Socialism 2005

[Nigel]

New Workers' Party

One of the main topics that was brought up and pushed at the rally was the building of a New Workers Party. Bob Crow was apparentely organising a meeting sympathetic (as far as I could make out) in January next year. Could this be third time lucky: with the faliar of the SLP, Socialist Alliance/Respect. Or is this just wishful thinking?

 

[john malcolm]

Could this be third time lucky: with the faliar of the SLP, Socialist Alliance/Respect. Or is this just wishful thinking?[/QUOTE]

We are in the early stages of such a campaign, if a new party is ever going to get off the ground it will need to have an open and inclusive democratic and federal structure unlike the organisations mentioned above although the socialist alliance pre SWP operated in this way to some extent. There are articles on the need for a new party and what form it should take on the Socialist Party web site. http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/TheSocialistContents.htm The SP itself hopes to host a conference next spring to give the campaign some impetus and we will support and participate in the RMT conference which falls short of calling for a new party so far.

 

[Leo Wilde]

On a strange note, the usual interventions from the sects were almost entirely absent this year except for the IBT.

At the Marxist.com day school on Latin America the Socialist Party were there trying to put forward a very sectarian line about the Movement for the Fifth Republic in Venezuela and and support for Castro in Cuba .

 

[Nigel]

Competing With Respect

Could this be third time lucky: with the faliar of the SLP, Socialist Alliance/Respect. Or is this just wishful thinking?

We are in the early stages of such a campaign, if a new party is ever going to get off the ground it will need to have an open and inclusive democratic and federal structure unlike the organisations mentioned above although the socialist alliance pre SWP operated in this way to some extent. There are articles on the need for a new party and what form it should take on the Socialist Party web site. http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/TheSocialistContents.htm The SP itself hopes to host a conference next spring to give the campaign some impetus and we will support and participate in the RMT conference which falls short of calling for a new party so far.[/QUOTE]

At the moment , won't this be competing with RESPECT? Especially with the policy of Union Affiliation?

Could'nt this be a case of shooting your load too soon. Look at a similar situation with the IWCA. Unable to create the environment for spontaneous activity in workng class communities, because the consciousness or the willing is'nt their.

Would'nt it be better to wait for Respect to demise before launching this dynamic. After al, they have only recentely had a very significant electorial success with Galloway in East London.

 

[john malcolm]

Would'nt it be better to wait for Respect to demise before launching this dynamic. After al, they have only recentely had a very significant electorial success with Galloway in East London.[/QUOTE]

There is no reason why respect couldnt come on board as a political platform although some would have to dragged kicking and screaming. The problem with respect is that its base is too narrow and so far has failed to get much union support despite claims of affilliation. The Socialist Party are under no illusion about the forces needed to build a new party and it would take ther initiative of someone like Crow or Serwotka and others to give it some credibility along with other groups, community campaigns and individuals. If a new workers party did take off with significant union support then respect would have a choice to make either come on board or begin to melt away. i do not think we have the luxury of waiting around for respects demise which in the absence of an alternative could be a long way off and its failure could also demoralise a whole layer of young activists. I understand that respect are hoping to take control of tower hamlets council at next years elections again this would also lead to a protracted failure given the lack of programme and its failure to explain the need for a socialist solution to workers and in the communities.

 

[Chuck Wilson]

We are in the early stages of such a campaign, if a new party is ever going to get off the ground it will need to have an open and inclusive democratic and federal structure unlike the organisations mentioned above although the socialist alliance pre SWP operated in this way to some extent. There are articles on the need for a new party and what form it should take on the Socialist Party web site. http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/TheSocialistContents.htm The SP itself hopes to host a conference next spring to give the campaign some impetus and we will support and participate in the RMT conference which falls short of calling for a new party so far.

At the moment , won't this be competing with RESPECT? Especially with the policy of Union Affiliation?

Could'nt this be a case of shooting your load too soon. Look at a similar situation with the IWCA. Unable to create the environment for spontaneous activity in workng class communities, because the consciousness or the willing is'nt their.

Would'nt it be better to wait for Respect to demise before launching this dynamic. After al, they have only recentely had a very significant electorial success with Galloway in East London.

[/QUOTE]

I haven't managed to come across 'creating the enviroment for spontaneous activity in working class activity' on the IWCA website.Before I shoot my load can you point out where on the IWCA website it says this?

