No Borders and RESPECT

[cockneyrebel]

There was an excellent post by Dennis a while back on this question, that i'm sure he'd remember.

Cockney - you should get involved in the durruti02 debates about immigration. He has some ineresting views on it.

 

[Knotted]

Yes i did - "Otherwise the only control that i can see, that will work in our interests, is workers being organised to fight for equal pay and conditions, and, ultimately a bigger share of the pie the employers have stolen from us - from our work, our efforts and our labour."

More importantly an example of the answer applied in practice (of Joe Higgins action)

CRs reason for raising this question so many times is his notion that one should go around saying 'no immigration controls' as a key slogan - almost as a point of principle otherwise, in his view, one is 'pandering' at best. I am simply pointing out that the question must be posed a lot more carefully than that. For me such a slogan is not a point of principle - the building of unity between workers, and cutting across divisions between different groups of workers is the principle.

I could say anything here to keep you happy - so what, what difference would that slogan make in convincing people of its worth - it is how ideas/theories/slogans etc are applied in practice that matter.

But you are not building anything on here, you are answering a question put by someone who doesn't need convincing. I understand fully that you have a more sophisticated line on the whole question of immigration and that it isn't simply about the attitude to immigration controls legislation. But the question of your attitude to legislation is very clear even if it is unimportant.

If I read you correctly you favour open borders but reject the slogan, but I'm having to read between the lines. I thought the SP had a line of 'opposition to all racist immigration controls' or some such. Its a point of minor interest to me.

Of course CR's posing of the question is utterly reformist. The Socialist Party does not either favour free trade or protectionism nor does it favour either high interest rates or low interest rates etc. etc. and rightly so. I can't understand why you don't let rip politically on this rather than personalising the debate.

 

[dennisr]

But you are not building anything on here, you are answering a question put by someone who doesn't need convincing.

Thing is, I'm not trying to convince CR (who has his own reasons for raising the question for the nth time and will probably never be 'convinced' of the SPs viewpoint) - it also about appelling to all those other folk on these boards - the ones on endless threads about immigration. I don't think their views can simply be dismissed as 'racism', and its those people that need to be won to a class position - I know CR is no 'enemy' he is missing the point of why the left raise slogans (and, therefore, what slogans are raised at particular times and/or in particular places...) in the first place though.

If I read you correctly you favour open borders but reject the slogan, but I'm having to read between the lines. I thought the SP had a line of 'opposition to all racist immigration controls' or some such. Its a point of minor interest to me.

Yep, that about sums it up. The problem is I tried a simple summary on the first time the same old argument was raised. Folk seem to miss (or in the case of some willingly distort the reasoning behind...) the point so have had to expand on it somewhat

 

[cockneyrebel]

Of course CR's posing of the question is utterly reformist.

What because I think that an organisation should be open about the fact that it is opposed to immigration controls? I'm not saying that this or that slogan is a matter of principle but I do think that if people are voting for an organisation they should know what that organisations stance is on a fairly key question. If you read the SPs election manifesto I don't think you'd have any idea one way or the other. And yeah not wanting immigration controls may be very unpopular, but as said I doubt it's that much more unpopular than saying nationalise the top 150 companies.

Folk seem to miss (or in the case of some willingly distort the reasoning behind...) the point so have had to expand on it somewhat

Not sure if this is aimed at my but I can tell you 100% that I'm not trying to willingly distort your reasoning. I might go over the same ground, but that's politics to be honest, you have to go over the same old stuff all the time.

 

[Knotted]

What because I think that an organisation should be open about the fact that it is opposed to immigration controls? I'm not saying that this or that slogan is a matter of principle but I do think that if people are voting for an organisation they should know what that organisations stance is on a fairly key question. If you read the SPs election manifesto I don't think you'd have any idea one way or the other. And yeah not wanting immigration controls may be very unpopular, but as said I doubt it's that much more unpopular than saying nationalise the top 150 companies.

The idea that you have to EITHER favour open borders OR some form of immigration control is reformist in my opinion. The either/or only makes sense if you can abstract the question from all the other things that need changing.

Traditionally the far left has not taken an either/or position on a whole range of issues, which would make sense only to a reformist. It would make little sense to ask the Socialist Party or for that matter Permanent Revolution what their policy on interest rates are. If I were to insist that you must either say they should be higher or they should be lower, I would be technically correct from a reformist point of view, but it would make little sense for even a nominally revolutionary party to have a position on the matter.

The way I see it is that demands for reforms are only sensible when there is a clear advantage to them. The idea of favouring a particular reform as a matter of principle is pretty odd.

 

[cockneyrebel]

The idea that you have to EITHER favour open borders OR some form of immigration control is reformist in my opinion. The either/or only makes sense if you can abstract the question from all the other things that need changing.

