nightbreed
Im Bored
Nigel Irritable said:
Isnt John McDonnell MP from the LRC speaking as well?
RMT conference
- Thread starter Nigel Irritable
- Start date
Isnt John McDonnell MP from the LRC speaking as well?
Fisher_Gate
Active Member
Macullam said:
... and how do the members of this "Campaign" get to influence its policy?
Fisher_Gate
Active Member
mattkidd12 said:
Are WP members of the "Campaign"? Do they have meetings that both WP and SP members can turn up to and decide the positions of the "Campaign"?
cockneyrebel
New Member
The "Campaign for a New Workers' Party" was launched at the last SP yearly event. As far as I know the only organisation in it so far is the SP.
cockneyrebel said:
I thought Workers Power were calling for a new mass party of the working class.Are you lot calling for another new mass party before this one is set up already? Wouldn't it be better to join it and then split because it isn't revolutionary enough rather than have a small mass workers party and a minute mass workers party?
Nigel Irritable
Five, Ten, Fifteen Years
The Campaign for a New Workers Party is at this stage a declaration and a list of signatories. There are no structures or members or affiliates as far as I am aware and no policies other than those in the declaration. The Campaign supports the RMT conference because that support was part of the original declaration, not because someone is making up new policies as they go along.
As I understand things - remembering that I am in Ireland and therefore not myself involved - the point of launching the Campaign like that is to avoid just presenting everyone else with a fait accompli in terms of structures and policies. Instead the declaration was intended as a first step in a process of discussion and outreach which will hopefully gather pace at the RMT conference. The plan is to then hold a conference in the Spring which will allow resolutions and, if the idea has begun to take on flesh, will see structures developed. It's conceived as a process rather than an ultimatum, which I realise must be alien to the Respectites amongst us.
So far, by the way, the declaration in favour of a new workers party has been signed by hundreds of trade unionists, including thirty or so members of trade union national executives.
As I understand things - remembering that I am in Ireland and therefore not myself involved - the point of launching the Campaign like that is to avoid just presenting everyone else with a fait accompli in terms of structures and policies. Instead the declaration was intended as a first step in a process of discussion and outreach which will hopefully gather pace at the RMT conference. The plan is to then hold a conference in the Spring which will allow resolutions and, if the idea has begun to take on flesh, will see structures developed. It's conceived as a process rather than an ultimatum, which I realise must be alien to the Respectites amongst us.
So far, by the way, the declaration in favour of a new workers party has been signed by hundreds of trade unionists, including thirty or so members of trade union national executives.
Nigel Irritable said:
Yes but are workers power supporting your new workers party or are they setting up one of their own?
cockneyrebel
New Member
Out of interest how many of these aren't in the SP? And has any organisation backed the campaign other than the SP?
Nigel, do you think anything much will come out of Saturday's event?
Nigel Irritable
Five, Ten, Fifteen Years
cockneyrebel said:
I believe that nine or ten of the union executive members are not in the Socialist Party.
cockneyrebel said:
Not as far as I know. I believe that various small left groups are discussing it, for whatever that's worth.
cockneyrebel said:
I don't think any specific initative will be launched out of it if that's what you mean. It will be a talking shop, which isn't in and of itself a bad thing as a starting point.
Fisher_Gate
Active Member
Nigel Irritable said:
Interesting answer - how does a "Campaign" that has "no structures or members or affiliates" send speakers to address meetings and have an e-mail address? http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/2005/417/index.html?id=pp5.htm
The declaration says:
Who decides what is a "genuine" initiative? In particular will the "Campaign" and the SP leadership be responding positively to Workers Power's approach to them for joint work? (As described in WP December 2005). Or are Workers Power still 'a sect on the fringes of the Labour Movement' not worthy of support?
Nigel Irritable
Five, Ten, Fifteen Years
Fisher_Gate said:
You may as well ask how a campaign with none of the above holds a conference or gathers signatures or writes a declaration in the first place. The answer is obvious enough, somebody takes an initiative, in this case the Socialist Party. That's hardly a secret, these things have to start somewhere rather than drop from the sky.
But as I said, for the moment all there is of substance to the campaign is the declaration and a list of signatories. The only "activity" which the campaign has is encouraging more people to sign the declaration and hopefully calling a conference. Hopefully wider discussions will be possible coming out of the RMT meeting and then structures and activities beyond gathering signatures can be decided on at the conference planned for the Spring.
The Socialist Party haven't just declared a campaign structure and schedule of activities, preempting everyone else's input and then demanded that they affiliate to our ready-made structure. Instead people and groups have plenty of time to discuss and think about what kind of structures and activities we need before setting out to develop them.
