TUC...Form a new party?

[Zachor]

Just wait until the Tories win the next election

Yes, we need a new worker's party

I think we need a new party that works for the whole country not just the bankers etc. Limiting it to the outdated concept of a homogenous 'working class' is a guaranteed vote loser.

I don't want the Tories I want the Real labour party back.

 

[trevhagl]

Why?

They represent exactly the same interests, so other than the sort of differences that there might be between two Mafia families fighting over the same turf, what structural reasons would there be for the other bunch of Tories being worse than these Tories?

I can see your point but i think the very fact that opposition will be so discredited cos of what THEY have done (see my last post) the Tories can do all that but even more brutally...

 

[danny la rouge]

I can see your point but i think the very fact that opposition will be so discredited cos of what THEY have done (see my last post) the Tories can do all that but even more brutally...

It's a reasonable point, but I think as an analysis of the last ten years it places too much weight on opposition: the Tories haven't actually opposed PFI, for example. Or (in any meaningful way) the War in Iraq. So if Labour don't oppose in return, there shouldn't be a noticeable difference.

 

[Zachor]

The welfare reforms (aka annihilation) that Purnell is pushing through were stole from the Tories. How on earth can you consider then more progressively social minded?

The policies on welfare reform were in part borrowed from the extremes of Toryism but the more blatant hateful elements were all the work of NL.

When I say that they have become progressively more socially progressive I mean in such areas as womens rights, anti discriminiation, equality of opportunity than they were in the past.

I remember the tories of the 80's and this lot do seem a whole lot different from the monsters they were back then.

 

[danny la rouge]

I remember the tories of the 80's and this lot do seem a whole lot different from the monsters they were back then.

True, and the reason is that the ruling classes are now more open about being gay, unmarried, and so on. So the parties representing those classes can hardly carry on tubthumping about those things.

 

[dennisr]

I think we need a new party that works for the whole country not just the bankers etc. Limiting it to the outdated concept of a homogenous 'working class' is a guaranteed vote loser.

I don't want the Tories I want the Real labour party back.

tell that to the the vast majority who do work for a living and face the concequences of neo-liberal policies rom labour, tories and liberals.

all the main parties say the same thing as you. yet people are so sick of them they vote for any loon or (more commonly) don't vote at all.

the original labour party was a party for working people - the reforms they fought for then would still get a huge echo today - decent health system, decent education system, decent reasonably-priced housing, rights in the workplace, decent wages - working class demands

 

[Zachor]

the original labour party was a party for working people - the reforms they fought for then would still get a huge echo today - decent health system, decent education system, decent reasonably-priced housing, rights in the workplace, decent wages - working class demands

On that point I agree with you. In other words we need to have back the old Labour party which was mainstream but had a strong bias towards helping others and had working peoples representation. I have no problem with that whatsoever. However, there is no point in putting any effort into the various sectlets calling themselves a 'new workers party' I've found that in the main groups who set themselves up as a new workers party are spouting the usual marxist bollocks which turns off the majority of potential voters.

Drop the dead Russians and the theorists and the Fabianistas and a new working peoples party might, just might have a chance.

 

[dennisr]

On that point I agree with you. In other words we need to have back the old Labour party which was mainstream but had a strong bias towards helping others and had working peoples representation. I have no problem with that whatsoever. However, there is no point in putting any effort into the various sectlets calling themselves a 'new workers party' I've found that in the main groups who set themselves up as a new workers party are spouting the usual marxist bollocks which turns off the majority of potential voters.

Drop the dead Russians and the theorists and the Fabianistas and a new working peoples party might, just might have a chance.

I'd agree there are too many self-appointed experts on the working class trying to impose their ready-made formulas. having said that some of those dead Russian's points (some of their UK compatriats were an integral part of the founding of the original labour party) will also get an echo - especially when folk look for answers as to how we stop the drift to the right of bureaucrats and the likes of new labour leaders? - how do we keep them accountable? - how do we win those basic reforms?

 

[dennisr]

I remember the tories of the 80's and this lot do seem a whole lot different from the monsters they were back then.

they do seem to have out-manouvered 'blairism' in saying one thing and doing another.

