is intended -

Fishface; you're a pedantic, patronising arse.

Bellend; inbetwixt claims that I'm only giving you garble, I'd like to be shown an example of your contribution to life - or, perhaps just actual substance on this thread in the past few years.

Both of you; my point is quite blatantly that whilst calling the SWP 'rightwing' - all you are actually doing is disagreeing with certain tenets of SWP theory which aren't (for the most part) economically based. I was quite obviously using the Muslim 'eg.' [as in, EXAMPLE, as in, not neccessarily what you were talking about] to give just that, an 'example' of areas in which the SWP are innaccurately being portrayed as 'moving to the right'.

Please, try to stay on topic?

 

[belboid]

well actually answer the points then shithead. your post was meaningless drivel.

 

[cockneyrebel]

Das Uberdog leaving aside your usual bile the point that people are trying to make is that your remarks about the SWP and the Labour Party just don't make sense and don't fit in with reality. That's not a dig, just how it is.

Also the SWP used to slam the Socialist Party for voting down such things as open borders when in the Socialist Alliance but have now gone 180 degrees in RESPECT. Why the sudden change? A change which I would say is a shift to the right.

I don't really understand what you're saying about economics, could you expand a bit?

As for RESPECT where do you see it going in the medium to long term? At the moment it is a left reformist organisation that is telling people that that is the way forward i.e. increasing illusions in reformism. As a revolutionary how do you see this changing, especially when the SWP votes down its own positions (this comes from the fact that RESPECT hasn't attracted any real forces and remains dominated by a tiny revolutionary organsiation).

 

[treelover]

Das Uberdog, i think the mods need a word with you, robust debate is one thing, your constant abusive posts are another...

 

[Fisher_Gate]

the swp had been trying to forge an alliance with the CPB and with whatever Galloway could bring along even before that.

They were involved in all sorts of secret diplomacy. It was Thornett's motion to the SA National Council that brought it all out into the open and enabled the SA as a whole (moins the sectarians) to commit to the development.

 

[belboid]

oh well, all hail Alan then!

 

[dennisr]

In its current state, I identify the CNWP as essentially a Socialist Party thing.

Socialist Party article on the conference:
"Well-received in this second conference session was a contribution from newly elected Democratic Labour Party (DLP) councillor Pete Smith from Walsall. ... In response to points made during the conference by members of Workers' Power and the CPGB, he said that during the election campaign he had been "so busy in the cul de sacs and streets of Walsall that I have not had time to work out if I am a revisionist, a radical or a revolutionary" and that in the DLP they "work with local people, starting at the level they're at – otherwise we'd be nothing but a talking shop. We have gained increasing respect in our communities ... We need a nationwide party to oppose New Labour. A large tapestry to link in the views of working class people in our towns. I hope this conference takes us closer to a new party, a truly democratic party, in the interests of workers and their families".

Paying tribute to the role of the Socialist Party (SP) in the CNWP, presently in a majority, CNWP press officer, Pete McClaren, himself a member of the minority SA, said to the conference that his press releases went out without any unwelcome political edits by other CNWP officers, in this way making it clear that he was happy with the working relationship. There was however a difference at the conference between the SP and SA on the present structure of the CNWP, with the SA calling for individual membership to be introduced now and there to be a right of representation on the steering committee regardless of the size of affiliated organisations. These issues should be discussed further in the coming period to attempt to reach agreement."

Rest of the article here: http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/2007/487/index.html?id=np1242.htm

I think the point is that yes, CNWP is primarilly an SP initiative. That does not means that the SP think it can become anything more without building support and unity beyond its own membership which one can only do with an open democratic approach.

 

[cockneyrebel]

To be fair I should think the SP do want to move the CNWP beyond its size and make up, but I just can't understand how they can call the conference a big success when it is smaller than last year and the number of signatures they got wasn't anywhere near target. As it happens my criticisms of the CNWP (as with RESPECT) would apply just as equally even if it was doing well.

"so busy in the cul de sacs and streets of Walsall that I have not had time to work out if I am a revisionist, a radical or a revolutionary" and that in the DLP they "work with local people, starting at the level they're at – otherwise we'd be nothing but a talking shop.

See this is what I was talking about in terms of the demagogy (and on that level I thought this bloke was almost as bad as the SP speakers). He clearly had a very political background and of course he knew what the difference between a reformist, revolutionary and "revisionist" was and it was patronising to suggest otherwise (indeed to even use the word revisionist shows a political background).

Of course action and local campaigns are important but I think it patronises people to suggest that the wider issues (such as reform and revolution) are somehow above normal people, especially when the person saying it probably knows exactly what they are.