But ultimately it is an either/or question surely? You either support them or you don't. Now granted this links into a myriad of other things and there are nuances in terms of how you put things across, but it's something you can't ultimately fudge.

I don't think it's like interest rates at all, it's a far more fundamental question that is a reality for millions every day and at least 100,000s of working class people in this country. Indeed a good example was the recent stuff about women forced into sex work and then being deported when they were "liberated" by the police. This poses the question of immigration controls very starkly, as does the question of illegal immigrants/workers. You either say they have a right to be here, or you come up with another solution. Otherwise what can you say on immigration controls, detention centres and deportations? Ultimately unless you say you're against immigration controls how can you deal with these issues?

It's not a matter of being a matter of principle (indeed marxists recongise that ultimately stating something is a matter of principle is a nonsense), it's the fact that it's a massive question for the working class and something where you can't skirt around the issue.

 

[Knotted]

But ultimately it is an either/or question surely? You either support them or you don't. Now granted this links into a myriad of other things and there are nuances in terms of how you put things across, but it's something you can't ultimately fudge.

I don't think it's like interest rates at all, it's a far more fundamental question that is a reality for millions every day and at least 100,000s of working class people in this country. Indeed a good example was the recent stuff about women forced into sex work and then being deported when they were "liberated" by the police. This poses the question of immigration controls very starkly, as does the question of illegal immigrants/workers. You either say they have a right to be here, or you come up with another solution. Otherwise what can you say on immigration controls, detention centres and deportations? Ultimately unless you say you're against immigration controls how can you deal with these issues?

You can oppose deportations without sloganeering about immigration controls. But in any case I think you see the abolition of immigration controls as an uncomplicated positive thing, which is fair enough. I disagree, but there has been plenty of discussion of this on other threads. However the point I wish to counter here is that it is necessary to have a programatic position on the question (though that's not to say that you shouldn't have a programatic position).

It's not a matter of being a matter of principle (indeed marxists recongise that ultimately stating something is a matter of principle is a nonsense), it's the fact that it's a massive question for the working class and something where you can't skirt around the issue.

Well in my view its a massive but complicated question. It should be tackled head on, but I don't think the party's program should be the main focus. I think dennisr has the correct response which is to write a long and detailed analysis of the overall situation. There is still the question of program, which the SP do skirt, but having the position is not essential and in my opinion is unimportant anyway.

 

[cockneyrebel]

You can oppose deportations without sloganeering about immigration controls. But in any case I think you see the abolition of immigration controls as an uncomplicated positive thing, which is fair enough. I disagree, but there has been plenty of discussion of this on other threads. However the point I wish to counter here is that it is necessary to have a programatic position on the question (though that's not to say that you shouldn't have a programatic position).

I've already said that what slogans you use is a matter of tactics, I've got no set view on what this or that slogan should be. But ultimately to oppose deportations you have to be against immigration controls. But as it happens I think the whole thing is far from uncomplicated....

And no you don't have to have a programatic position on it, but for such a key question for the working class I don't see how an organsiation can avoid it. And even if you tackle it like dennisr you are ultimately saying you are against immigration controls in a round about way, and I think people voting for the SP should know that. Their literature just doesn't say one way or the other.

 

[Knotted]

I've already said that what slogans you use is a matter of tactics, I've got no set view on what this or that slogan should be. But ultimately to oppose deportations you have to be against immigration controls. But as it happens I think the whole thing is far from uncomplicated....

And no you don't have to have a programatic position on it, but for such a key question for the working class I don't see how an organsiation can avoid it. And even if you tackle it like dennisr you are ultimately saying you are against immigration controls in a round about way, and I think people voting for the SP should know that. Their literature just doesn't say one way or the other.

OK that's fair enough. (Not that I agree with your treatment of the question, but I think you are asking the question in a coherent, principled way.)

 

[urbanrevolt]

One part of the argument that comes up in dennis's treatment of the question and repeatedly came up during the CNWP event just over a week ago is the idea that if you raise either revolutionary positions or reforms such as no immigration controls that are beyond what many workers currently support this means inevitably being isolated.

And that if we raise issues 'carefully' we will gain far more influence and - in one extreme example- be able to mobilise workers defence against immigrants being firebombed whilst PR and their ilk stand idly and impotently aside shouting slogans.

However, is any of this true? Of course as CR says there are questions of tactics and organisation when intervening in struggles. If we just raised revolutionary slogans and didn't put in any practical work we would- justly enough- end up being consigned to the sidelines.

But if we do plenty of active work, pose the next steps necessary to take particualr particular campaigns forward as well as being open about our politics my experience at least shows that being an open revolutionary has no adverse affect whatsoever.