I don't imagine we will be able to put a cigarette paper between the actual policies of either of the two parties in power and I think the vast majority of the posters on thisa thread will agree on that.

Tories will just be more of the same with added post-thatcher spin

 

[danny la rouge]

Tories will just be more of the same with added post-thatcher spin

Yup.

 

[Zachor]

I'd agree there are too many self-appointed experts on the working class trying to impose their ready-made formulas.

Yup. Which is why the Left as a whole is so discredited amongst what used to be called the working class.

having said that some of those dead Russian's points (some of their UK compatriats were an integral part of the founding of the original labour party) will also get an echo - especially when folk look for answers as to how we stop the drift to the right of bureaucrats and the likes of new labour leaders? - how do we keep them accountable? - how do we win those basic reforms?

I agree with you about accountability but not when you say that Marx et al have anything relevant to say about today's situation.

Maybe looking back further into the UK past for communal and religious justifications for fairness would have far more clout than the writings of a discredited revolutionary who's words were used to justify some of the 20th centuries greatest atrocities.

 

[nino_savatte]

Yup. Which is why the Left as a whole is so discredited amongst what used to be called the working class.


I agree with you about accountability but not when you say that Marx et al have anything relevant to say about today's situation.

Maybe looking back further into the UK past for communal and religious justifications for fairness would have far more clout than the writings of a discredited revolutionary who's words were used to justify some of the 20th centuries greatest atrocities.

So, why isn't Marx "relevant" today? Furthermore, why do you describe him as a "discredited revolutionary who's words were used to justify some of the 20th centuries greatest atrocities"? Hasn't capitalism caused far more deaths and been responsible for more atrocities?

 

[dennisr]

Following on from that. it is quite impressive to watch how the Tories are being 'positioned' to take over as 'second-11' by the media.

Apparently you can support big business in wiping out any chance of a future (at all...) and still be green because you do the occasional photo opportunity on a bike and have an ineffective windmill on top of your fancy houses roof.

You an present yourself as the new party of 'social concience' and 'civil liberties' while looking to extent the minute by minute survellance of every individual introduced by new labour. They have even had the gall to appeal to trade unionists to join the conservative party.

You can sell yourself as an 'international player' by popping up in Georgia and 'terrifying' those bad, bad Russkies with the threat of not being allowed to buy brit products in brit shops. That'll make them think twice - international key player that britain is!!

its all funny as fuck to watch. I don't think ordinary people are that fooled though - when we end up with the same old, same old in terms of domestic policies. When gas and electric companies still decide what we are going to pay regardless ("hey, thats the market") - let alone food prices; the property lie continues to play itself out for the lie it always was as older folk who bought the myth continue to sell off their houses in lieu of decent pensions and all those other 'democratic choices' facing working people

 

[Zachor]

So, why isn't Marx "relevant" today? Furthermore, why do you describe him as a "discredited revolutionary who's words were used to justify some of the 20th centuries greatest atrocities"? Hasn't capitalism caused far more deaths and been responsible for more atrocities?

I admit there are problems with unfettered capitalism but when you take into account the 20 million killed by Stalin, the huge losses caused by collectivisation of farming, the deaths caused by the Cold War, the oppression of people in Eastern Europe and elsewhere, the deaths caused by Marx inspired groups indulging in armed conflict in various parts of the globe then I'd say that Marx inspired deaths are probably higher than those casued by capitalism during the 20th Cent.

I don't think that you can eradicate the desire to trade and better yourself which is why I think that Capitalism in some form will always be with us. What is needed is ways of managing capitalism so that inequalities can be reduced.

 

[danny la rouge]

the 20 million killed by Stalin

Of all the things you can accuse Stalin of, being a Marx scholar isn't one.

 

[Zachor]

Of all the things you can accuse Stalin of, being a Marx scholar isn't one.

Maybe he wasn't a Marx scholar but you cannot deny that the disasterous experiment that was the Soviet Union was ultimately propped up by the teachings of Marx.

