RMT conference

[Fisher_Gate]

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.

Not sure I agree with your first point CR.

The CP only reached 50,000 members at the end of the second world war, when it also had 2 MPs and dozens of councillors. By that stage it was a thoroughly reformist outfit and even though it had extensive influence within the Labour movement, based on the prestige of the Soviet Union's war effort, there was both a significant troskyist current, and a less stalinist and sometimes principled left within the Labour Party and ILP - see both Richardson and Bornstein's 'War and the International' and Jenkins 'Bevanism'.

In its early period the CPGB was quite small - Woodhouse & Pearce ('Essays on the History of Communism in Britain' - originally written from 1957-1968, published by New Park/WRP in 1975) say it took it two years from formation as little more than a propaganda group in 1921 to the end of 1923 to reach the high point of 4,000 members - a comparable size to Militant in the 1980s.

What distinguished the early CPGB from Militant, was that it used its influence to work with activists in the trade unions and Labour Party through the launching of 'united front' type initiatives with other left wing activists not in the CPGB - most prominently the National Minority Movement (launched in 1924) in the Trade Unions, and the National Left Wing Movement (launched in 1925) in the Labour Party. [There is a useful essay from Pearse about the work of the CPGB with the Labour Party on an Australian site: http://members.optusnet.com.au/spainter/Bpearce.html).

Membership of the CPGB rose to around 7,500 on the back of this work during the late 1920s, only to collapse to 2,500 following the adoption of the ultra-left line from Moscow in 1929 and the CP's withdrawal and dissolution of these 'united front' type bodies. The ILP then became the more dynamic and attractive left wing group in the 1930s.

By contrast, Militant never broke out of their sectarianism - with the exception of Liverpool where the wrong tactics meant it went belly-up locally - the organisation continued its 'splendid isolation' from the rest of the left that was the hallmark of its origins and growth in the 1960s and 1970s, ultimately leading to splits and decline in the 1990s.

 

[Nigel]

They are the 5th International and Vanguard of the working class.
Without them no mass movement is possible.
Who is going to write all the programmes for the working class to follow??????

 

[Nigel Irritable]

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!

I have no idea why you feel the need to peddle blatant lies when the actual documents from the time are all of a few clicks away. It isn't as if you can get away with it when anyone who wants can read the full debates.

The position of the CWI was to support the launching of a Scottish Socialist Party in one of two ways. Option A was to launch a revolutionary SSP. Option B was to launch the kind of broad SSP which was actually launched, but and this is crucial while still seeking to build a revolutionary organisation within the SSP.

The only thing which the CWI opposed was the idea of destroying Scottish Militant Labour as a revolutionary organisation by liquidating it into a broad SSP which in the words of Murray Smith "keeps open the question of revolution or reform". Our argument at the time was that you couldn't just drop the building of a Marxist organisation and hope to come back to it later. In fact having a coherent, disciplined revolutionary organisation at its core would be vital for the success of even a broad SSP.

One of the startling things about the debates of the time is, in retrospect, just how confused the arguments of the Sheridan leadership of the former Scottish majority were and just how pinpoint accurate the predictions made by the CWI about the consequences of their plans have proved to be. The ISM quickly died as any kind of real organisation, becoming little more than a leadership caucus when the Socialist Worker Platform seemed to be a threat and then as the SWP imploded in Scotland it ceased to be even that.

You can find all of the documents from the debate at the time here: http://www.marxist.net

Our tasks are two-fold. On the one hand there is the need for our forces to assist in building new, mass parties of the working class based on an anti-capitalist/socialist programme, where the conditions exist to do this. On the other hand, while carrying out this task, we must continue to build our own independent revolutionary party within these new formations.

 

[Fisher_Gate]

...
You can find all of the documents from the debate at the time here: http://www.marxist.net

I could not find the resolutions of the November 1998 World Congress of the CWI that according to the ISM the first line stated:

"This World Congress of the CWI places on record it's strongest possible opposition to the decision of SML to launch the Scottish Socialist Party"

http://www.redflag.org.uk/debate/statement.html

If it is there and I've missed it, I apologise and perhaps you could kindly point me to the right link.