For example, a few years back in Oldham Permanent Revoltuion members (then in Workers Power) played an active role in Oldham United Against Racism and the antifascist mobilisations and more recently in Bolton we have played a leading role in the Sukula campaign which has prevented the eviction of several immigrant families, prevented the forced relocation of the Sukulas to another town and played a leading role in organising demonstrations against all deportations and to welcome all migrants.

Of course not all the supporters of the Sukula campaign are against all immigration controls and we don't demand it as an ultimatum- Bolton NUT have been won to that position and now are able to support any such demonstrations against deportations but as far as I am aware Bolton Unison haven't taken such a position.

Our arguing for what may- at first- be an unpopular position does not compromise our practical ability to build campaigns.

However, to refuse- as a group- to take or argue principled positions can lead to real problems and disorientation because you are not being open and honest with working class militants about the way forward and not actively and politically arguing for a class and revolutionary solution to workers' problems (as well as patiently, systematically and tactically- relating it to real problems and real solutions)

 

[dennisr]

Our arguing for what may- at first- be an unpopular position does not compromise our practical ability to build campaigns.

However, to refuse- as a group- to take or argue principled positions can lead to real problems and disorientation because you are not being open and honest with working class militants about the way forward and not actively and politically arguing for a class and revolutionary solution to workers' problems (as well as patiently, systematically and tactically- relating it to real problems and real solutions)

With your post you reinforce the point I am making about having to pose questions carefully UR.

It would be mistaken to assume that the SP does not raise such questions openly and honestly though. The difference is we do not see a point of principle in what is actually a slogan (and slogans are simply ways of raising socialist ideas with the wider working class) - as I said earlier in the thread. At certain points any organisation will have to swim against the stream (its not as if the SP and Militant has not had to do that before now in front of many more folk than the activists of a wee anti-deportation campaign...) - on genuinely principled positions - but we would be foolish to create a rod for our own backs. Our respective programmes (lists of slogans) are ways of orientating ourselves to the wider class - they are not a list of points of principle. And turning those wish lists into something concrete will only occur when we are able to get the ear of a wider working class, when mere slogans become part of the demands of a real movement.

In San Fransisco the situation is completely different to that in the UK. Yes, of course one is able to raise regularisation of workers status. This is a result of an ongoing campaign of unionisation of hundreds of thousands of workers in the US. In the UK at this moment in time the situation is entirely different, IMO.

Of course one is able to raise all sorts of things within small activist campaigns. And i am not saying for one moment that individual PR members have not played a good role in a couple of wee campaigns but the difference in our two organisations approaches means that the SP, in Ireland for example, has been able to change the entire debate/discourse throughout an entire country on immigration as a result of its careful campaign work with the GAMA workers (and following on from this the Irish Ferry workers). That changes the potential to be able to raise those class solutions to a whole new level - far from disorientating either the working class or our organisation.

Being able to assume one is being 'principled' because one raises 'no borders' at a wee anti-deportation campaign does not really compare to what we both know is actually needed.

 

[urbanrevolt]

There is one point we genuinely agree on I think, dennis such as the need to pose questions carefully- sure.

But I'm not sure we agree on how to do it- I think we should argue for the concrete points necessary to win a campaign, strike, struggle, put in the patient systematic work to win more and more workers to those points- ypou'd probably agree. However, you seem to suggest or imply that this means not having open revolutionary politics (at least I think that's what you are arguing- it's not entirely clear)

You then make some slightly disparaging remarks about 'wee campaigns' (actually the Sukula campaign has kicked Section 9 into touch saving- at least for the time being- hundreds if not thousands of immigrant families being split up- but yes we do of course want to extand the influence of the campaign and unite in common action with other antideportation cmapaigns on a national scale). And then you seem to imply that our politics somehow hold us back from influencing larger campaigns such as the ones in Ireland and California.

However, it seems clear that it is not because of watering down its program that the SP in Ireland has played a leading role in a particualr campaign that is larger than some of the cmapaigns we have played a leading role in. There's no point boasting our group is larger than yours as we both (I presume) know that orgasnising workers and communities in struggle is a long uphill battle- and that never (as long as put in the patient systematic work) workers are never- or very rarely- put off because you are seen as a revolutiionary as long as you are seen as a serious and committed militant.

 

[dennisr]

But I'm not sure we agree on how to do it- I think we should argue for the concrete points necessary to win a campaign, strike, struggle, put in the patient systematic work to win more and more workers to those points- ypou'd probably agree. However, you seem to suggest or imply that this means not having open revolutionary politics (at least I think that's what you are arguing- it's not entirely clear)

We agree on all of this - in theory at least - UR. To clarify (i hope...) no, i'm not arguing 'for' or 'against' 'open revolutionary politics', I am simply repeating, in a different form, the same point - we (you and me) have to pose our political views in a way that gets an echo - we don't switch off people before they even get a chance to listen to that alternative viewpoint.

