Labour – a party fit for imperialism - Book launch 12-11-14

[Idris2002]

I do hope Fight Relevance! Fight Intelligence! haven't ignored the working class struggles led by George Lansbury and the rebel Poplar Councillors, the commitment to national liberation struggles of people like Fenner Brockway, the anti-racist commitment of Labour representatives and activists in struggles against the NF, and that this party founded the NHS.....I'm not saying there aren't entirely valid reasons to severely criticise Labour governments, but this sounds like crude nonsense.

You forgot that time Harold Wilson bravely stood up to the illegal regime of Rhodesian fuckwit Ian Smith. . . oh.

 

[articul8]

You forgot that time Harold Wilson bravely stood up to the illegal regime of Rhodesian fuckwit Ian Smith. . . oh.

as I said, there are plenty of legitimate criticisms to make - but there has always been an anti-imperialist, anti-racist, pro-working class element within Labour. There still is.

 

[J Ed]

as I said, there are plenty of legitimate criticisms to make - but there has always been an anti-imperialist, anti-racist, pro-working class element within Labour. There still is.

To be totally honest you could say the same thing, and it would probably be more true in terms of class composition, about most majors businesses in the UK like Tesco or whatever. Lets just cut out the middle man and vote for Tesco, if we're going to get bland neoliberal corporate manager speak from Ed we might as well get it from an actual corporate manager rather than one of their lackies.

 

[articul8]

what, corporate interests created the NHS? Come off it...

 

[chilango]

 

[J Ed]

what, corporate interests created the NHS? Come off it...

Your reply to what I wrote is to mention a social democratic reform in 1948? Whatever helps you sleep at night

 

[J Ed]

BTW, getting back to the subject a bit how much influence does this theory of labour aristocracy have on the Labour Left? Does the purchase that it has explain the fact that some members of the Labour Left are so keen on the capitalist PRC and North Korea?

 

[rioted]

what, corporate interests created the NHS? Come off it...

Oh dear. By the time the NHS was created, even the Tories were in favour - they realised cannon fodder wasn't up to the job. And as a non-participant, non-democratic organisation it was at the mercy of drug companies nd other vested interested parties. Top down nonsense, born to fail.

 

[The39thStep]

I don't know. depends who this 'we' is. perhaps just sit and wait and have a cup of tea. perhaps carry on with whatever you are doing. or perhaps someone should carry out a class analysis.
the key point is whether it is true or not. i am sure many people have been on holiday to india/thailand/morocco etc. if you did, did you find the lot of the ordinary working people to be similar to that of workers over here? perhaps the revolutionary class in 1st world countries is the lumpen proletariat. I don't claim to be an economist or enough of an expert in economics, but the desire that the working class internationally has the same interests may be just that, a desire and not a reality.

Solidarity comes out if struggle not theory .

 

[Horas]

Solidarity comes out if struggle not theory .

true, but theory, in a broad sense, does matter. a mistaken or wrong theory can lead a struggle in wrong or mistaken directions. i am not sure whether it is right or wrong, frankly, but the theory of supporting scots independence in order to win leftist or social democratic demands does make a difference on the kind of struggle that takes place, and with who the solidarity is with.

 

[The39thStep]

true, but theory, in a broad sense, does matter. a mistaken or wrong theory can lead a struggle in wrong or mistaken directions. i am not sure whether it is right or wrong, frankly, but the theory of supporting scots independence in order to win leftist or social democratic demands does make a difference on the kind of struggle that takes place, and with who the solidarity is with.

So all we need is the correct theory then?

 

[Horas]

So all we need is the correct theory then?

no of course not. does anyone have the correct theory? probably not. but that doesn't mean that it is not important either. theory is somewhat pretentious word. but let us look at a current problem. ISIL/ISIS. if you have a theory describing them as anti-imperialist you have a different take than if you theory describes them as islamo-fascist. the kind of solidarity that takes place differs depends on what your 'theory' make of this group. personally, i don't know enough to say whether it is one or the other. similarly, in the anti-fascist struggles, as you may know already, there were debates about whether islam4uk were fascists in the same way as the bnp and edl. some anarchists and some leftists, such as Maryam Namazie and her ex muslim group, do see them as fascist, and wanted to demonstrate against them, while the UAF did not. these are theoretical debates which in turn inform the kind of action that takes place and who solidarity is with. i think there sometimes is over-theorizing, which seems like so much wank, but the opposite, of having no theory and just action action action, is stupidity. I hope that is kind of clear.

 

[The39thStep]

How about theory built on the experience of struggle?