 

[Chuck Wilson]

Nigel, Workers Power seem to think that they are not only supporting your initiative but proposing joint work and have held a public meeting in Leicester. They are however already taken a different line and want RESPECT leaders at the meeting.

Building the conference

The task over the next few months is to build the conference. Already two encouraging initiatives have emerged.

First, Bristol Rail RMT has called a South West regional conference to rally support for the campaign and begin the debate. This is an excellent idea, which should be imitated across the country. It is the best way to ensure that the RMT council of executives does not stifle the national conference, and that the campaign sinks roots in the wider working class.

Secondly, the Socialist Party has launched its own campaign for a new workers party. In the past we have criticised the SP for its purely propagandistic approach to fighting for this outcome, and we continue to disagree strongly with its conception that any new party has to be reformist until events themselves push it in a revolutionary direction. No. The whole history of the Labour and European social democratic parties shows that events will push such parties in a capitalist direction, unless revolutionaries fight openly for an alternative.

Nevertheless, we will propose joint work with the SP nationally and locally on this campaign, and have already set up a public meeting for December in Leicester.

Indeed, we urge all working class fighters to join the campaign, whether they be in Respect, the Labour left, or no party at all. Visit www.workerspower.com to download a model motion, or contact us to see what is happening in your area or union.

 

[Fisher_Gate]

I have no idea why you feel the need to peddle blatant lies when the actual documents from the time are all of a few clicks away. It isn't as if you can get away with it when anyone who wants can read the full debates.

The position of the CWI was to support the launching of a Scottish Socialist Party in one of two ways. Option A was to launch a revolutionary SSP. Option B was to launch the kind of broad SSP which was actually launched, but and this is crucial while still seeking to build a revolutionary organisation within the SSP.

The only thing which the CWI opposed was the idea of destroying Scottish Militant Labour as a revolutionary organisation by liquidating it into a broad SSP which in the words of Murray Smith "keeps open the question of revolution or reform". Our argument at the time was that you couldn't just drop the building of a Marxist organisation and hope to come back to it later. In fact having a coherent, disciplined revolutionary organisation at its core would be vital for the success of even a broad SSP.

One of the startling things about the debates of the time is, in retrospect, just how confused the arguments of the Sheridan leadership of the former Scottish majority were and just how pinpoint accurate the predictions made by the CWI about the consequences of their plans have proved to be. The ISM quickly died as any kind of real organisation, becoming little more than a leadership caucus when the Socialist Worker Platform seemed to be a threat and then as the SWP imploded in Scotland it ceased to be even that.

You can find all of the documents from the debate at the time here: http://www.marxist.net

Thanks. I'll read them closely - I'm interested in finding out how it was apparently such a crime for SML to dissolve itself unprincipledly in 1998, yet manage to remain part of the CWI as a functioning section called the ISM for a further three years, until leaving of its own accord in 2001. This seems a rather strange contradiction.

Murray Smith, one of the main protagonists in the debate, is of course now a member of the LCR in France, so I presume he has not personally rejected building a revolutionary party or international.

 

[Chuck Wilson]

They have also contacted your lot in England but it seems your leadership isn't playing ball:

The decision by the SP to launch a campaign and invite others to join it is therefore a step forward. WP immediately responded positively, with proposals for joint work and we still await a response from the SP leadership.

 

[Fisher_Gate]

Nigel, Workers Power seem to think that they are not only supporting your initiative but proposing joint work and have held a public meeting in Leicester. They are however already taken a different line and want RESPECT leaders at the meeting.

Workers Power invited Alan Thornett of the ISG to address them recently about why the ISG believed it was necessary to build Respect as a part of the path to a new workers party. While they disagreed, apparently it was a civilised and comradely debate.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

I'm not sure if the 1998 World Congress resolutions are online. None of them formed a significant contribution to the debate around the SSP, so I doubt if they are in that particular archive. I'll have to look around to find the full text.

What I can say about that resolution though, from my own memory, is that the ISM have engaged in a piece of Spart like quotation, ripping a sentence or sentence fragment from context. You will note that apart from those few words they never quote the rest of the resolution which puts the full argument. What the resolution condemned was the decision of the Scottish majority to press ahead with launching the SSP in such a way as to destroy Scottish Militant Labour as a revolutionary organisation.