 

[rebel warrior]

On a personal note someone from the Socialist Party got me out of a fix, when I was in London trying to find the PCS HQ as a PCS Delegate at a meeting which I had to go to. The PCS HQ is at Clapham Junction, but I got it fixed in my head that PCS HQ is around Clapham High Street/Clapham Common, which was over a mile away. After lots of mildly panicky walking around, and drawing blank replies from passers by, when I realised I was lost, I spotted a Socialist Party bookshop in Clapham High Street. The guy there photocopied me a London map, gave me directions, and I eventually found the place no trouble. Can't fault that so respect where it is due if that kind of helpfulness is in anyway representative of an SP member!

I think this would be the Socialist Party of Great Britain rather than the Socialist Party though, in all likelihood [given the mention of Clapham High Street bookshops]...

 

[Timbo]

I think this would be the Socialist Party of Great Britain rather than the Socialist Party though, in all likelihood [given the mention of Clapham High Street bookshops]...

Doh! My mistake Rebel Warrior, looked up the SPGB website, and indeed they do have a bookshop in Clapham High Street, and on their website they do refer to a magazine called 'Socialist Standard', which I remember seeing in the bookshop. Oh well, considering the less than flattering things sometimes said about the SPGB on this bulletin board, at least some of them seem ok. SPGB, SP, CPB, CPGB, it's just too confusing! Too many left groups. I still kind of stand by my comments about the SP though.

 

[BarryB]

I understand that respect are hoping to take control of tower hamlets council at next years elections again this would also lead to a protracted failure given the lack of programme and its failure to explain the need for a socialist solution to workers and in the communities.

In the May 2006 election the Labour Party in Tower Hamlets are going to field at least one female candidate in each ward (17 wards I think- therefore 51 candidates in total). If Respect hope to take Tower Hamlets they will of also of course have to stand 3 candidates in each ward. Will they also be standing at least one female candidate in each ward?

BarryB

 

[Fisher_Gate]

In the May 2006 election the Labour Party in Tower Hamlets are going to field at least one female candidate in each ward (17 wards I think- therefore 51 candidates in total). If Respect hope to take Tower Hamlets they will of also of course have to stand 3 candidates in each ward. Will they also be standing at least one female candidate in each ward?

BarryB

Good question.

1 in each ward is obviously only one third of the candidates being women. I don't know how many extra there will be for 'at least 1'. Many years ago the Women's Conference of the Labour Party called for 50% of all candidates to be women - looks like thats another thing the Labour Party has watered down.

One third of Respect candidates in the Euro elections for London in 2004 were women (3 of 9), as were just over one third of candidates in the general election (9 of 26).

I would hope that they can exceed one third in May 2006, and for a new party I think that is a good start in moving towards equal representation of women.

Of course what matters more is the number of seats won and the proportion of women elected to the council.. Labour currently has 31 councillors - I don't know how many are women. I hope Respect has more women candidates in the most likely winnable seats (this is hard to tell without having contested a full council election, but the 2004 elections and general election canvass returns will no doubt provide a guide). However in multimember elections you have to watch for gender bias in the voting, with 50% (or so!) of voters being men. I hope Respect stands 2 or 3 female candidates in some wards, rather than stick to a rigid Labour Party 'one per ward' formula.

Pendantic point: mathematically of course you don't 'have' to stand 3 candidates in each ward to win control, only 26 candidates across the borough. Common sense however is that Respect and all the other main parties will stand for every seat.

 

[john malcolm]

[ I hope Respect stands 2 or 3 female candidates in some wards, rather than stick to a rigid Labour Party 'one per ward' formula.

I hope Respect stands a socialist in every ward but I always was a hopeless optimist.

Seriously Though what would their programme be ?

 

[Fisher_Gate]

Would'nt it be better to wait for Respect to demise before launching this dynamic. After al, they have only recentely had a very significant electorial success with Galloway in East London.

There is no reason why respect couldnt come on board as a political platform although some would have to dragged kicking and screaming. The problem with respect is that its base is too narrow and so far has failed to get much union support despite claims of affilliation. The Socialist Party are under no illusion about the forces needed to build a new party and it would take ther initiative of someone like Crow or Serwotka and others to give it some credibility along with other groups, community campaigns and individuals. If a new workers party did take off with significant union support then respect would have a choice to make either come on board or begin to melt away. i do not think we have the luxury of waiting around for respects demise which in the absence of an alternative could be a long way off and its failure could also demoralise a whole layer of young activists. I understand that respect are hoping to take control of tower hamlets council at next years elections again this would also lead to a protracted failure given the lack of programme and its failure to explain the need for a socialist solution to workers and in the communities.