Fisher_Gate said:
That's something which the campaign and its members will be able to decide for themselves as the initiative takes on flesh beyond the declaration.
Fisher_Gate said:
I don't know if Workers Power have made some approach to the Campaign for a New Workers Party for joint work. If they have they have misunderstood the current state of play with regard to the Campaign, there is nothing to hold joint activities with. Its only activity of any kind is to encourage people to sign the declaration and potentially to work towards calling a conference. Workers Power are welcome to take as many copies of the declaration as they like and gather signatures. When and if the Campaign develops structures and wider activities, Workers Power will presumably be able to join it like anyone else.
As far as the Socialist Party is concerned, we are very unlikely to respond positively to requests for joint work from Workers Power. We don't take as our starting point getting together with a few dozen ultra-lefts.
Fisher_Gate said:
Yes they certainly are.
Fisher_Gate
Active Member
Nigel Irritable said:
So if Workers Power supporters sign the statement and ask to provide speakers to go in response to e-mail requests put into this non-existent organisation and speak about their ideas for a revolutionary programme for this new workers party, there would be no bar on them doing so as everyone is being welcomed with opened arms?
Looks out window to see flying pigs over the workers defence squads ...
Nigel Irritable
Five, Ten, Fifteen Years
Fisher_Gate said:
As far as I am aware Workers Power have thus far refused to sign the declaration and certainly have made no approach to speak on its behalf. The issue in other words simply doesn't arise.
I'm certainly not going to decide off the top of my head how a campaign I have nothing to do with in another country should respond to such an approach. If it was up to me however, I would want to limit speakers invited from the campaign to people who are (a) competent and (b) willing to limit themselves to the politics of the declaration until the campaign gets a chance to develop democratic structures that can go beyond that. Workers Power will no doubt get their chance to argue for what they think is a revolutionary programme (read: engage in ultra-left posturing) at the various discussions ahead.
Now do you have any serious points to make, or is your contribution going to be entirely limited to pointing out that the Campaign for a New Workers Party is a Socialist Party initiative which doesn't yet have any proper structures? Neither of those things are secrets and nobody is pretending otherwise. The point is to develop democratic structures rather than just declare them and insist everyone else sign up or piss off.
Fisher_Gate
Active Member
Nigel Irritable said:
Thank you for acknowledging that the Campaign currently has no independent existence and is purely a creation of the Socialist Party. That is exactly the point I was seeking to make - I was objecting to the implied idea in a statement that you posted that there were two seperate organisations here.
Whether the Campaign does become independent of the Socialist Party remains to be seen and I will watch with interest.
You will have to excuse my scepticism but your current has a long tradition of preferring to establish its own front organisations and refusing to join broader partnerships that it doesn't control or risks being in a minority in. From the days of the Spanish Young Socialists Defence Campaign through the Youth Campaign Against Unemployment to the Labour Campaign Against the Witchhunt, you have preferred the cosiness of your own fronts to the difficulties of working in broader formations; in the Labour Party, you refused to support organisations like the Labour Abortion Rights Campaign, National Abortion Campaign, Anti Nazi League, Labour Against the Witchunt, Campaign for Labour Party Democracy, and only finally agreed to the LPYS affiliating to CND after a gargantuan struggle. On the one occasion when you did work with other forces - the Socialist Alliance - you insisted on the right to stand your own candidates where you wanted whatever the democratic decisions, and eventually walked out when you could not stand being a minority any longer.
If you have genuinely changed, then I welcome it - but remain to be convinced.
lewislewis
Lumumba Cymru
Any new workers' party should have organisational and ideological similarity to the SSP, which is surely the most successful UK left project since the demise of Militant?
On the one occasion when you did work with other forces - the Socialist Alliance - you insisted on the right to stand your own candidates where you wanted whatever the democratic decisions, and eventually walked out when you could not stand being a minority any longer.
If you have genuinely changed, then I welcome it - but remain to be convinced.[/QUOTE]
gross distortions apart many of these groups you quote are circa 1970's ANL was an SWp front with no democratic structure or organisation and was wound up by them when it appeared to be losing the battle over tactics against the NF. The others appear to be labour party organisations that acheived little. I would argue the SP has an excellent record in campiganing with other groups. I see you fail to mention the Anti Poll tax Campaign, STWC various trade union bodies etc. And just for the record what happened to the Socialist Alliance following the SP's departure regarding its constitution. Again wound down by the SWP before cheque forgery and resignation from leading non aligned members. Fast forward to the spectacle of respect and GG making an arse of himself on BB. What the Sp does not do is ditch its politics and revert to the lowest common denominator When working on joint campaigns.