The problem, as outlined in that resolution as well as throughout the vast exchange of documents, was with the decision to liquidate SML. The CWI saw the question of launching a broad SSP as a tactical question and different people favoured the idea of a revolutionary SSP or a broad SSP. What was viewed as a question of principle was the dissolution of SML as a revolutionary organisation. That was what the row was about, I know because I was involved in the organisation at the time and taking part in the debates in Ireland. I also know because the documents are available online and I can only invite you to read them properly.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

Thanks. I'll read them closely - I'm interested in finding out how it was apparently such a crime for SML to dissolve itself unprincipledly in 1998, yet manage to remain part of the CWI as a functioning section called the ISM for a further three years, until leaving of its own accord in 2001. This seems a rather strange contradiction.

Not at all. The dissolution of the ISM took time as the organisation was only gradually wound down. There was no sudden announcement, but a prolonged process of falling apart.

Throughout that period a significant minority of its members continued to press for the ISM to continue to build itself as a revolutionary organisation. What's more the sheer incoherence of the Scottish majority's arguments meant that some of their members genuinely didn't realise that the effective destruction of the ISM was to be the end product, something they would have to see for themselves over time. The discussion was continuing in Scotland. Neither side sought to bureaucratically deal with their dissident minority, the CWI didn't expel or discipline its Scottish organisation, the Scottish organisation didn't expel or discipline its own minority.

That situation couldn't continue indefinitely though in my view, as eventually the ISM would be completely incapable of functioning as a useful organisation. The ISM leadership, I suppose to their credit, realised that and eventually left of their own accord.

Murray Smith, one of the main protagonists in the debate, is of course now a member of the LCR in France, so I presume he has not personally rejected building a revolutionary party or international.

I'd argue that his membership of the LCR is more evidence of his rejection of revolutionary politics, but that actually isn't necessary here. Smith is on the record himself arguing that it is only necessary at this stage to build class struggle parties which leave open the question of revolution or reform.

 

[cockneyrebel]

Chuck I asked you on another web board, but you didn't reply. Why have you got such an interest in Workers Power. At first I thought it might just be that you enjoy taking the piss, but there are loads of groups on the left that you could take the piss out of. But dozens if not hundreds of posts and even whole mock stories about Workers Power later it seems a bit strange to me. Did you have run ins with WP when you were in the SWP or something? Why the obsession?

Nigel and FG I agree that the CP was reformist by the 1940s, but I was just saying its implementation in the working class was far, far greater than Militant. Also I'd say that it was a very different organisation to that of the LP. While it was reformist it contained a lot of revolutionaries in its membership and the whole nature of the CP was very different to the Labour Party (I doubt LP full timers had their book shelves stacked full of Lenin, Marx etc, maybe I'm wrong). Also as you point out Nigel, its implementation in the industrial sectors was far better throughout.

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.

That's what all hacks of all left organisations say.

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.

If that's what you think, fair enough. But I'd also say that WPs work in the SA (where one of our members was the TU organiser), STWC, ESF etc has produced some good results. Nothing to set the world alight, but more than a stopped clock

Workers Power invited Alan Thornett of the ISG to address them recently about why the ISG believed it was necessary to build Respect as a part of the path to a new workers party. While they disagreed, apparently it was a civilised and comradely debate.

Yeah it was a pretty good debate.

 

[Fisher_Gate]

Chuck I asked you on another web board, but you didn't reply. Why have you got such an interest in Workers Power. At first I thought it might just be that you enjoy taking the piss, but there are loads of groups on the left that you could take the piss out of. But dozens if not hundreds of posts and even whole mock stories about Workers Power later it seems a bit strange to me. Did you have run ins with WP when you were in the SWP or something? Why the obsession?

Nigel and FG I agree that the CP was reformist by the 1940s, but I was just saying its implementation in the working class was far, far greater than Militant. Also I'd say that it was a very different organisation to that of the LP. While it was reformist it contained a lot of revolutionaries in its membership and the whole nature of the CP was very different to the Labour Party (I doubt LP full timers had their book shelves stacked full of Lenin, Marx etc, maybe I'm wrong). Also as you point out Nigel, its implementation in the industrial sectors was far better throughout.



That's what all hacks of all left organisations say.