I don't understand how Respect has failed. It got the highest vote of any left wing party for 50 years and the first 'left of Labour' MP elected for an independent party since 1945. How can it have "too narrow" a base? Which other left wing parties can claim a wider base of support?

Of the left wing parties, only the SSP and Respect have attracted any degree of support for candidacies (from the RMT and FBU) - certainly not the SP or other sects.

Elsewhere posters have claimed Respect is undemocratic. Yet even the ultra-sectarians of the CPGB/Weekly Worker have been allowed to have their resolutions debated at conference, even though they were self-admittedly late and despite the CPGB's disloyalty in refusing to call for a vote for Respect candidates in elections. What other party would tolerate such dissidence - certainly not anything led by the SP?

The unions are critical to building a new left force, which is why Respect is organising an important meeting next week to build such support:
http://www.respectcoalition.org/?did=974

 

[Fisher_Gate]

[ I hope Respect stands 2 or 3 female candidates in some wards, rather than stick to a rigid Labour Party 'one per ward' formula.

I hope Respect stands a socialist in every ward but I always was a hopeless optimist.

Seriously Though what would their programme be ?

Good question too - I hope we'll see a good manifesto. I don't think it will say they are going to pawn the council's assets to the gnomes of zurich or issue redundancy notices to every council worker though.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

I don't understand how Respect has failed.

Actually and perhaps surprisingly I partially agree with you here.

Respect looks very likely to fail in terms of developing into a mass or even semi-mass workers party, Certainly on the basis of its orientation to date, the crass nature of some of its appeals to Muslims (ie on a religious basis and through supposed "community leaders"), its inability to develop significant support in areas lacking a large Muslim community, its view of the working class as just one potential constituency amongst many, its lack of a real rank and file membership or any democratic structures, it won't develop into such an organisation or even make a positive contribution towards one.

But there are two points to be made here. The first is that Respect could still change course, improve its politics, develop a democratic structure or act as a pole of attraction. I think that's increasingly unlikely but I wouldn't rule it out completely. The second point of course is that Respect's leadership aren't aiming to develop a serious mass party of the working class, which makes it rather unfair to accuse them of failing to become something they haven't set out to be. In terms of building an amorphous leftish coalition, capable of winning some electoral support in particular circumstances, allowing the SWP to maintain the illusion that they are playing in the big leagues, and providing Galloway with a support structure and machine, Respect is a limited, qualified but real success.

What other party would tolerate such dissidence - certainly not anything led by the SP?

In fact, as you should be aware, the Socialist Alliance in its pre-takeover days was extremely democratic and open. It had its flaws, many of them, but a lack of tolerance wasn't one of them.

At the Marxist.com day school on Latin America the Socialist Party were there trying to put forward a very sectarian line about the Movement for the Fifth Republic in Venezuela and and support for Castro in Cuba

This I'm afraid doesn't make much sense to me, unless you regard the standard Marxist position of defending the real gains of the Cuban revolution but opposing the lack of democracy (ie its bureaucratic dictatorship) as "sectarian". The thing that really baffles me is that the Woods group (marxist.com/socialist appeal/IMT/whatever) have picked now of all times to develop illusions in Stalinism. I mean I can almost understand how some revolutionaries did that in the era of Stalinist expansion just after the Second World War but now, as Stalinism twitches in its death agonies? It's just bizarre. Given the experience of Eastern Europe, I would have thought that pointing out that an undemocratic Stalinist regime will ultimately be unable to resist the reestablishment of capitalism is hardly "sectarian" - its an analysis bordering on the obvious. Working class democracy and the expansion of the revolution are the only hope for Cuban survival.

As for Venezuela, the Socialist Party supports the revolution in that country and welcomes each step forward but doesn't take the kind of uncritically worshipful attitude towards Chavez which the marxist.com bunch seem to be specialising on. Is that "sectarian"? I'd say its just realistic.

