Socialism 2005

[Fisher_Gate]

...


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.

...

The Network of Socialist Alliances was anarchistic and had no common line about anything important, including who to support in elections, if indeed anyone at all. The SP was late joining it - in Preston (Radical Alliance local group) I don't remember seeing them for the first five years of its existence, and they certainly weren't there when we discussed affiliation (which I supported for the record).

Fair enough the SWP was also treating it as an irrelevance, but the SWP coming in gave it serious prospects of making an impact. The walkout by the SP was petulant, and illustrated their difficulty with accepting being a small fish in a big pond - an experience I had seen before with the LPYS and NOLS. Where the Militant led branches, it became a boring non activity with only Militant speakers at meetings gradually amorphising so it was indistinguishable from Militant, where it was led by non-Militant forces, the Militant studiously avoided it or tried occasional 'smash and grab' raids for AGMs etc. I was in a non-Militant LPYS and they refused to build anything that wasn't their initiative, ignoring building a huge youth march against nuclear weapons for instance. The Militant always built their own 'front' campaign or organisation and refused to join forces with broader forces (YCAU, Campaign against Witchunt, Spain defence campaign, YRE,etc I forget the names but there was always a front).

The SWP have some of the same traits, but are beginning to shake off some the worst excesses of sectarianism (which I define as building your own group at the expense of the broader movement - not being nasty). If the SP were in Respect (and other groups eg Workers Power) it would help build it on a more positive basis.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

The Network of Socialist Alliances was anarchistic and had no common line about anything important, including who to support in elections, if indeed anyone at all. The SP was late joining it - in Preston (Radical Alliance local group) I don't remember seeing them for the first five years of its existence, and they certainly weren't there when we discussed affiliation (which I supported for the record).

The Socialist Party was in fact the key national force behind the Network of Socialist Alliances, which originally involved some local groups which arose entirely independently of us (eg Leeds, Walsall, Preston), some groups which we were involved in from the beginning but were not the main motivators behind and some groups which we took the initiative in forming. It was loose, federal, democratic and tolerant - all in my view important traits if socialists are to work together on an equal and fraternal bases. That is not of course to idealise the early Socialist Alliance, which had many important flaws. This point remember came up as a response to your snide and false remark about how much more "tolerant" RESPECT is compared to any grouping which the Socialist Party could play a prominent role in.

As for leaving the Socialist Alliance after the takeover being "petulant", if you think the word means "refuses to waste time as fodder for an SWP front which is going nowhere" then I will gladly plead guilty as charged. Its a lesson though that a few people never seem to learn.

 

[flimsier]

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

BarryB

So you won't answer the question?

 

[rednblack]

As for leaving the Socialist Alliance after the takeover being "petulant", if you think the word means "refuses to waste time as fodder for an SWP front which is going nowhere" then I will gladly plead guilty as charged. Its a lesson though that a few people never seem to learn.

the SP left far too soon - better you'd stayed and fought and turned the SA into a battleground, the SA's destruction in civil war would have been less disillousioning than it's eventual end

 

[flimsier]

Especially as the SP seem to be very close to the size of the SWP.

 

[rednblack]

Especially as the SP seem to be very close to the size of the SWP.

well that's bollocks, though i believe they are growing while the swp are still shrinking based on what i can see

although certainly in the southampton SA the sp were about the same size as the swp on paper, and had more active members from what i could see at the time of the split

 

[Chuck Wilson]

cockers has got this thing about numbers hasn't he ?

 

[Herbert Read]

Nihilist Assault Group

Public membership-1500 not including sleeper squads.

We do support the IWCA as the new workers party.

end communique

 

[belboid]

Where the Militant led branches, it became a boring non activity with only Militant speakers at meetings gradually amorphising so it was indistinguishable from Militant, where it was led by non-Militant forces, the Militant studiously avoided it or tried occasional 'smash and grab' raids for AGMs etc. I was in a non-Militant LPYS and they refused to build anything that wasn't their initiative, ignoring building a huge youth march against nuclear weapons for instance.

I was an LPYS member in the early eighties, and that wasn't my experience at all. Militant members were a minority in the branch but continued to play an active role in it throughout - including building for a whole host of events that they hadn't called, or 'controlled'.

 

[gurrier]

The Network of Socialist Alliances was anarchistic and had no common line about anything important, including who to support in elections, if indeed anyone at all.

Ahem. What's 'anarchistic' about an electoral alliance? What's anarchistic about having no common line?

Seems like you are using the word to refer to your own caricature of anarchism. Perhaps consider using a different and more accurate word to describe this. 'Network based' or 'badly organised' depending on what you want to imply would surely be much better?

 

[rednblack]

Ahem. What's 'anarchistic' about an electoral alliance? What's anarchistic about having no common line?