If that's what you think, fair enough. But I'd also say that WPs work in the SA (where one of our members was the TU organiser), STWC, ESF etc has produced some good results. Nothing to set the world alight, but more than a stopped clock



Yeah it was a pretty good debate.

I agree that although they are small, Workers Power are one of the more serious of the leftist groups. I think Alan Thornett was entirely right to seek to debate with them, even if they disagreed, a comradely debate can only help. I don't agree with Socialist Party's dismissal of every group other than themselves as irrelevant.

 

[Fisher_Gate]

...

I'd argue that his membership of the LCR is more evidence of his rejection of revolutionary politics, but that actually isn't necessary here. ...

This is further evidence of your dismissal of every group other than yourselves ... you condemn yourself to sectarian irrelevance from your own words.

I try not to dismiss the CWI in such a way, giving credit where its due and criticism where I think its appropriate - but never dismissal.

I'll read the documents at leisure and get back to you on the other stuff - seems surprising that a resolution of a World Congress is not considered important enough to the debate to merit inclusion in the archive of documents? The Healeyites had a well-established practice of only publishing FI documents they agreed with, so I think some care is needed. Obviously neither of us live in Scotland and I presume that on the ground perspectives will be rather more informed by the actuality of the experience.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

This is further evidence of your dismissal of every group other than yourselves

Not really. I give credit to the LCR for their achievements, and there have been some. But I don't think their project these days is even subjectively the building of a revolutionary Marxist party, but instead the building of a centrist mishmash along the lines of the SSP. They are a bit more sophisticated in coming up with excuses for it though as compared to the ISM. I've always been more impressed with the LO than the LCR by the way.

The Healeyites had a well-established practice of only publishing FI documents they agreed with, so I think some care is needed

Well yes. In both of the major debates we've been involved in over the last period the other side (the ISM and Socialist Appeal) have produced sites or archives purporting to deal with the debate yet only including the documents they agree with. We have made a point of allowing our opponents to speak for themselves because we are confident that our arguments stand up.

That includes including the parts where we got things wrong. In the Scottish debate that most obviously includes underestimating the potential for the SSP in the immediate period. That attitude is I suspect a result from the rows about the publication of the "Unbroken Thread", a collection of Ted Grants writings which contains some quite brilliant material but is marred by the excision of material from previous decades which didn't suit Ted's politics in the 1980s, notably his original opposition to entryism.

 

[Nigel]

I agree that although they are small, Workers Power are one of the more serious of the leftist groups. I think Alan Thornett was entirely right to seek to debate with them, even if they disagreed, a comradely debate can only help. I don't agree with Socialist Party's dismissal of every group other than themselves as irrelevant.

They may have weird and zany politics, overtly PC, but from what I have seen of them, they are mostly very good political activists.

Incidentely has any other strange Trot groups shown interest to establish a 'New Workers Party': Unite(previously Workers' International To Re-Build The Fourth International), claims to have done much work around people involved in the Liverpool Dockers' dispute. have close-ish links to WP.

 

[socialistsuzy]

They have also contacted your lot in England but it seems your leadership isn't playing ball:



Quote:
The decision by the SP to launch a campaign and invite others to join it is therefore a step forward. WP immediately responded positively, with proposals for joint work and we still await a response from the SP leadership.

as i said, i believe the SP EC have actually replied although i don't know the details yet of the contents of that reply.

 

[belboid]

have close-ish links to WP.

you mean Martin goes for a drink with Mark sometimes?

 

[Macullam]

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[/QUOTE]

http://publications.cwiscotland.org/CWISSPstrategy.htm for full article
November 2005

The CWI platform welcomes the discussion that has begun in the SSP on a strategy for the party following the setbacks of the last year. We have already produced a detailed political analysis of the 2005 general election and the tasks facing the SSP in May. (This can be found on www.cwiscotland.org).
Our aim in writing this contribution is to assist the debate on the best way forward for the party. As with all the CWI’s contributions to the debates and discussions in the SSP our starting point is what strategy, policy and programme can help deepen the influence of socialism and the SSP among the working class in Scotland.
We helped set-up the SSP in 1998 and have been active members ever since. Six of our members were candidates for the SSP in the May general election. At the recent Cathcart by-election both the candidate and election agent were CWI platform members. Ronnie Stevenson, the SSP candidate, is also a UNISON convenor representing 4,000 members in Glasgow City Council.

