Re: #57
One example is how the radical left responds to periodic strikes by major public sector unions (FBU, RMT, PCS etc). In terms of ‘hyperbole’ these strikes are often represented by some socialists as constituting ‘the return of the working class’, ‘a revival in class militancy’, evidence of ‘growing working class anger with New Labour’. They are alleged to prove that the ‘objective conditions’ exist for a new party/coalition to the left of Labour.
Of course, such strikes in the public sector in recent years have not been evidence of any of this. And the very limited and highly uneven progress made by various socialist groups in attempting to build organisations to the left of Labour is partial proof.
Furthermore, the fact that the RMT and FBU (both relatively small, industrially cohesive and powerful unions) have severed their links with Labour – but have not formally endorsed any other party political initiative shows that while some trade unionists are prepared to take action on key industrial issues such as pay, they have not in general made the link between the problems they face and the issue of political representation. In short, to most workers (including many well organised and militant trade unionists) there remains an enduring separation between the industrial and the political.
Not only is there little sign that this separation is being weakened, but what evidence we have suggests the separation has proven very resilient over the past 10 years. The annual survey of social attitudes in Britain has found that just as many trade unionists identify positively with the Labour Party today than did in 1997.
‘Sectarianism’ is when socialists behave in a manner that serves to divide and/or demobilise united opposition to the main enemy of the moment (be it an employer, those on the political right, or the state). Such behaviour is usually motivated by the belief that their view is the only correct one, and that unity is worth sacrificing if that view is not accepted by others on the socialist left. In my view, the recent split from the Scottish Socialist Party was a sectarian action. Whatever differences members may have had with the leadership, they should have stayed and fought to change things. You do not abandon years of hard work, and the political profile and roots you have developed, simply because you do not get your own way on matters of policy and how your leadership behaves.
When the going gets tough in any political organisation it is always tempting to leave and start afresh. All the old problems, mistakes and conflicts appear to be left behind in the name of ‘getting it right next time’. If the political party is operated in manner that precludes meaningful debate and membership democracy – then a split may be justified. But that was not the situation within the SSP.
‘Adventurism’ occurs when a political or industrial initiative is taken that is not grounded in a realistic assessment of the balance of forces and what is likely to result. Actions are guided, not by open and honest appraisals of real trends and obstacles, but by an over-riding desire to short-cut more modest steps by hoping that dramatic acts will inspire sudden changes in political consciousness which will lead, for example, to sharp increases in party membership and support. The urge to initiate a sudden transformation within a difficult and demoralising situation typically inspires such adventures. A necessary prelude to adventurism is ‘hyperbole’, and it is usually accompanied by sectarianism.
Avoiding such pitfalls is not a matter of ‘objective’ scientific judgement. Like all political decision-making it requires open and sustained debate coupled with empirically grounded assessments of the economic, industrial and political contexts within which action is planned.
The reason that much of the radical left is prone to hyperbole, sectarianism and adventurism is because a) they are not organised on the basis of open internal discussion and democratic debate, and b) they prefer their actions to be guided by highly selective, one-sided and anecdotal assessments of the industrial and political situation. Such assessments serve to boost the morale of the already faithful – but they usually prove disastrous and counter-productive when used as the basis for political intervention into the ‘real world’.
Sorry that took so long….
you must not have been following the respect debate over the last few years .. 