If you have genuinely changed, then I welcome it - but remain to be convinced.[/QUOTE]
gross distortions apart many of these groups you quote are circa 1970's ANL was an SWp front with no democratic structure or organisation and was wound up by them when it appeared to be losing the battle over tactics against the NF. The others appear to be labour party organisations that acheived little. I would argue the SP has an excellent record in campiganing with other groups. I see you fail to mention the Anti Poll tax Campaign, STWC various trade union bodies etc. And just for the record what happened to the Socialist Alliance following the SP's departure regarding its constitution. Again wound down by the SWP before cheque forgery and resignation from leading non aligned members. Fast forward to the spectacle of respect and GG making an arse of himself on BB. What the Sp does not do is ditch its politics and revert to the lowest common denominator When working on joint campaigns.
Fisher_Gate
Active Member
Macullam said:
What? The Campaign for Labour Party Democracy and Labour Abortion Rights Campaign 'acheived little' (sic)? You betray your ignorance of Labour Party history - or have chosen to rewrite it to suit your current sectarian political perspective.
The Anti Poll Tax Campaign was an exception, I grant you. But when the Militant's leading figure in that (Tommy Sheridan) drew different conclusions about where to go after, you split and parted ways showing that you have no capacity for debating and containing political differences.
Throwing dirt at the SWP is all good good knockabout fun, but does not help your cause - I agree they have made big mistakes in the Socialist Alliance and with Respect, but that doesn't excuse throwing your toys out of the pram.
We'll see what success you make of your latest attempt to claim to work with broader forces - or whether it just becomes another one of a long list of pretty useless front organisations.
articul8
Dishonest sociopath
Macullam said:
As has been noted on these boards on many occasions, ANL (mark 1) in the late 70's was a very different beast than its later incarnation, being of a much broader character - whilst they played an important in the initiative - cannot be justly described as a mere 'front' (which it would sadly become when relaunched).
Nigel Irritable
Five, Ten, Fifteen Years
Fisher_Gate said:
Given that my very first post in response to you explained at length that the Campaign for a New Workers Party has no existence yet other than as a declaration, a list of signatories and an intention to call a conference, I'm rather baffled as to why you felt the need to go on pointing out much the same thing for another four or so posts, trying to imply that there was some big secret or mystery. The Campaign as yet has no organisational substance to it, that's something that will hopefully change. The alternative to doing it this way would be to just declare an organisational structure and set of policies according to the Socialist Party's whims and then demand that everyone else affiliate or get lost.
Fisher_Gate said:
This is simply false. We have for instance been an important component of almost every left body in the unions, normally as a minority. What we don't do though as a rule of thumb is waste our time pissing about with trivial sects (as in the various IMG or Socialist Organiser creations of the 1980s) or SWP fronts (like the ANL and the post-takeover Socialist Alliance), a perfectly rational attitude to take. We have better things to be doing with our limited resources.
Fisher_Gate said:
In fact when Tommy and Co drew "different" conclusions from the rest of us about where to go (ie when they decided that it was unnecessary to build a revolutionary organisation) a lengthy and open political debate ensued. It went on for years, with all of the documents produced by both sides being distributed and discussed around the world. I remember it all very well because I was just joining the Socialist Party at the time and kept being given piles of documents to read and discuss. Nobody was expelled or disciplined in any way and we have even put all of those documents on the web for anyone who is interested to read.
Sheridan and friends eventually left the Committee for a Workers International of their own accord because they saw it as counterproductive for people who don't think building a revolutionary party is necessary to stay as members of an organisation primarily dedicated to creating a revolutionary party. And while I regretted it at the time, they were right to leave at that stage. I'm not at all surprised to hear a supporter of the USFI argue that a "revolutionary" organisation should indefinitely contain people who are opposed to building a revolutionary organisation though.
Fisher_Gate
Active Member
lewislewis said:
This suggests the Militant was a 'successful UK left project', which I have to disagree with. It became a large sect, that imploded under the weight of its own sectarianism and dogmatism.
However, yes, I think any future 'new workers party' ought to take a lot of note of the structures of the SSP and similar formations elsewhere in Europe - see the debate between Alex Callinicos (SWP), Murray Smith (ex-SSP and now French LCR), Alan Thornett (ISG) and François Sabado (FI) at:
http://www.internationalviewpoint.org/article.php3?id_article=9
Along with the resolution of the Fourth International from 2003 (under the section called 'Building Broad Anti-Capitalist Proletarian Parties'):
http://www.internationalviewpoint.org/article.php3?id_article=176
Fisher_Gate
Active Member
articul8 said:
I agree - I was an active member of the ANL when it was first launched circa 1977-78 and although I think the structure was somewhat amorphous, it certainly wasn't a front for the SWP - others could participate and have a say in what it did. Many of the best elements of the Labour Left became involved locally.