 

[chilango]

no of course not. does anyone have the correct theory? probably not. but that doesn't mean that it is not important either. theory is somewhat pretentious word. but let us look at a current problem. ISIL/ISIS. if you have a theory describing them as anti-imperialist you have a different take than if you theory describes them as islamo-fascist. the kind of solidarity that takes place differs depends on what your 'theory' make of this group. personally, i don't know enough to say whether it is one or the other. similarly, in the anti-fascist struggles, as you may know already, there were debates about whether islam4uk were fascists in the same way as the bnp and edl. some anarchists and some leftists, such as Maryam Namazie and her ex muslim group, do see them as fascist, and wanted to demonstrate against them, while the UAF did not. these are theoretical debates which in turn inform the kind of action that takes place and who solidarity is with. i think there sometimes is over-theorizing, which seems like so much wank, but the opposite, of having no theory and just action action action, is stupidity. I hope that is kind of clear.

Wrong way round IMO. Action informs theory which then informs action and so on. Chicken and egg to an extent, but right now we need to start (again) with action. And I don't mean marches or protests or direct action or anything like that but at how w/c communities, workplaces etc. are organising themselves and what form struggle has at the moment, here and now.

 

[seventh bullet]

DissUnited $$$nakes of AmeriKKKa

 

[Horas]

Wrong way round IMO. Action informs theory which then informs action and so on. Chicken and egg to an extent, but right now we need to start (again) with action. And I don't mean marches or protests or direct action or anything like that but at how w/c communities, workplaces etc. are organising themselves and what form struggle has at the moment, here and now.

i'm cool with that. i pretty much agree. in your opinion, what form does struggle have at the moment, here and now?

 

[Horas]

How about theory built on the experience of struggle?

aren't all the leftist theories just that? or aim/claim to be? however,, we are not starting on a blank slate. when we get into activism, we are already in movements that have already been theorised and already have an ideology before we joined them, whether it be marxism, anarchism, reformism or whatever.

 

[chilango]

aren't all the leftist theories just that? or aim/claim to be? however,, we are not starting on a blank slate. when we get into activism, we are already in movements that have already been theorised and already have an ideology before we joined them, whether it be marxism, anarchism, reformism or whatever.

Maybe we should be looking at forms of struggle that aren't "activism"?

 

[chilango]

i'm cool with that. i pretty much agree. in your opinion, what form does struggle have at the moment, here and now?

I don't know for sure.

That's why we need to look.

An example I'm a little familiar with would be how parents are self-organising stuff in the face of childcare costs - playgroups, free play sessions in the park, toy/clothes swaps etc.

Or how workers organise away from the Unions, from the spectacular wildcats to mundane and minor acts of solidarity in the workplace.

or, or tonnes of other stuff that "we" ignore, don't notice or take for granted in our focus on the theorised to death rituals of activism.

 

[chilango]

Or we could look again at IS. Instead of arguing about whether they're fascists, or how they it into imperialism/anti-imperialism etc etc etc. perhaps we should look at what concrete forces they move in our communities? How they impact upon our daily lives and on the people we know or meet?

 

[Horas]

most activism is quite ritualistic, thats true. would you like a copy of socialist worker?

 

[rioted]

An example I'm a little familiar with would be how parents are self-organising stuff in the face of childcare costs - playgroups, free play sessions in the park, toy/clothes swaps etc.

The left has always had problems with that kind of thing, dismissing it as "liberal" or reformist at best. People ought not to be engaging in Mutual Aid but demanding that the state meets their needs!

 

[chilango]

The left has always had problems with that kind of thing, dismissing it as "liberal" or reformist at best. People ought not to be engaging in Mutual Aid but demanding that the state meets their needs!

Yeah. But that's kinda beside the point.

At this stage it doesn't matter what we think of this kind of activity, but that we look at it as (some of) the forms of "struggle" that much of the w/c away from the remnants of the "labour movement" are engaged in or can relate to.

Then, and only then, can we start to theorise from it (should we wish to).

In fairness, some people on the fringes of what we call the left have, and have done for some time.

 

[The39thStep]

The left has always had problems with that kind of thing, dismissing it as "liberal" or reformist at best. People ought not to be engaging in Mutual Aid but demanding that the state meets their needs!

Which is always ironic when people talk about getting rid of the state

 

[Casually Red]

as I said, there are plenty of legitimate criticisms to make - but there has always been an anti-imperialist, anti-racist, pro-working class element within Labour. There still is.

didnt the vast majority of their mps support the genocidal campaign in Iraq...not least their anti imperialist par excellence Peter Hain . Himself now a former colonial governor over the fuzzy wuzzies in Ireland. Another bit of imperialism Labour are quite chuffed about. Twas them who actually built the H Blocks and introduced that particularly rotten regime that culminated in ten dead hungerstrikers . Maggie simply inherited the policies they introduced . Ten men starved to death on her watch but she was cheered on by Labour the entire time reminding her not to give in to blackmail . Despite over 100000 fuzzy wuzzies at Bobby Sands funeral and electing him as an MP with more votes than Maggie got herself.

dont doubt for a minute such progressive people as you describe exist within Labour . But thats not the issue as far as i can see . The issue is they are at best a fig leaf of respectability for a thoroughly rotten and irreformable imperialist project that only succeed in giving it an air of respectability . And that as such a rotten party stands for everything such people claim to completely ineffectually oppose theyd be far better off somewhere else . its totally against their own interests. But then again just like Labour plenty of working class British people love the royals and dont want a republic ether.

lie down with dogs and youre covered with fleas

 

[gamerunknown]

perhaps the revolutionary class in 1st world countries is the lumpen proletariat

This was Bakunin's position. Incidentally, it's completely opposed to Proudhon's (at least in The General Idea of the 19th Century - "To you, business men, I dedicate these new essays. You have always been the boldest, the most skilful revolutionaries").