The CWI have important political differences with a number of the leaders of the SSP. We have explained these on many occasions and will underline some of them in this statement. But we do not and never have, seen our job as attempting to “nit-pick” for the sake of it. Instead our approach has always been to argue for ideas and practical ways for the party to build its support and move forward.

Following the events of the last year we believe that is only possible by recognising past mistakes and above all by correctly analysing the political terrain on which the SSP is attempting to build a mass force for socialism in Scotland.

In that light the strategy paper produced by Alan McCombes and the other contributions from platforms, branches and individuals within the SSP are all to be welcomed. As well as setting out the views of the CWI this statement will also try to respond to some of the ideas and proposals in Alan McCombes paper. This is not an exercise in “sectarian in-fighting” but it is rather to honestly access and compare the approach of other trends in the SSP to our own. In this way we hope to clarify both the differences that exist and above all to propose a way forward for the SSP in the months ahead.

 

[Macullam]

Grant/Woods socialist Appeal

http://www.marxist.com/crisis-working-class-representation160106.htm

Article with the usual mantra

 

[nightbreed]

The RMT resolution in full
"The AGM reaffirms its decision of 2004, which rightly characterised the Labour Party, under its current leadership, as the party of privatisation and neoliberalism, support for the imperialist wars of the extreme right Bush administration, attacks on civil liberties and trade union rights and freedoms.

It is more important than ever that our union takes up the task of developing political representation of the working class. The last year has seen no relenting of these policies, indeed the run up to the general election was characterised by a wholesale attack on workers' pensions, housing and health. The AGM instructs the Council of Executives to:

Build a National Conference of trade unions and organisations of working class communities and political organisations to discuss the crisis of political representation of the working class.
Continue the work already begun by the union, in the European Social Forum, to develop a high profile for the debate internationally on the question of trade unions and political representation."
Proposed by the Bristol branch



Please note in the first para ,re the LP, the words 'under its current leadership'.
Is there a assumption here by the authors of the resolution that the LP leadership could be changed?
Should this be challenged at the debate?

 

[nightbreed]

http://www.marxist.com/crisis-working-class-representation160106.htm

Article with the usual mantra

As opposed to the usual mantra we have heard time and time before that will be expressed at the RMT event?
Dont get me wrong I am cynical towards the arguments of reclaiming the LP but the rest of the fucking left outside the LP dont give me much hope either.

 

[Chuck Wilson]

Chuck I asked you on another web board, but you didn't reply. Why have you got such an interest in Workers Power. At first I thought it might just be that you enjoy taking the piss, but there are loads of groups on the left that you could take the piss out of..

Yes I am sure that there are but none so ripe for charicaturing than Workers Power unfortunately

But dozens if not hundreds of posts and even whole mock stories about Workers Power later it seems a bit strange to me. ..

Don't start exagerating my posts as if they were a campaign that you were backing , dozens is quite an acceptable measurement.

I did come across Workers Power both in london and in manchester and actually did some joint wirk with some of their members on some issues. they have all left with the exception of a member who I think is still going out with an ex member of the Direct Action movement who is a manager at a chemical company. I bump into her at Sainsburys quite frequently although she has given up those one a day yoghurt drinks now.

Not an obsession , just a passing interest in the search for truth and justice for the working class. More of a scrutiny role.

 

[Fisher_Gate]

http://www.marxist.com/crisis-working-class-representation160106.htm

Article with the usual mantra

Continues to repeat the forty year old distortion of Lenin that has been wheeled out time and time again to justify the original deep entryism of Militant. Some things never change.