And also no-one from WP or the CPGB (whatever the faults in their interventions) was remotely saying that you shouldn't work with people at the level they're at or saying that revolutionary politics was a pre-condition.

 

[dennisr]

See this is what I was talking about in terms of the demagogy... I think it patronises people to suggest that the wider issues (such as reform and revolution) are somehow above normal people

for christs sake cockney - what 'demogogy'??... that comment makes me giggle

and as for 'patronising' - the only patronising is 'counter-patronising' in response to the self appointed 'revolutionaries' trying to 'teach' a fella like this how to suck eggs. Now thats patronising... (and no way to actually convince an activist like this of the correctness or otherwise of your ideas...)

you, repeatedly, make a big thing out of small numbers - as if it is so important at this stage in the game - but its still much, much bigger numbers than your entire organisation if you want to play the numbers game - so why are you not interested in reaching these people beyond explaining to them the apparent 'pointlessness' of their (apparently...) mistaken approach?

 

[durruti02]

Of all the left parties i thnk the SP has come the furthest in terms of becoming geuinely more progressive and pro- working class .. as one on this thread said, it is indisputable they have the most orientation to the w/c.

they alone, i think, of the left parties have councillors elected on the platforms of those parties

however the still come across in mnay ways as the same old trots in style language and some of the politics .. i would be interested to see if they can move beyond this unneccesssary veneeer that left groups so indulge

what i would really like to see is groups like SP/NLP/IWCA/HI, and preston respect even , who have acheived serious electoral support, get together to discuss what it is that works and what that doesn't

 

[fanciful]

How is the SWP more right wing that years ago? To ask the question is to answer it.
It was embarrassing to watch Chris Nineham, allegedly a Trotskyist, applauding the idea that criticising the TUC for dropping an active campaign against climate change is "negative", or endorsing a Respect councillor who claimed that climate change was "not a party political issue."
Nineham is on the CC of the SWP. But he is nothing more than a liberal.
Does it tell us something about where an organisation stands, when their leaders are so right wing? Obviously, as this continues through the entire practice of the organisation, which seems to have forgotten it is a socialist group fighting to organise the working class in struggle against the bosses, not a liberal electoral society.

 

[belboid]

for christs sake cockney - what 'demogogy'??... that comment makes me giggle

and as for 'patronising' - the only patronising is 'counter-patronising' in response to the self appointed 'revolutionaries' trying to 'teach' a fella like this how to suck eggs. Now thats patronising... (and no way to actually convince an activist like this of the correctness or otherwise of your ideas...)

you, repeatedly, make a big thing out of small numbers - as if it is so important at this stage in the game - but its still much, much bigger numbers than your entire organisation if you want to play the numbers game - so why are you not interested in reaching these people beyond explaining to them the apparent 'pointlessness' of their (apparently...) mistaken approach?

that may well all be fair enuf den,
but what about the main point - that the CNWP has failed to reach its (already pretty low) target of signatories, that the conference was no bigger than the first one, and yet, that the website & the SP simply proclaim it a great success?

 

[dennisr]

that may well all be fair enuf den,
but what about the main point - that the CNWP has failed to reach its (already pretty low) target of signatories, that the conference was no bigger than the first one, and yet, that the website & the SP simply proclaim it a great success?

In terms of drawing together a layer of activists to push for a new workers party it isn't a failure. Wouldn't call it 'great' myself. Its a start despite all the obvious complications. The fact it holds together at all beyond the initial gathering last year (for which the SP put a lot more effort into its own members attending) is a good thing and despite the very different groups involved. I think things will take time and a kick start for the campaign will come from larger events if it is going to come at all. At the moment it is putting out a clear marker - this is important - and I think that the meeting has 'successfully', in that limited sense, done that ... nothing more

What do you want socialist reconstruction of society tomorrow morning?

 

[Das Uberdog]

Respect doesn't stand for Open Borders, the SWP does - on any level, this does not mean Respect 'opposes' open borders. There is a difference in tack of the SWP and Respect to many issues.

It's sometimes astounding to see that whilst at the same time SWP members are being asked to justify their 'dominance' of Respect, we are also simultaneously exerting all our energy into ensuring that the Respect coalition is not dominated by the SWP! Do you think it gives SWP members pleasure to vote down revolutionary amendments from our constitution? Or vote down the CPGB's motion to the Stop the War national conference from 2 years ago in favour of organising revolutionary people's committees? As Respect Party members we play a horrible, not always scrupulous game of electoral wig-wagging. A vote in favour of openly coming out in favour of open borders is a blatantly revolutionary message, and would be workable only in a very advanced level of society which only the SWP aims to reach, not Respect.