Seems like you are using the word to refer to your own caricature of anarchism. Perhaps consider using a different and more accurate word to describe this 'network based' or 'badly organised' depending on what you want to imply would surely be much better?

hmm actually the network of socialist alliances was anarchistic in many ways - it had a loose federal structure, and some of the affilliates at least at first were opposed to elections (leicester radical alliance springs to mind)

it wasnt anarchist but i think it's fair to describe the NNSA as being anarchistic, sharing some traits with anarchism

sorry comrade

 

[Nigel Irritable]

Ahem. What's 'anarchistic' about an electoral alliance? What's anarchistic about having no common line?

Your general point is fair enough, but interestingly the early Socialist Alliance did have some self-described anarchists in it. Certainly I can remember talking at some length to one from the East Midlands at the 2001 Socialist Alliance conference.

If I recall correctly members of SolFed were involved with the Preston Radical Alliance (one of the components of the Network of Socialist Alliances) at one point too, although presumably this was before the PRA started to stand candidates in elections. I could be wrong about this second part though.

 

[rednblack]

southampton socialist alliance had a solfed member as well...

 

[mk12]

As did Northampton SA...

 

[Nigel]

Anarchists & Elections

southampton socialist alliance had a solfed member as well...

Anarchists stood candidates in elections in Italy & during the Spanish Civil War.

Class War stood candidates as well and were attempting to set up a front: National Communities Alliance.

Anarchists standing in elections is'nt something new

 

[mk12]

Class War stood candidates as well and were attempting to set up a front: National Communities Alliance.

How many votes did they get?

 

[gurrier]

Anarchists stood candidates in elections in Italy & during the Spanish Civil War.

Class War stood candidates as well and were attempting to set up a front: National Communities Alliance.

Anarchists standing in elections is'nt something new

In my book (and that of most anarchists) standing candidates in an election and attempting to get votes for them (as against doing it as a stunt such as class war do) automatically places you outside of anarchism. It's probably the single most useful litmus test to identify anarchism.

On the other hand, I do take rednblack's point about the federal structure, but have to say that the anarchists who joined the SA must have been supremely confused altogether - formal political alliances with bolsheviks? - ruination.

 

[Nigel]

Nihilism?

Nihilist Assault Group

Public membership-1500 not including sleeper squads.

We do support the IWCA as the new workers party.

end communique

I get the impression that most people who call themselves Nihilists end up taking a right wing individualist position. Or are you a social nihilist with some sort of concept of collective respnsibility?

 

[Fisher_Gate]

Your general point is fair enough, but interestingly the early Socialist Alliance did have some self-described anarchists in it. Certainly I can remember talking at some length to one from the East Midlands at the 2001 Socialist Alliance conference.

If I recall correctly members of SolFed were involved with the Preston Radical Alliance (one of the components of the Network of Socialist Alliances) at one point too, although presumably this was before the PRA started to stand candidates in elections. I could be wrong about this second part though.

You are partly wrong. There is a lot of mythology spouted about this.

The Radical Preston Alliance refused to take a line on elections and never stood candidates.

It split at least 3 main ways - those supporting Labour always, those prepared to support left of Labour candidates (in practice the Cartwrights in Deepdale), and those who were opposed to voting as a matter of principle, including SolFed members. There were other nuances - eg some individuals would have supported the Greens if they stood, but not Labour where they didn't; some would have voted Labour or the Cartwrights in all circumstances; some only supported the Cartwrights but not Labour etc. There were almost as many positions as there were members! If the rest of the NSA was anything like this, it left a lot to be desired given the attacks of New Labour post-1997 and the need for an electoral response.

The Socialist Alliance locally was set up independently of the RPA, as although it was prepared to affiliate to the NSA, the RPA was not prepared to support election candidates. In the byelection in 2000, two RPA members were candidates - for the Greens and Lancashire SA respectively.

Labour Party, SolFed and Green Party members continued to attend the RPA, while the SA, mainly at the behest of the SWP and independently of the RPA, was working up to standing candidates. The Socialist Party stood one candidate, who was never a member of the RPA, in one election independently of either the SA or the remnants of the RPA.

The SA won one council election, who has since joined Respect and one sitting councillor has defected from Labour to Respect. The Cartwrights, who were members of the RPA, continue to contest their own ward (2 seats) and win handsomely as independents (no party description). Their group on the council is called 'Labour Independents'. The RPA no longer exists though some of its members organise the annual May Day commemoration. There is informal contact on the Council between the couple of left Labour councillors who were in the RPA, the Respect Councillors and the Cartwright group. A combined socialist group on the council would have maybe 6 or 7 members - over 10% of councillors.

 

[Nigel]

Are All Anarchists Anarchist?

In my book (and that of most anarchists) standing candidates in an election and attempting to get votes for them (as against doing it as a stunt such as class war do) automatically places you outside of anarchism. It's probably the single most useful litmus test to identify anarchism.