I do disagree with you that 'no borders' is a point of principle. Its not. What makes out politics 'revolutionary' is its ability to effect change, to be taken up and to influence events - not the specific slogans we use at any particular point. That is not saying our general progmramme is not important or that we can say anything we please - simply that we have to be careful how we raise out answers (on that we agree I think?)

You then make some slightly disparaging remarks about 'wee campaigns' (actually the Sukula campaign has kicked Section 9 into touch saving- at least for the time being- hundreds if not thousands of immigrant families being split up- but yes we do of course want to extand the influence of the campaign and unite in common action with other antideportation cmapaigns on a national scale). And then you seem to imply that our politics somehow hold us back from influencing larger campaigns such as the ones in Ireland and California.

I did not intend to sound disparaging. I have been involved in countless small campaigns myself. I would not like folk to think they are any less important - especially for the folk concerned. But i think you would agree, they are small steps and influenceing the bigger process is how we can really assist the smaller battles.

Frankly - i did not understand the full significence of the sukala campaign (and full credit to you is due) - i must admit that - but it does not detract from the point I intended to get across. I think my comment comparing the sukala campaign to the role we were able to play in the GAMA dispute stands. Yes, we can raise all sorts of slogans in a campaign like the sukala one, but the aim of these demands is to influence the widest possible layer (for want of a better word...) of the working class. I think you would agree that the anti-deportation campaigns face an ongoing struggle to get any echo at all, let alone become a mass movement (i know - having been involved in a few how hard, isolated and disheartening they can be). That could only happen when linked beyond the anti-deportation campaigns - to wider movements (although i fully understand that we cannot sit around waiting for these wider movements to magically appear in the meantime... the pressure facing such families is an immediate one)

Given the way immigration has been posed by those in power in Ireland (as here...) I don't think we would have been able to get the same echo that we did by raising 'no borders' as some sort of key demand at the time. In practice - the workings of bosses, using bank accounts in other countries to sython off stolen wages, using stolen labour to undercut local labour, the role of the Irish government and contracts with this employer in the whole process etc etc - did more to expose the effects of 'bosses borders' than any slogan. It got an echo that had a particular resonance in Ireland - give the historical role the Irish working class has been forced to play at various times.

I think that was 'revolutionary' ideas being put into practice. Empowering both Irish working class people and the Turkish workers involved, giving them a fuller picture that assisted in raising their own sights on their own terms.

So, if I was implying anything (not really conciously...) it was to reapeat that the way in which we (you and me) pose the need for working class unity dictates how much influence we are able to have on wider thinking and, therefore, how effective those slogans at any particular time and place are.

However, it seems clear that it is not because of watering down its program that the SP in Ireland has played a leading role in a particualr campaign that is larger than some of the cmapaigns we have played a leading role in. There's no point boasting our group is larger than yours as we both (I presume) know that orgasnising workers and communities in struggle is a long uphill battle- and that never (as long as put in the patient systematic work) workers are never- or very rarely- put off because you are seen as a revolutiionary as long as you are seen as a serious and committed militant.

Of course (willy waving was not my intention mate... and I am sorry if you thought that was the point being made, it was not). I have to repeat though the point that was intended - that we have to raise such questions carefully if we are going to be able to get an echo. Although you say you understand this - it is clearly lost on many, even on these boards, where an out-of-date approach is often used to simply condemn those raising what are genuine fears on these boards with ineffective cries of 'racist' (yes, in the past it worked for me as well - but i hope you agree that life now is not so simple). The result - it leaves two 'camps' not even listening to each other. To influence the widest layer of folk - one has to have a dialogue to start with and that means one has to take up those fears and you won't be able to do that if those people are not even listening to you in the first place because you have chosen a slogan, as a 'point of principle' which reinforces the predjudice others will have already implanted in the minds of those you wanted to have a dialogue with.

 

[cockneyrebel]

Dennis I do think that your point about "wee campaigns" is a little disparaging and is a little sectarian (especially as you're not like that in real life). Would you say that to someone who was an independent and describe a very real campaign they were involved in as a wee campaign? I doubt it, so why do it to another person on the left? I just don't think it helps debate. Fair enough you apologised, but I just think in general there is no need for that kinda thing.

It's also why nigel's approach annoys me a bit, a kind of put the boot in and then go from there. Luckily my experience with other SPers has not always been the same.

I do disagree with you that 'no borders' is a point of principle. Its not. What makes out politics 'revolutionary' is its ability to effect change, to be taken up and to influence events - not the specific slogans we use at any particular point. That is not saying our general progmramme is not important or that we can say anything we please - simply that we have to be careful how we raise out answers (on that we agree I think?)