Nigel Irritable
Five, Ten, Fifteen Years
Fisher_Gate said:
It all depends on your perspective really. Militant wasn't very impressive by the standards of a French Stalinist or a 1930s Catalan syndicalist, but by the dismal standards of the British left it was the only serious attempt to build a socialist organisation with a real base in the working class since the early days of the Communist Party.
However, yes, I think any future 'new workers party' ought to take a lot of note of the structures of the SSP and similar formations elsewhere in Europe - see the debate between Alex Callinicos (SWP), Murray Smith (ex-SSP and now French LCR), Alan Thornett (ISG) and François Sabado (FI) at:
however it is also true that the SSP has stalled some argue its hit the buffers folowing the mishandling of the Tommy Sheridan affair and its rightward drift politcally and focus on the scotish Parliament and publicity stunts. Recent council bye elections havr seen results no better than other independent left groups in england and wales and in some cases a lot worse.This is partly due to the failure of the ISM the dominant political platform to maintain a stucture and instead become a loose network with a preoccupation with independance despite this not being seen as the predominant factor in terms of priorities of the scottish population.
however it is also true that the SSP has stalled some argue its hit the buffers folowing the mishandling of the Tommy Sheridan affair and its rightward drift politcally and focus on the scotish Parliament and publicity stunts. Recent council bye elections havr seen results no better than other independent left groups in england and wales and in some cases a lot worse.This is partly due to the failure of the ISM the dominant political platform to maintain a stucture and instead become a loose network with a preoccupation with independance despite this not being seen as the predominant factor in terms of priorities of the scottish population.
Fisher_Gate
Active Member
Nigel Irritable said:
This is a highly tendentious account, Nigel. The main disagreement that was made in public at the time was the opposition of the CWI to the launching of the SSP itself! With the benefit of hindsight, a ludicrous position even for the hardened sectarians of the CWI. The people who later became the ISM say they recoiled from the idea of an international and a revolutionary organisation that was always right and failed to engage in dialogue with others. See:
http://www.internationalviewpoint.org/article.php3?id_article=812
A link to the documents you mention would be helpful.
socialistsuzy
New Member
i believe the SP EC have replied, although i bdon't know the details of the reply yet.
Fisher_Gate
Active Member
Nigel Irritable said:
No I think the SLL was a similar attempt in the period of the early 1960s - and also shared many of the flaws of Militant.
Fisher_Gate
Active Member
Macullam said:
Some (but not all) reasonable points here, that are recognised by members of the ISM and debated quite openly in their journal and among members of the SSP. (see for example: http://www.redflag.org.uk/frontline/17/17genelect.html)
However you can't resist the slagging off of your erstwhile comrades can you? What is clear is that the SSP has not become a reformist party as was claimed by the CWI - who vehemently opposed it being set up in the first place anyway! So it's no surprise you continue to display such sour grapes - some leopards don't seem to change their spots.
See:
http://www.redflag.org.uk/debate/statement.html
cockneyrebel
New Member
There is no comparison between Militant and the Communist Party in terms of the their roots in the working class. The CP had 50,000 members at its height, ten times that of Militant. Militant compared to the CP was a joke in that regard.
Also I think you'd struggle to say that Militant, in the fullness of time, was successful.
Also Nigel I've seen you deride WP for thinking they are more revolutionary than anyone else on the left, but you seem to spend half your time on here labelling virtually every other left organisation in the UK as sects. In terms of WP you could at least give us a little bit of credit for the fact that it largely down to our work in the RMT that this conference is happening in the first place.
Nigel Irritable
Five, Ten, Fifteen Years
cockneyrebel said:
Not true as regards the Communist Party's revolutionary period, actually. The CP throughout that period numbered less than 10,000, often much less, although it did have a much better implantation in the industrial sectors of the working class. The CPGB only hit its membership peak as an organisation which was actually to the right of the Labour Party.
cockneyrebel said:
Fair point, although to be honest I think a certain contempt for most of the "left organisations" is only healthy and thoroughly justified by their records.
cockneyrebel said:
I have no problem giving credit to your RMT member for putting the resolution that led to the conference. But as far as Workers Power as a whole goes I tend to take the view that the best analogy is with a stopped clock.
Similar threads
