neprimerimye
Well-Known Member
exosculate said:
My reference is to the ladies and gentlemen who administer Britains racist immigration policies on behalf of the boss class in their efforts to control the supply of labour.
How big is the far left?
- Thread starter boxinghefner
- Start date
My reference is to the ladies and gentlemen who administer Britains racist immigration policies on behalf of the boss class in their efforts to control the supply of labour.
Back on Topic
Sadly its an interesting question why the organised socialist left is so small. I think it has many answers one that cockers gives (correctly IMO) is that the downturn and collapse of the USSR destroyed many (often crap) versions of organised socialism. Following on from this is that the ones that did survive adopted methords of organisation/activity which in one way or other protected them from the movement and meant they have had difficulty relating to the newly politised waves of people in the anti-war movement. Whether that is the down turn theory of the SWP, ultra-theoretical bent of WP/AWL/other tiny groups or the sectarian left reformism of SPEW.
Combined with this there has been no 68 moment to draw people to the ideas of the far left (France 68 more then the collapse of communist parties contributed to the growth of the far left IMO- the LCR being a case in point.) Socialism be it communism or reformism, the power of the trade unions - our ideas have taken a hammering with no obvious mass industrial action in Europe/USA to show that social change can still come through the power of the Working Class. What we have seen is a huge growth in social movements and identification with radical ideas (Chavez, chomsky, radical film.) Relating to this while protecting the valuable history and ideas of our movement has been difficult. The SWP has attempted to do it with Respect and maintaining its identity as a revolutionary party. Building a movement both of organised "radicals" and within it organised revolutionaries using the anti-war movement/senitment as a spring board. WP I assume use Revo in a similar sort of way specifically for youth but without any specific break through to build a mass organisation or a clear idea of how revolutionary organisation relates to a wider radical organisation.
Building the Party in the age of mass movements is a useful contribution on the question as is IST bulliten 5 (I think thats the right no.)
Sadly its an interesting question why the organised socialist left is so small. I think it has many answers one that cockers gives (correctly IMO) is that the downturn and collapse of the USSR destroyed many (often crap) versions of organised socialism. Following on from this is that the ones that did survive adopted methords of organisation/activity which in one way or other protected them from the movement and meant they have had difficulty relating to the newly politised waves of people in the anti-war movement. Whether that is the down turn theory of the SWP, ultra-theoretical bent of WP/AWL/other tiny groups or the sectarian left reformism of SPEW.
Combined with this there has been no 68 moment to draw people to the ideas of the far left (France 68 more then the collapse of communist parties contributed to the growth of the far left IMO- the LCR being a case in point.) Socialism be it communism or reformism, the power of the trade unions - our ideas have taken a hammering with no obvious mass industrial action in Europe/USA to show that social change can still come through the power of the Working Class. What we have seen is a huge growth in social movements and identification with radical ideas (Chavez, chomsky, radical film.) Relating to this while protecting the valuable history and ideas of our movement has been difficult. The SWP has attempted to do it with Respect and maintaining its identity as a revolutionary party. Building a movement both of organised "radicals" and within it organised revolutionaries using the anti-war movement/senitment as a spring board. WP I assume use Revo in a similar sort of way specifically for youth but without any specific break through to build a mass organisation or a clear idea of how revolutionary organisation relates to a wider radical organisation.
Building the Party in the age of mass movements is a useful contribution on the question as is IST bulliten 5 (I think thats the right no.)
rebel warrior
Soca Warrior
levien said:
Eh? Has anyone else picked up on this?
Pickman's model
sunset spires and twilight woods
what, in the five minutes between levien's post and your's?rebel warrior said:
WP are a increadibly theoretical group to the point you virtually have to sit a test to join (AWL style) but they have combined this with a bent/broken stick towards ultra-left anticapitalism. The fact that their theory is abstract mach ultra-leftism shouldn't distract from this. It is this that puts them in a difficult position - very hard theoretical trotskism combined with orientation on "anti-political" movementist activists.
rebel warrior
Soca Warrior
levien said:
I just hadn't noticed that, sorry. I thought they just read Lenin's What is To Be Done, again and again and again. And then read Trotsky's Transitional Programme. And then returned to WITBD again.
Pickman's model
sunset spires and twilight woods
perhaps if you had to sit a test to join the swp then they wouldn't have the high percentage of fuckwits in that organisation they do enjoy.levien said:
Nigel Irritable
Five, Ten, Fifteen Years
I'm with Rebel on this one (not words I often type) in that I've never noticed much of an obsession with complex theory from Workers Power.
They are the proud possessors of a very straightforward cut and paste "hard" Trotskyism, a saner version than that used by the Sparts and Spartoids, but ultimately the same type. On the rare occasions when they've dabbled with the notion of coming up with theoretical positions of their own rather than just cribbing them from other groups, the endeavour has ended in unmitigated disaster. See for instance "moribund workers states". The AWL got it spot on for once when they started calling them Kitsch Trotskyists.
Levien is partially right though when he notes the difficulty of reconciling their theory, such as it is, with their orientation towards "anti-capitalist" young people. Sometimes the two fit quite well, particularly when it comes to more revolutionary than thou posturing. On other occassions though they end up chattering excitedly about the prospects of the World Social Forum turning into a new workers international and other such idiocies.
By the way Levien, I think you need to update your book of tired sectarian insults. It would make more sense for you to denounce the Socialist Party these days for ultra-leftism rather than "left reformism", given the shift in your own organisations politics and practice.