But the point is that the SP doesn't support immigration controls as far as I know. All my point is that if people are voting for the SP they should know this and your election manifestos I've seen don't seem to say one way or another. Or don't you think it's important that people voting for the SP know that you don't support immigration controls considering it is such a key question for the working class at the moment? As said you make it clear to people in your manifesto that you want to nationalise the top 150 companies. Is that demand any more popular? I doubt it. As you say sometimes left organisations have to raise things that might not be immediately popular and as immigration controls are such a key issue at the moment I don't think you can get away from saying whether you support them or not. And as said the SP in its election literature don't seem to say, or am I wrong in this?

Also when you say you can't get an echo if you say you don't support immigration controls? Why not? Surely you can be open about that but at the same time agree to united fronts where others won't agree with that point? It would be like saying you couldn't have a decent anti-war movement by saying you were anti-imperialist or even a revolutionary defeatist position for that matter.

The debate seems to have become slightly muddled. I don't think me or UR are saying that this or that slogan is a point of principle just that the SP should be clear and open that they are against immigration controls and from your election literature that doesn't seem to be the case. It also becomes a problem when you actually vote down support for open borders in wider electoral formations (like RESPECT and the Socialist Alliance). And indeed this kind of question shows the flaws in the CNWP and RESPECT. If there were any real forces at all involved in those organisations and there was any real influence from the workers movement then revolutionaries would be a tiny, tiny minority and could be open about their politics. As it actually happens they are the big majority as therefore can't be honest about their opinions as they say that their politics will scare of reformists, meaning that they have to act as reformists in order to get more people involved. In my view that is a tactic that will never work and has huge dangers in terms of re-enforcing illusions in reformism. Indeed my experience of the SWP and RESPECT has shown exactly that.

 

[dennisr]

Dennis I do think that your point about "wee campaigns" is a little disparaging and is a little sectarian (especially as you're not like that in real life). Would you say that to someone who was an independent and describe a very real campaign they were involved in as a wee campaign? I doubt it, so why do it to another person on the left? I just don't think it helps debate. Fair enough you apologised, but I just think in general there is no need for that kinda thing.

I did no actually 'apolgise' for that CR (sorry to lower your opinion of me further ). I further expanded on the original point that i was attempting to raise - and my actual use of the shorthand term 'wee'. You are 'protesting too much' and missing the point again CR

It's also why nigel's approach annoys me a bit, a kind of put the boot in and then go from there. Luckily my experience with other SPers has not always been the same.

Nigel is probably (and understandably...) impatient. I'm simply bored wth work for the last few days so willing to bang me head a bit longer

But the point is that the SP doesn't support immigration controls as far as I know.

No, the point i have repeated endlessly is that building working class unity is more important - and to do that, we think, we have to have a dialogue. We do not think crudely raising 'no immigration controls' will assist us in building that dialogue

(this is why Nigel has probably lost patience with you CR...)

Or don't you think it's important that people voting for the SP know that you don't support immigration controls considering it is such a key question for the working class at the moment?

As above building working class unity is more important (than being seen to oppose immigration controls) and to get to that stage we have to have a dialogue etc etc (as before) - we set out own agenda to as great an extent as possible rather than allow the boss media to do it for us

As said you make it clear to people in your manifesto that you want to nationalise the top 150 companies. Is that demand any more popular? I doubt it.

but we do not make this a key point of our activity - that would not be appropriate to do.

A the same time it would be a less contraversial point (if just as utopian sounding at this moment in time...) than one saying 'no borders' - at this moment in time under 'rights' (back page of the socialist) we say "For the right to Asylum. The scraping of the Asylum and Immigration Bill and of all other racist laws" We don't say no borders. Of course these demands have to be seen in the context of the full list.

Also when you say you can't get an echo if you say you don't support immigration controls? Why not?

Sorry - are we living in the same country?? Firstly, I have never said we never point out our opposition to immigration controls. Secondly, as this entire thread and the previous ones have reiterated, imo, the mood is not on the side of recent immigration or, sadly, recent immigrants. This is amply reflected in the countless threads over the last year on thee boards alone - from people that would never have even considered raising let alone thinking the things they now do in the past. If you think that lot are bad - come and meet my family (most of the males are builders living in the south east of england...)

We are living in an atmosphere of media (and government sponsored...) heightened bigotry and prejudice. You know that. I know that so why are you even asking this question? At least UR is argueing that one should raise these things anyway as a matter of principle and against the stream (I simply disagree with him that this particular slogan is a matter of principle - of course fighting for maximum unity is a matter of principle for all of us - we simply differ on how we can achieve this)

 

[dennisr]

Surely you can be open about that but at the same time agree to united fronts where others won't agree with that point? It would be like saying you couldn't have a decent anti-war movement by saying you were anti-imperialist or even a revolutionary defeatist position for that matter.