 

[belboid]

As for Venezuela, the Socialist Party supports the revolution in that country and welcomes each step forward but doesn't take the kind of uncritically worshipful attitude towards Chavez which the marxist.com bunch seem to be specialising on. Is that "sectarian"? I'd say its just realistic.

indeed, Woods & co. are going absolutely barmy in there support for Chavez, any word of criticism seemingly met with a barrage of insults about how he, Chavez, is leading a one man revolution. They remind me of CLR James attitude towards Kwame Nkrumah in fact.

 

[Nigel]

Fair Enough


I haven't managed to come across 'creating the enviroment for spontaneous activity in working class activity' on the IWCA website.Before I shoot my load can you point out where on the IWCA website it says this?[/QUOTE]

What is the point of the IWCA then,
to show political leadership, or to empower working class communities to defend themselves and fight back.

Although I have'nt been looking that hard I have'nt come across any theoretical journals or progams that the IWCA has 'publically' put out. If you have such documents I would be very interested to look at them.

Your right though I have'nt based this on anything concrete. It is based on social conversations with members of Red Action when the IWCA was but a twinkle in their eye and vague recollections of bits and bobs that I read around that time.

If I have got the wrong end of the stick, please accept my apologies.

 

[Nigel]

IWCA & New Workers Party

Incidentely,
what is your position on 'A New Workers' Party' and would the IWCA be interested in playing a part in it?

 

[Nigel]

In the May 2006 election the Labour Party in Tower Hamlets are going to field at least one female candidate in each ward (17 wards I think- therefore 51 candidates in total). If Respect hope to take Tower Hamlets they will of also of course have to stand 3 candidates in each ward. Will they also be standing at least one female candidate in each ward?

BarryB

But no Gay men or Lesbians, in case they upset Religous Extremists.
(Before I get attacked for being Islamaphobic I would also put Galloway in this category)

 

[BarryB]

Good question.

1 in each ward is obviously only one third of the candidates being women. I don't know how many extra there will be for 'at least 1'. Many years ago the Women's Conference of the Labour Party called for 50% of all candidates to be women - looks like thats another thing the Labour Party has watered down.

One third of Respect candidates in the Euro elections for London in 2004 were women (3 of 9), as were just over one third of candidates in the general election (9 of 26).

I would hope that they can exceed one third in May 2006, and for a new party I think that is a good start in moving towards equal representation of women.

Of course what matters more is the number of seats won and the proportion of women elected to the council.. Labour currently has 31 councillors - I don't know how many are women. I hope Respect has more women candidates in the most likely winnable seats (this is hard to tell without having contested a full council election, but the 2004 elections and general election canvass returns will no doubt provide a guide). However in multimember elections you have to watch for gender bias in the voting, with 50% (or so!) of voters being men. I hope Respect stands 2 or 3 female candidates in some wards, rather than stick to a rigid Labour Party 'one per ward' formula.

Pendantic point: mathematically of course you don't 'have' to stand 3 candidates in each ward to win control, only 26 candidates across the borough. Common sense however is that Respect and all the other main parties will stand for every seat.

I think what will happen in practice is that in the mainly Muslim wards there will be no female Respect candidates whilst in the more mixed wards you will see female candidates. Not exactly an enlightened practice in my view.

BarryB

 

[flimsier]

I think what will happen in practice is that in the mainly Muslim wards there will be no female Respect candidates whilst in the more mixed wards you will see female candidates. Not exactly an enlightened practice in my view.

BarryB

So you think they will do one thing, and then have a go at them for it even though they haven't done that.

They haven't in previous elections either, so it'd be interesting to know why you think that. Or is it just another flimsy stick to beat them with. Ineffectively of course.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

indeed, Woods & co. are going absolutely barmy in there support for Chavez, any word of criticism seemingly met with a barrage of insults about how he, Chavez, is leading a one man revolution. They remind me of CLR James attitude towards Kwame Nkrumah in fact.

It's particularly bizarre given Militant's extremely critical attitude towards leaders like Allende and it's general opposition to "third worldism". It seems that the Woods group are determined to cling to and exaggerate the worst things about Militant (for instance its prolonged lack of interest in gay liberation) while dropping many of its best features.

I think what will happen in practice is that in the mainly Muslim wards there will be no female Respect candidates whilst in the more mixed wards you will see female candidates.

In all fairness I don't think that quite tallies with their practice in the general election, where Salma Yacoob and Lindsay German were the candidates in two of their strongest constituencies.

[edited to add: flimsier, curse your fast fingers!]

 

[BarryB]

So you think they will do one thing, and then have a go at them for it even though they haven't done that.