They are the proud possessors of a very straightforward cut and paste "hard" Trotskyism, a saner version than that used by the Sparts and Spartoids, but ultimately the same type. On the rare occasions when they've dabbled with the notion of coming up with theoretical positions of their own rather than just cribbing them from other groups, the endeavour has ended in unmitigated disaster. See for instance "moribund workers states". The AWL got it spot on for once when they started calling them Kitsch Trotskyists.
Levien is partially right though when he notes the difficulty of reconciling their theory, such as it is, with their orientation towards "anti-capitalist" young people. Sometimes the two fit quite well, particularly when it comes to more revolutionary than thou posturing. On other occassions though they end up chattering excitedly about the prospects of the World Social Forum turning into a new workers international and other such idiocies.
By the way Levien, I think you need to update your book of tired sectarian insults. It would make more sense for you to denounce the Socialist Party these days for ultra-leftism rather than "left reformism", given the shift in your own organisations politics and practice.
levien said:
The standard of posting here by between 1/5th and 1/8th of the national membership of WP (depending on whose version you believe) just doesn't bear this statement out levien. Indeed the most cursory glance on their Revo boards reveals Mattkid as an intellectual giant amongst their pigmies.
The difficult position that they and the sectlets are in is that their theoretical clock has stopped. Rather than the demise of the USSR being seen as an opportunity to reexamine how the left relate to the working class the sectlets have simply seen it as an opportunity to have a clear run in a diminishing political cul de sac .
exosculate
a stagger with a beat
Khaleed said:
Are you kidding - they wouldn't agree on the typeface used for the minutes to a meeting!
Khaleed said:
They can't get along for a number of reasons.
One is that the far left is (in the UK at least) a small scene. An incestuous scene, in many ways. This means that lots of people know each other, and disagreements (be they personal, political or both) can often have far-reaching consequences. What might seem on the surface to be a perfectly sound, common-sense scheme can be wrecked by people saying 'Well, if (insert group or individual here) is involved, then I'm/We're not interested'. Look at the frequency with which many activists refuse point blank to work with the SWP or its many fronts as an example. This tendency towards incestuous in-fighting was so cleverly lampooned by the Monty Python film 'Life Of brian', in which there are a variety of resistance groups against the Roman occupiers, and all of them spend more time fighting each other than they do the Romans, assuming they manage anything useful at all.
There are many political desagreements between the various far-left groups in the UK, and many groups with conflicting aims and, consequently, conflicting policies. You can even find groups and individuals with the SAME aims but different methods unable to reach agreement with each other.
All in all, it reminds me of something I once heard a friend say in the pub. Which was: 'We don't need to worry about the Reds under the bed, because if there are two Reds under the same bed, they're probably fighting each other'.
Pilgrim,
That is cool what you wrote. It is an interesting approach to politics when you mentioned the "personal" thing.
I recon you are right.
Probably what happens is that one guy does not like another guy and then says i will not work with him cos he of his political views but in reality is down to personal stuff.
I find these far-left people to be so self-rightous. As a muslim i have to say muslims have this same self-rightousness as the far-left. We think we have the "right" answers and are the good guys and those different to us are "morally" (or some other word i cant think of) inferior to us.
That is cool what you wrote. It is an interesting approach to politics when you mentioned the "personal" thing.
I recon you are right.
Probably what happens is that one guy does not like another guy and then says i will not work with him cos he of his political views but in reality is down to personal stuff.
I find these far-left people to be so self-rightous. As a muslim i have to say muslims have this same self-rightousness as the far-left. We think we have the "right" answers and are the good guys and those different to us are "morally" (or some other word i cant think of) inferior to us.
Khaleed said:
People/groups thinking they have the monopoly on truth is also a big problem, IMHO. The old 'We are the only true revolutionary vanguard. You must follow us and us alone, and anyone who dares utter even the most mild criticism is a sectarian and shall be made to suffer' syndrome.
Among the Trots this is particularly bad, IME. All these 'two men and a dog' wannabe vanguards, each claiming that THEY alone are the rightful descendents of the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth or whatever International they are on to now. They seem to spend more time slating each other for daring to have different politics than they do actually trying to get somewhere. A seemingly endless procession of moribund monothought cliques, each more divorced from reality than the last.
Logocentric Leftism
It is certainly true that there is no substitute for the reality of what commerce calls 'networking' and 'selling' to learn how to get things done. Too many on the left never get this experience in their politics - but when they do, too often, it just blows their mind and they turn into cynical union officials etc., who occasionally have sentimental memories about their innocent youthful exuberance and sigh with a jaded nostalgia. YOu can't win.
Pilgrim said:
It is certainly true that there is no substitute for the reality of what commerce calls 'networking' and 'selling' to learn how to get things done. Too many on the left never get this experience in their politics - but when they do, too often, it just blows their mind and they turn into cynical union officials etc., who occasionally have sentimental memories about their innocent youthful exuberance and sigh with a jaded nostalgia. YOu can't win.
Pilgrim, your posts are very interesting. I was reading this other post last week on the urban75. They were talking about this group called the Federation with 75 members.
Then they said they were like 5 other groups who are similar to them and might join up but actually have no intention of joining up because they do not like each other.
I am very confused on that is the difference between on these groups.
Then they said they were like 5 other groups who are similar to them and might join up but actually have no intention of joining up because they do not like each other.
I am very confused on that is the difference between on these groups.
Similar threads