On the other hand, I do take rednblack's point about the federal structure, but have to say that the anarchists who joined the SA must have been supremely confused altogether - formal political alliances with bolsheviks? - ruination.

Are Solidarity Federation Anarchists then. As individual members were involved in both SA and the IWCA.
Other Anarchists and anarchist groups supported the SA at the beginning as well. I am pretty sure that individuals in Shnews were involved in Brighton.
What of Hackney Solidarity Groups' joining and withdrawing from the IWCA?

Taking your position on elections do you not think that the Anarchists in the Spanish Civil War would have been better off taking elections more
seriously? Especially as the conflict was to support a democratically elected government.

 

[Nigel]

Nihilism?

Nihilist Assault Group

Public membership-1500 not including sleeper squads.

We do support the IWCA as the new workers party.

end communique

I get the impression that most people who call themselves Nihilists end up taking a right wing individualist position. Or are you a social nihilist with some sort of concept of collective respnsibility?

 

[gurrier]

Are Solidarity Federation Anarchists then. As individual members were involved in both SA and the IWCA.
Other Anarchists and anarchist groups supported the SA at the beginning as well. I am pretty sure that individuals in Shnews were involved in Brighton.
What of Hackney Solidarity Groups' joining and withdrawing from the IWCA?

If solfed were to stand candidates in elections they wouldn't be anarchists. A defining characteristic of anarchism is the rejection of representative democracy. I'd imagine that those individuals who called themselves anarchists were either vainly hoping to push the alliance in a libertarian direction or had a very poor understanding of anarchist politics.

Taking your position on elections do you not think that the Anarchists in the Spanish Civil War would have been better off taking elections more seriously?

What? They got as close as anybody has ever got to libertarian communism, I don't think they could have elected anarchism, do you?

Especially as the conflict was to support a democratically elected government.

Only if you ignore everything the CNT and other anarchists said and everything they did too.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

Only if you ignore everything the CNT and other anarchists said and everything they did too.

Ignore everything the CNT did, like joining the government for instance?

 

[Nigel]

You don't think they were naive in taking such a flippant position in standing candidates in the Republican Government? Especially when the vast majority of volunteers were from the International Brigades?

 

[Nigel]

Withstanding A Fascist Onslaught!

Do you think that Spain could have withstood an onslought such as the Blitzkreig from other Fascist Countries if it was'nt a Nation State or would you consider the Virus of Anarchism would spread throughout Europe.

 

[Nigel]

Romanticising History

Heroic loses may look good in history books but they have dire consequences for people on the losing side. Especially the working class, poor and oppressed!

 

[gurrier]

Ignore everything the CNT did, like joining the government for instance?

Despite thinking that this was a terrible mistake (among other, even more serious mistakes) I don't think that anybody would claim that this or any other of their acts was motivated by a desire to defend the republican government.

You don't think they were naive in taking such a flippant position in standing candidates in the Republican Government? Especially when the vast majority of volunteers were from the International Brigades?

1. There was absolutely nothing flippant about their position on elections. It had been an anarchist principle for some 5 decades at that stage - not exactly top of the head stuff.

2. What on earth are you talking about with respect to the international brigades? Your statement is both enormously wrong and apparently unconnected to the preceding sentence.

Do you think that Spain could have withstood an onslought such as the Blitzkreig from other Fascist Countries if it was'nt a Nation State or would you consider the Virus of Anarchism would spread throughout Europe.

I fail to see the relevance of your point. How on earth does being a nation state help in either winning a war, or spreading a revolution? Guns, people, support, organisation, etc are surely more important. Had the Spanish anarchists succeeded, they would have faced similar problems to those faced by any revolution.

Heroic loses may look good in history books but they have dire consequences for people on the losing side. Especially the working class, poor and oppressed!

I don't think this is relevant either. I mean, they were hardly aiming to lose. And the people who have participated in heroic struggles for libertarian communism but lost due to counter-revolution are much more admirable than the people who claimed that they were participating in heroic struggles for communism but ended up becoming the counter-revolution which crushed the heroic struggle.

Finally, you should probably try to collate your questions such as these into a single post, it is a bit annoying to respond to and it gives one the impression that you type as thoughts pop into your mind

 

[oisleep]

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?

example flimiser of an occasiion when i have done such a thing please, one where i have criticised them for something that i think they would do?

 

[Nigel]

Not having any history texts books in front of me and being too lazy to look up stats on the internet I don't really know what the numbers of volunteers for the International Brigades were, but I got the impression that they made up the majority. Communism and Socialism had more sway than Anacho-Syndiclism, or am I wrong in this assesment as well.

Are you saying that the POUM and the CNT had a larger majority and support than less revolutionary elements within the movement. If this is the case how did they lose power to the Communists. Perhaps if they had taken the Democratic processes more seriously the outcome would not have been so catastrophic for them!

 

[butchersapron]

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!