By the flower of the proletariat, I mean above all that great mass, those millions of the uncultivated, the disinherited, the miserable, the illiterates, whom Messrs. Engels and Marx would subject to their paternal rule by a strong government – naturally for the people’s own salvation! All governments are supposedly established only to look after the welfare of the masses! By flower of the proletariat, I mean precisely that eternal “meat” (on which governments thrive), that great rabble of the people (underdogs, “dregs of society”) ordinarily designated by Marx and Engels in the picturesque and contemptuous phrase Lumpenproletariat. I have in mind the “riffraff,” that “rabble” almost unpolluted by bourgeois civilization, which carries in its inner being and in its aspirations, in all the necessities and miseries of its collective life, all the seeds of the socialism of the future, and which alone is powerful enough today to inaugurate and bring to triumph the Social Revolution.

Anyway, all workers want fewer hours and more pay. Those not involved in the workplace want more capacity to decide their fate (like the E15 campaign, free travel for those over 65, reduction of student fees, abolishing sanctions - organising outside of the workplace can be social). These are common things we can agitate for.

 

[rioted]

Which is always ironic when people talk about getting rid of the state

Do the left talk about getting rid of the state? Certainly not Leninists, Trotskyists, Stalinists and supporters of the Labour Party. The most we can hope for is that it withers away at some undetermined time in the future.

 

[gamerunknown]

Do the left talk about getting rid of the state? Certainly not Leninists, Trotskyists, Stalinists and supporters of the Labour Party...

That the state is an organ of the rule of a definite class which cannot be reconciled with its antipode (the class opposite to it) is something the petty-bourgeois democrats will never be able to understand.

From "The State and Revolution".

To believe Marx, Engels, and Lenin, the state is the organ of class rule. Marxism has long ago exposed all other definitions of the state as theoretical falsifications which serve to cover up the interests of the exploiters. In that case, what does the state mean in a country where “classes have been destroyed”?


…


Let us for the sake of argument allow that all this is actually the case. Let us allow that the need of preserving and strengthening the centralized bureaucratic apparatus arises solely from the pressure of imperialism. But the state by its very nature is the rule of man over man. Socialism on the other hand aims to liquidate the rule of man over man in all its forms. If the state is not only preserved but strengthened, becoming more and more savage, then it means that socialism has not yet been achieved. If the privileged state apparatus is the product of capitalist encirclement then it means that in a capitalist encirclement, in an isolated country, socialism is not possible.

...

Social inequality and poverty are very important historical factors which by themselves explain, the existence of the state. Inequality always requires a safeguard; privileges always demand protection and the encroachments of the disinherited require punishment. This is precisely the function of the historical state!

From "The Bonapartist Philosophy of the State".

Where there are no classes, where there are neither rich nor poor, there is no need for a state, there is no need either for political power, which oppresses the poor and protects the rich. Consequently, in socialist society there will be no need for the existence of political power.

From "Anarchism or Socialism?".

It's interesting to note that Trotsky followed an opposite path to Lenin and Stalin. The latter two at least demonstrated familiarity with anarchist texts and exhibited some indication of a program to eliminate state power. Whether they actually intended to adhere to the plan is impossible to say, but the consequences of their rule ought to be familiar. Trotsky only became disillusioned with the state towards the end of his life, with his initial offerings not deviating far from this line:

The state-ization of economic life, against which capitalist liberalism used to protest so much, has become an accomplished fact. There is no turning back from this fact – it is impossible to return not only to free competition but even to the domination of trusts, syndicates and other economic octopuses. Today the one and only issue is: Who shall henceforth be the bearer of state-ized production – the imperialist state or the state of the victorious proletariat?

From "Manifesto of the Communist International to the Workers of the World".

He also writes the following, which I suppose is pertinent to the thread:

The working class, not to speak of the semiproletarian masses, is not homogeneous, either socially or politically.

 

[seventh bullet]

Do the left talk about getting rid of the state? Certainly not Leninists, Trotskyists, Stalinists and supporters of the Labour Party. The most we can hope for is that it withers away at some undetermined time in the future.

Stalin did have some idea of what full communism could be like, although it later became based on the Soviet experience.

 

[nino_savatte]

as I said, there are plenty of legitimate criticisms to make - but there has always been an anti-imperialist, anti-racist, pro-working class element within Labour. There still is.

Show it to me. My eyes tell me that the leadership of the party and the PLP itself is dominated by Blairites (imperialists to a man) and the middle classes.