They haven't in previous elections either, so it'd be interesting to know why you think that. Or is it just another flimsy stick to beat them with. Ineffectively of course.

If what ive said is so ineffective its odd that you are getting so uptight. Ive said what I think will happen in practice. Maybe I will be proved wrong. We will just have to wait and see.

BarryB

 

[BarryB]

In all fairness I don't think that quite tallies with their practice in the general election, where Salma Yacoob and Lindsay German were the candidates in two of their strongest constituencies.

[edited to add: flimsier, curse your fast fingers!]

Im saying what I think will happen in Tower Hamlets. I accept that what might happen in other parts of the country might be different.

BarryB

 

[cockneyrebel]

Serious Q Nigel Irritable.

Do the SP claim 2000 member in England and Wales?

I ask because although the SWP claim 3,500 members I doubt their real membership (i.e. people who do more than just pay subs) is more than 1500-2000. So are the SP claiming they are the biggest far left group in England and Wales?

 

[Nigel Irritable]

Serious Q Nigel Irritable.

Do the SP claim 2000 member in England and Wales?

Serious A cockneyrebel.

The last public statement of membership figures was 1,500 a couple of years ago. If and when a further public statement is made I will let you know.

As for how many members the SWP have, that depends on what criteria you are using. By Spart standards they probably have a couple of hundred. By SSP standards 3,500 is entirely believable. By Labour Party standards...

 

[flimsier]

If what ive said is so ineffective its odd that you are getting so uptight. Ive said what I think will happen in practice. Maybe I will be proved wrong. We will just have to wait and see.

BarryB

It's dull and shite. 'I think RESPECT will do x, which they've no history of doing, so they are shit'.

It would be better if you waited until they'd done something wrong, but you chose to grasp at straws. Sadly, that lets RESPECT and the SWP off the hook for the things they do do wrong, because so many stupid straw man arguments are put up. It's why Pickman's Model and oisleep are so ineffective as a propagandist against RESPECT, but someone like Butcherspron or even Bolshiebhoy can be such effective critics.


For example, a similar argument would be:
"I think you will vote Tory at the next election.
Therefore you are a Tory shithead."
except afaik there is no reason for me to think that.



So, why do you think what you said in the post above?

 

[flimsier]

Serious A cockneyrebel.

The last public statement of membership figures was 1,500 a couple of years ago. If and when a further public statement is made I will let you know.

As for how many members the SWP have, that depends on what criteria you are using. By Spart standards they probably have a couple of hundred. By SSP standards 3,500 is entirely believable. By Labour Party standards...

If the SP have nearly half the number of members as the SWP, they are incredibly inactive.

 

[BarryB]

It's dull and shite. 'I think RESPECT will do x, which they've no history of doing, so they are shit'.

It would be better if you waited until they'd done something wrong, but you chose to grasp at straws. Sadly, that lets RESPECT and the SWP off the hook for the things they do do wrong, because so many stupid straw man arguments are put up. It's why Pickman's Model and oisleep are so ineffective as a propagandist against RESPECT, but someone like Butcherspron or even Bolshiebhoy can be such effective critics.

For example, a similar argument would be:
"I think you will vote Tory at the next election.
Therefore you are a Tory shithead."
except afaik there is no reason for me to think that.

So, why do you think what you said in the post above?

I seem to have hit a raw nerve here. Learn to live with it.

BarryB

 

[cockneyrebel]

The last public statement of membership figures was 1,500 a couple of years ago. If and when a further public statement is made I will let you know.

As for how many members the SWP have, that depends on what criteria you are using. By Spart standards they probably have a couple of hundred. By SSP standards 3,500 is entirely believable. By Labour Party standards...

You have said yourself that the SP has grown in the last couple of years. So if the SP was 1500 a couple of years ago, lets say it's around 2000 now.

Now I've always been told that the SP membership criteria is stricter than the SWP. I presume this means you have to be active in some way and not just pay a bit of money every month.

If so the SP wouldn't think that the SWP has 3,500 members either, and I should imagine you would say that it's more likely to around the 2000 mark.

If that's so then it would seem that the SP is the biggest far left group in England and Wales along with the SWP.

 

[cockneyrebel]

BarryB haven't you got better things to bang on about? You constantly complain about RESPECT. Don't you think you've got more things to worry about considering your organisation has precided over the invasion of Iraq and mass privatisation to name just a couple of examples.