Grantites:

"The trade unions set up the Labour Party. It was originally the political expression of the trade unions in Parliament. "
http://www.marxist.com/crisis-working-class-representation160106.htm

Lenin:

"First of all, I should like to mention a slight inaccuracy on the part of Comrade McLaine, which cannot be agreed to. He called the Labour Party the political organisation of the trade union movement, and later repeated the statement when he said that the Labour Party is “the political expression of the workers organised in trade unions”. I have met the same view several times in the paper of the British Socialist Party. It is erroneous, and is partly the cause of the opposition, fully justified in some measure, coming from the British revolutionary workers. Indeed, the concepts “political department of the trade unions “ or “political expression” of the trade union movement, are erroneous. Of course, most of the Labour Party’s members are workingmen. However, whether or not a party is really a political party of the workers does not depend solely upon a membership of workers but also upon the men that lead it, and the content of its actions and its political tactics. Only this latter determines whether we really have before us a political party of the proletariat. Regarded from this, the only correct, point of view, the Labour Party is a thoroughly bourgeois party, because, although made up of workers, it is led by reactionaries, and the worst kind of reactionaries at that, who act quite in the spirit of the bourgeoisie. It is an organisation of the bourgeoisie, which exists to systematically dupe the workers with the aid of the British Noskes and Scheidemanns."
Speech On Affiliation To The British Labour Party, August 6.
The Second Congress Of The Communist International July 19-August 7, 1920
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/jul/x03.htm#fw6

 

[Nigel Irritable]

Dont get me wrong I am cynical towards the arguments of reclaiming the LP

Well that's something we can agree on.

The Socialist Appeal article is genuinely depressing in its almost religious insistence on the inevitable reclaiming of the Labour Party. More article of faith than political analysis, really. It's sad to see some talented and intelligent socialists rot away spewing such rubbish.

but the rest of the fucking left outside the LP dont give me much hope either.

Me neither, but that's why it's important to see this process in terms not of the left "getting its act together" or organising some kind of left alliance, but in terms of working class political reprentation - the working class creating its own organisations.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

Continues to repeat the forty year old distortion of Lenin that has been wheeled out time and time again to justify the original deep entryism of Militant. Some things never change.

Militant's entryism was neither "deep" in the way that term is normally understood, nor primarily justified by appeals to socialist authority. I can't speak for Socialist Appeal though - unfortunately they seem determined to amplify every mistake Militant ever made while avoiding it's strengths.

 

[Fisher_Gate]

...I've always been more impressed with the LO than the LCR by the way.
....

That explains a lot! A friend of mine was expelled from LO for wearing trainers on a paper sale - not a serious attitude towards the proletariat apparently.

 

[cockneyrebel]

Yes I am sure that there are but none so ripe for charicaturing than Workers Power unfortunately

Not so sure about that. There are plenty of small left groups about from the CPGB, SP, AF, Class War, AWL, the WOMBLES and indeed the SWP etc etc who are also "ripe" for charicaturing.

Don't start exagerating my posts as if they were a campaign that you were backing , dozens is quite an acceptable measurement.

As it goes there are about a dozen posts about Workers Power in your last 50 posts. The amount of posts you've put up about WP does run into the 100s. And as said, on top of that you've written whole mock stories about WP, including even writing them on holiday. Now fair enough, whatever you get your kicks out of, but it just seems a bit OTT even for someone who gets a laugh out of taking the piss out of Workers Power.

they have all left with the exception of a member who I think is still going out with an ex member of the Direct Action movement who is a manager at a chemical company.

I think I might know who you mean, and she's left as well.

Anyway I'll leave you to it, was just curious as to why you were so full on about it.....

 

[Nigel Irritable]

That explains a lot! A friend of mine was expelled from LO for wearing trainers on a paper sale - not a serious attitude towards the proletariat apparently.

I never said I was impressed by LO's internal regime, which if even a quarter of the legends are true seems genuinely bizarre. What I am impressed by is their extremely serious orientation to the workplace and to the working class generally, not to mention their antipathy to boasting and exaggerating influence. I don't think I'd like to be a member but I do think they have a lot more to teach the British left than the LCR do.

 

[cockneyrebel]

That explains a lot! A friend of mine was expelled from LO for wearing trainers on a paper sale - not a serious attitude towards the proletariat apparently.

That is a classic. But as it goes I do think the UK left could smarten up a bit.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

This reminds me by the way of a conversation I had with a former LO member who is in the Socialist Party in Dublin. He'd just heard some SWPer compare the relative positions of the Socialist Party and SWP in Ireland to those of the LO and LCR in France respectively. And he was completely baffled by the comparison, not seeing very much politically in common between either of the pairings.

His final thought on the subject was along the lines of "maybe he meant that the SWP is made up of students and social workers like the LCR..." which just goes to show that those kind of jibes exist on the left everywhere!