This contradicts what you are saying below.

There is a world of difference between putting forward an anti-imperialist position on war (although, even then how one poses that position is important...) and 'no borders' (as opposed to the principle of workers unity...)

you are still trying to make your slogan into a principle - its not

The debate seems to have become slightly muddled. I don't think me or UR are saying that this or that slogan is a point of principle just that the SP should be clear and open that they are against immigration controls and from your election literature that doesn't seem to be the case.

You seem to have been saying - that the slogan is a principle and that is why it should be included.
What is clear is that we are for maximum workers unity (although we are only talking about transitional demands here)

It also becomes a problem when you actually vote down support for open borders in wider electoral formations (like RESPECT and the Socialist Alliance). And indeed this kind of question shows the flaws in the CNWP and RESPECT. If there were any real forces at all involved in those organisations and there was any real influence from the workers movement then revolutionaries would be a tiny, tiny minority and could be open about their politics. As it actually happens they are the big majority as therefore can't be honest about their opinions as they say that their politics will scare of reformists, meaning that they have to act as reformists in order to get more people involved. In my view that is a tactic that will never work and has huge dangers in terms of re-enforcing illusions in reformism. Indeed my experience of the SWP and RESPECT has shown exactly that.

Again back to your moral 'honesty' position. I get the impression that the confusion over what is and is not 'principle' is entirely yours as is the method you have chosen of trying to engage the SP. Its sterile. I have repeatedly pointed out that slogans/programmes etc are simply ways to build a dialogue and influence wider groups of working class people beyond wee left groups (including my own)

The aim of the demands being put forward is not because we want to win the 2 men and a dog at present in these small beginnings to our 'revolutionary' position. We feel that the task of rebuilding a wider workers party is more important. We went to build an organisation that is able to fill out with 'real' forces (we don't think the CPGB, WP and ourselves are 'real' forces). You are welcome to stand there telling us how pointless and hopeless the task seems at this moment in time but if you would like to convince us (rather than yourselves...) then you have to come up with alternatives that offer more than simply moral high grounds or better principles (or non-principles its getting confusing to know which?)

 

[cockneyrebel]

I did no actually 'apolgise' for that CR (sorry to lower your opinion of me further ). I further expanded on the original point that i was attempting to raise - and my actual use of the shorthand term 'wee'. You are 'protesting too much' and missing the point again CR

It's not a big a deal and you did apologise. And my opinion of you hasn't lowered

Nigel is probably (and understandably...) impatient. I'm simply bored wth work for the last few days so willing to bang me head a bit longer

Impatient? Well that's one way of putting it.......narchy and rude would be another

Again back to your moral 'honesty' position. I get the impression that the confusion over what is and is not 'principle' is entirely yours as is the method you have chosen of trying to engage the SP. Its sterile. I have repeatedly pointed out that slogans/programmes etc are simply ways to build a dialogue and influence wider groups of working class people beyond wee left groups (including my own)

The aim of the demands being put forward is not because we want to win the 2 men and a dog at present in these small beginnings to our 'revolutionary' position. We feel that the task of rebuilding a wider workers party is more important. We went to build an organisation that is able to fill out with 'real' forces (we don't think the CPGB, WP and ourselves are 'real' forces). You are welcome to stand there telling us how pointless and hopeless the task seems at this moment in time but if you would like to convince us (rather than yourselves...) then you have to come up with alternatives that offer more than simply moral high grounds or better principles (or non-principles its getting confusing to know which?)

It's not a moral honesty position (I agree with 'Their Moral and Ours' ), and it's not about this or that slogan. My point is that immigration controls are such a key issue at the moment that I don't think you can avoid the question by simply not giving a straight answer to it i.e. your quotes on here, in a very round about way, did say you and the SP were against immigration controls. But from what I can see the SP election literature I've read just doesn't mention it one way or another. Now you can say that's because a round about way is the best way to go about things, but I don't agree, especially when it means blocking with reformists to make sure organisations like RESPECT and the Socialist Alliances don't say they're against immigration controls (in whatever form that point is made).

Again if the SP had said they were against the no borders notion and suggested what they saw as a more nuanced resolution in its place I'd say fair enough. But you didn't, you just voted it down. And as with your example in debating with a presenter on Question Time (which on such a key issue would happen in various media outlets if you got anywhere), you end up saying you're against immigration controls or you do what the SSP woman did and fold to reformist politics, like with Galloway in RESPECT saying he is favour of a points system.