Saying one thing as Respect does not equate to what would be said by the SWP. Members of Militant probably wouldn't have been allowed to call for the ultimate abolition of all forms of private capital on their Labour Party election leaflets in Liverpool - they have their rules, we have ours.

The SWP as an organisation may participate with more and various un-revolutionary organisations than it may have done in the past, but that by no means makes SWP theory... the bread and butter stuff we discuss at our branch meetings, forums, conferences and councils is any left-wing than ever. It's not.

 

[belboid]

What do you want socialist reconstruction of society tomorrow morning?

before they stop me dole money would be nice!

 

[fanciful]

But the lesson of history is - you become the thing you pretend to be. You pretend to be dishonest liberals who only care about elections - that's what you become. The evidence is all around.

 

[dennisr]

before they stop me dole money would be nice!

now that i can fully understand - I'll see what we can do (sadly, can't promise owt mind)

 

[Portia]

isn't it ALWAYS time for a new workers' party? lol

we need a new party alright. one with wicked music, lights and the best drugs too. and a party in the other sense... we could call ourselves Earth Angels perhaps, after the song by Dreadzone. or something even better that someone else thinks of.

cos it's all about the planet really. we have to save the planet or we're all fucked. it's also about the little children, they know not what they do, the literal ones and the metaphorical ones, the sheeple. the sheeple who like big plasma screen tellys and package holidays in Thailand.

got to try and save the sheeple.. even though they don't want to know.

 

[cockneyrebel]

for christs sake cockney - what 'demogogy'??... that comment makes me giggle

If you don’t wanna use the word demagogy then fair enough, all I mean is that there were a lot of straw men arguments being thrown up and SP speakers weren’t actually addressing what WP/CPGB speakers were saying.

and as for 'patronising' - the only patronising is 'counter-patronising' in response to the self appointed 'revolutionaries' trying to 'teach' a fella like this how to suck eggs. Now thats patronising... (and no way to actually convince an activist like this of the correctness or otherwise of your ideas...)

But where did I say I was trying to teach this bloke of anything? Indeed he might well know far more than me. I don’t really get what you’re trying to say. What I’m saying is that he clearly knew the difference between reformists and revolutionaries, so why pretend he doesn’t? I just think that ends up patronising people. If someone said that and it was genuinely the case I’d say fair enough, but it clearly wasn’t.

you, repeatedly, make a big thing out of small numbers - as if it is so important at this stage in the game - but its still much, much bigger numbers than your entire organisation if you want to play the numbers game - so why are you not interested in reaching these people beyond explaining to them the apparent 'pointlessness' of their (apparently...) mistaken approach?

To be fair I’ve actually said that my criticisms of the CNWP would be the same even if the numbers were bigger. But my only point was that I don’t know how this conference could be presented as a success given the numbers (especially given it was even more SP dominated and there were even fewer independents). Just think it’s a bit SWPish.

And as it goes I did talk to a lot of people there about why I thought the NWP tactic is flawed and the conversations were all quite constructive. Even sold a few journals

Respect doesn't stand for Open Borders, the SWP does - on any level, this does not mean Respect 'opposes' open borders. There is a difference in tack of the SWP and Respect to many issues.

You’re not really reading the posts. What people are saying is that the SWP slammed the Socialist Party for voting down open borders in the Socialist Alliance but now does the same thing in RESPECT. And it actually goes further than the SP by voting down a workers wage for candidates as well. If the SWP stands for open borders, why doesn’t it vote for them for RESPECT? The answer is because they are acting as the phantom reformist force in RESPECT which has never materialised on any real level. That’s the whole flaw of things like RESPECT and the CNWP, it relies on revolutionaries acting as reformists to get things off the ground and it ends up just propping up reformist politics.

 

[Geoff Collier]

You’re not really reading the posts. What people are saying is that the SWP slammed the Socialist Party for voting down open borders in the Socialist Alliance but now does the same thing in RESPECT. .

My memory obviously isn't what it used to be. Can people remind me when the above happened?

 

[fanciful]

The Socialist Alliance Programme Conference in Birmingham (can't remember the year) from memory, the SP moved a motion dropping opposition to all immigration controls, the SWP denounced them as racist etc. voted through a position opposing all immigration controls - and then did exactly the thing they denounced the SP for in Respect.
It's another example of their hypocrisy and general move to the right.