No, the point i have repeated endlessly is that building working class unity is more important - and to do that, we think, we have to have a dialogue. We do not think crudely raising 'no immigration controls' will assist us in building that dialogue

(this is why Nigel has probably lost patience with you CR...)

To be fair Nigel is like it with loads of people......so he must have lost patience with a lot of people!

But who says we should crudely raise no immigration controls? My point is that you can't avoid it and will be put on the spot about it. So from that point of view if you're gonna express it once put on the spot I really can't see the logic of not putting it in your election manifesto, under whatever formulation you like. As said you put in it that you want to nationalise the top 150 companies. You say this isn't a key point of your activity but you still mention it at least.

For the right to Asylum. The scraping of the Asylum and Immigration Bill and of all other racist laws

So to scrap all racist laws you'd have to scrap immigration controls, but a round about way of saying it. So as said in the Socialist Alliance why didn't you provide a different resolution rather than just voting it down?

If you think that lot are bad - come and meet my family (most of the males are builders living in the south east of england...)

A fair percentage of my family and most of my work mates are the same. But because they don't agree with me on that point doesn't stop them working with me around a campaign. Ultimately it would be like saying because the vast majority of people aren't socialists then they won't work with you because you are one. But that's not right, people will still enter into campaigns with you just because you disagree over this or that point.

There is a world of difference between putting forward an anti-imperialist position on war (although, even then how one poses that position is important...) and 'no borders' (as opposed to the principle of workers unity...)

you are still trying to make your slogan into a principle - its not

But ultimately (again pointing to Their Morals and Ours) nothing is a principle as such. The point is that key questions such as anti-imperialist and oppossing immigration controls are both absolutely key questions for the working class in my view. I don't see how I'm contradicting myself here.

I'm not even talking about a set slogan, so don't get what you're saying on that one.

You seem to have been saying - that the slogan is a principle and that is why it should be included.

What is clear is that we are for maximum workers unity (although we are only talking about transitional demands here)

Where have I said the slogan is a principe

What I have said that is that a revolutionary organisation, in one formula or another, should be clear that it is against immigration controls. And it will be forced to once it gets any real influence.

The aim of the demands being put forward is not because we want to win the 2 men and a dog at present in these small beginnings to our 'revolutionary' position. We feel that the task of rebuilding a wider workers party is more important. We went to build an organisation that is able to fill out with 'real' forces (we don't think the CPGB, WP and ourselves are 'real' forces). You are welcome to stand there telling us how pointless and hopeless the task seems at this moment in time but if you would like to convince us (rather than yourselves...) then you have to come up with alternatives that offer more than simply moral high grounds or better principles (or non-principles its getting confusing to know which?)

Well I would say that winning people to a revolutionary organisation is important.

But the fact is that your attempts to build a new workers party have not moved beyond the SP as the last conference showed. But more importantly than this is that because of the low level of class struggle even if it did get off the ground it would have the politics of old labour. The lack of class struggle would mean revolutionaries could not win over the reformist sections. Personally I don't see the formation of a new old labour party would be a positive thing, especially when it is a revolutionary organisation that is trying to build it from scratch.

The fact is that in periods of low class struggle sometimes there are no short cuts. At the moment I would say that a key task for revolutionaries is to build up the rank and file movement in the unions (the CP in the early 20s did some interesting stuff on this) and also fighting in various united fronts. And of course building a revolutionary organisation, including trying to win those two men and their dog. But I don't see how the tactic of the CNWP or RESPECT have any mileage in them and if they did somehow take off would actually be a step backwards in the current period.

 

[dennisr]

Well I would say that winning people to a revolutionary organisation is important.

of course - its a dual task at this moment

But the fact is that your attempts to build a new workers party have not moved beyond the SP as the last conference showed. But more importantly than this is that because of the low level of class struggle even if it did get off the ground it would have the politics of old labour. The lack of class struggle would mean revolutionaries could not win over the reformist sections. Personally I don't see the formation of a new old labour party would be a positive thing, especially when it is a revolutionary organisation that is trying to build it from scratch.

As Nigel, you bete noir, pointed out right at the beginning you have already decided that the CNWP will fail

I think - looking at both historical and recent examples (germany, brazil, italy, now belgium - all with their own local twists and flavours) - its one of the tasks working class people will set themselves. I don't see a new old labour party being that new formation any more than you do - but it will not be a revolutionary formation. The role revolutionaries can play in that formation will be dictated partly by the role they play in the initiative. The SP thinks that by laying its marker out now, it will assist that organisation in playing a role in that movement (as it has been able to do in all of those initiatives mentioned - except italy - but the new group there should be able to change that). Its something that is likely to happen - not necessarily on the SP terms and not even necessarily directly from the CNWP initiative. But it is more likely imo than frm what is left of the macdonald electoral campaign (although i don't even write that off completely - I would not like to be as presumptuous as you are about CNWP). We are also heavily involved in the RMT led shop stewards initiative for example

The fact is that in periods of low class struggle sometimes there are no short cuts. At the moment I would say that a key task for revolutionaries is to build up the rank and file movement in the unions (the CP in the early 20s did some interesting stuff on this) and also fighting in various united fronts. And of course building a revolutionary organisation, including trying to win those two men and their dog. But I don't see how the tactic of the CNWP or RESPECT have any mileage in them and if they did somehow take off would actually be a step backwards in the current period.

Of course - but the point about the trade unions is attempting to teach your grandmother to suck eggs if you would see that as a critique of the SP position.

I understand that you would see the CNWP as a 'step back' if it took off in your schematic view of things - but i think that view would result in you not even winning the 2 men and doggie you mentioned. You would just isolate yourselves further from a genuine movement - but you would not be the first group to make such a mistake

 

[Fisher_Gate]

...
I think - looking at both historical and recent examples (germany, brazil, italy, now belgium - all with their own local twists and flavours) - its one of the tasks working class people will set themselves. I don't see a new old labour party being that new formation any more than you do - but it will not be a revolutionary formation. The role revolutionaries can play in that formation will be dictated partly by the role they play in the initiative. The SP thinks that by laying its marker out now, it will assist that organisation in playing a role in that movement (as it has been able to do in all of those initiatives mentioned - except italy - but the new group there should be able to change that). ...

I didn't quite get the point you were making here with these international examples, so you'll have to set it out a bit more slowly. I'm not being negative or polemical, just trying to understand your position.

Brazil - I know you (CWI) support PSoL, which is led by revolutionaries, against the Workers Party, but were critical of its "electoralism"; what is your orientation towards the WP? Is it a reformist party or a bourgeois party?

Germany? I thought CWI were opposed to the creation of the Left Party, between the reformist WASG and the reformist PDS? Is the WASG the best the German left can hope for at the present time; what's the position of CWI in the former East, join Left Party, or try to split it and create a WASG wing?

Italy? Is the view of the CWI that revolutionaries should depart the reformist PRC, in favour of a formation led by revolutionaries? Do you support SC?

 

[Nigel Irritable]

Brazil - I know you (CWI) support PSoL, which is led by revolutionaries, against the Workers Party, but were critical of its "electoralism"; what is your orientation towards the WP? Is it a reformist party or a bourgeois party?

My understanding (and I would have to look it up to be sure) is that Socialismo Revolucionario, the CWI in Brazil, view the Workers Party as a reformist party still, but one which is in transition towards becoming an outright pro-capitalist party.

[QUOTE-Fisher_Gate]Germany? I thought CWI were opposed to the creation of the Left Party, between the reformist WASG and the reformist PDS? Is the WASG the best the German left can hope for at the present time; what's the position of CWI in the former East, join Left Party, or try to split it and create a WASG wing?[/QUOTE]

Socialist Alternative, the CWI in Germany, was not opposed to a merger between the WASG and the PDS. It was opposed to a merger on the terms desired by the PDS leadership - ie that the new party will be essentially an enlarged PDS and would continue to participate in coalition governments, would continue to privatise and so on.

Their current approach is flexible and depends on local circumstances. In the old West Germany they are mostly within the Left Party. In Berlin they are part of an attempt to build a broad left formation opposed to coalition and cuts. In other parts of the East I believe they are mostly an independent organisation

Italy? Is the view of the CWI that revolutionaries should depart the reformist PRC, in favour of a formation led by revolutionaries? Do you support SC?

Lotta per il Socialismo, the CWI in Italy, is a small group. Its view is that there is still a fight to be had in the PRC and it is quite critical of both the Progetto Comunista current, which split much to early, and the Sinistra Critica current which has adopted a confused half way house position, neither leading a fight within the PRC nor breaking from it.

 

[cockneyrebel]

I understand that you would see the CNWP as a 'step back' if it took off in your schematic view of things - but i think that view would result in you not even winning the 2 men and doggie you mentioned. You would just isolate yourselves further from a genuine movement - but you would not be the first group to make such a mistake

I don't think it's schematic. As class struggle is so low I can't see how any organisation coming out of the CNWP will be anything other than left reformist i.e. an new old labour organisation. Now if something came out of the workers movement then obviously revolutionaries should intervene it (whatever the serious flaws of the organisations you mention) but I just can't see how it can a positive thing for revolutionaries to help create a reformist organisation and even worse, because class struggle is at such a low level, there will not be the lever of struggle for revolutionaries to win over reformists. Well unless you believe in a stagist approach, which I don't.

 

[cockneyrebel]

.....double post