 

[mk12]

isn't it ALWAYS time for a new workers' party? lol

we need a new party alright. one with wicked music, lights and the best drugs too. and a party in the other sense... we could call ourselves Earth Angels perhaps, after the song by Dreadzone. or something even better that someone else thinks of.

cos it's all about the planet really. we have to save the planet or we're all fucked. it's also about the little children, they know not what they do, the literal ones and the metaphorical ones, the sheeple. the sheeple who like big plasma screen tellys and package holidays in Thailand.

got to try and save the sheeple.. even though they don't want to know.

you should post in P+P more often. you're brilliant.

 

[cockneyrebel]

A report here:

http://www.permanentrevolution.net/?view=entry&entry=1377

 

[Nigel Irritable]

Another "report" which could have been written in advance, given that PR were never going to say anything else.

By the way, cr, sorry about the assumption that you'd be fiddling the numbers for sectarian reasons. It seems you are a bit more honest than your comrade Stuart King, who managed to lose a quarter of the conference somewhere...

 

[JimPage]

although a welcome development, it wont succeed without getting the SWP on board. like em or not, any left political project which tries to ignore them will fail.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

although a welcome development, it wont succeed without getting the SWP on board. like em or not, any left political project which tries to ignore them will fail.

Have you lost your marbles somewhere? The quickest way I can think of to destroy any fragile start a formation makes is to get the SWP involved.

 

[cockneyrebel]

Another "report" which could have been written in advance, given that PR were never going to say anything else.

By the way, cr, sorry about the assumption that you'd be fiddling the numbers for sectarian reasons. It seems you are a bit more honest than your comrade Stuart King, who managed to lose a quarter of the conference somewhere...

But you could say that about anything. I could equally say that the SP could have written their report in advance and they would never have said anything else.

Also 350 was the upper limit of the amount of people who I thought were there. Whether there were 280 or 350 people there really makes very little difference, the fact is that it was substantially smaller than last year and had far fewer independents. Don't like repeating myself but how that can be hailed a success is anyones guess. Indeed even if we agree on the 350 figure (and I have no qualms doing that) you must obviously think that's a very low figure because you initially said such a figure could only be me being sectarian!!!

Also I wouldn't worry about the SWP getting involved. Although the CNWP and RESPECT are politically very similar, RESPECT has obviously been far more successful.

 

[mutley]

Have you lost your marbles somewhere? The quickest way I can think of to destroy any fragile start a formation makes is to get the SWP involved.

Well the 'fragile' certainly seems accurate. Along with 'small' and 'limited to the SP and a few of its mates'. I think the SP is gonna have to have a good think about where its going, but it'll prob take another lacklustre set of election results before it happens.

On the border controls argument, I think the SWP learned from reality between the SA conference, which was in about 2000 if not before, and Respect forming in 2003. I remember being at an SA meeting where someone reported their experience canvassing,where a punter had said they agreed with everything the SA stood for, except the bit on lifting all immigration controls. There comes a point where you have to ask if holding fast to that part of a program (ie when 95% or more of the class are totally unconvinced) is worth the cost.

 

[cockneyrebel]

There comes a point where you have to ask if holding fast to that part of a program (ie when 95% or more of the class are totally unconvinced) is worth the cost.

Yeah, principles eh. Workers wage for candidates, resolutions on the monarchy, abortion on demand......who needs those kinda cumbersome things when you've got an election on?

Also I've never quite understood the SWP/RESPECT or the SP/CNWP on this one. So you've dropped no borders, so what do you do if someone asks you in an election where you stand on immigration? Or if your candidate gets questioned on the radio or on Question Time?

If they put to and SWPer (standing as a RESPECT candidate) or SPer how does RESPECT or the SP stand on immigration controls how would you answer? Would you say that you don't have a position? And if they asked if RESPECT supported immigration controls, how would you answer? Because surely if you oppose open borders you then de facto support immigration controls, in which case what kind of immigration controls do RESPECT or the SP support in the here and now?

 

[Nigel Irritable]

I think the SP is gonna have to have a good think about where its going, but it'll prob take another lacklustre set of election results before it happens.

I'm a little baffled by this assumption that a failure to make some big electoral breakthrough will lead to a major reassessment of our strategy. Unlike the SWP/Respect, the Socialist Party doesn't expect to make some big electoral breakthrough in the near future, nor is doing so part of our strategy.

It's much more likely that Respect's continuing failure to gather support outside of the same three or four areas and its seeming inability to make further progress even within those areas will lead to serious difficulties, given that Respect strategy is centrally about an electoral breakthrough. In other words, don't assess what other organisations are doing from your own electoralist perspective.

The Socialist Party's focus is on the unions and community struggles, and, on a small scale, we are making some progress. At the same time, we continue to make a case for a new party of working class people.