 

[danny la rouge]

Maybe he wasn't a Marx scholar but you cannot deny that the disasterous experiment that was the Soviet Union was ultimately propped up by the teachings of Marx.

Why not?

 

[Zachor]

Why not?

The ultimate seed and primary cause for the warped plant that grew in Russia in the early 20th cent was Marxist philosophy.

 

[dennisr]

I agree with you about accountability but not when you say that Marx et al have anything relevant to say about today's situation.

Maybe looking back further into the UK past for communal and religious justifications for fairness would have far more clout than the writings of a discredited revolutionary who's words were used to justify some of the 20th centuries greatest atrocities.

Marxism isn't 1920's constructivist poster art, russian experiments and treating a few old bearded gents as replacements for gods, as much as some 'marxists' may delude themselves.

Drop the 19th century language, yep fine - i have no problem with that. But its got practical lessons on bread and butter issues that most of us face - and how to achieve them.

In Liverpool in 84-85 when some marxists put forward a programme that led to building more decent houses (in a city blighted by some of the worst slums in the UK) than the restof the country put together at that time - along with community schools, sports centres and creating jobs - they got a huge echo (reelected even -despite a national media campaign against them). Regardless of the myths and lies spread - regaardless of wether or not you like or dislike them in retrospect - people voted for them. The results are concrete - homes, schools etc. It is bread and butter issues - houses, jobs, job security that cut across any labels attached to individuals. More so in a country where the consequences of privatising anything not nailed down is just coming home to roost on a vast scale (as i said above - food and fuel rises, house prices - conrate things for ordinary people)

 

[nino_savatte]

I admit there are problems with unfettered capitalism but when you take into account the 20 million killed by Stalin, the huge losses caused by collectivisation of farming, the deaths caused by the Cold War, the oppression of people in Eastern Europe and elsewhere, the deaths caused by Marx inspired groups indulging in armed conflict in various parts of the globe then I'd say that Marx inspired deaths are probably higher than those casued by capitalism during the 20th Cent.

I don't think that you can eradicate the desire to trade and better yourself which is why I think that Capitalism in some form will always be with us. What is needed is ways of managing capitalism so that inequalities can be reduced.

The Stalinist regime is not the sum total of Marxism. In fact, no one sensible would argue that Stalin was some sort of Marxist - he wasn't.

I don't buy your argument that "Marx inspired deaths are probably higher than those caused by capitalism during the 20th Cent", as you have obviously overlooked the military adventures of the US since the Spanish -American War of 1898.

 

[dennisr]

I admit there are problems with unfettered capitalism but when you take into account the 20 million killed by Stalin, the huge losses caused by collectivisation of farming, the deaths caused by the Cold War, the oppression of people in Eastern Europe and elsewhere, the deaths caused by Marx inspired groups indulging in armed conflict in various parts of the globe then I'd say that Marx inspired deaths are probably higher than those casued by capitalism during the 20th Cent.

I don't think that you can eradicate the desire to trade and better yourself which is why I think that Capitalism in some form will always be with us. What is needed is ways of managing capitalism so that inequalities can be reduced.

We cannot list the countless millions killed by capitalist 'development' - someone pays a price for this. A lunatic like Stalin and his henchmen have been more than bettered again and again by their counterpart lunatics on this side of the iron curtain. Even the russian revolution and stalin could be blamed on the greed of those running the system prior to that in a way - they paved the way for the russian revolution (weather we agree that the revolution led inevitably to Stalinism or not...)

'Managing' capitalism is presisely the problem the governments in britain and the US now face ('nationalising' fannie may for example - ie working american's pay for stock market gamblers through their taxes). When it all got completely out of control last time they sponsored the Nazis and had a couple of World Wars. Presently we are seeing the 'management' of conflict across the world in the basic division of control over resources (say oil, say iraq - just one example). Iraq was not about the democratic rights of iraqis you know

 

[trevhagl]

Marxism isn't 1920's constructivist poster art, russian experiments and treating a few old bearded gents as replacements for gods, as much as some 'marxists' may delude themselves.

Drop the 19th century language, yep fine - i have no problem with that. But its got practical lessons on bread and butter issues that most of us face - and how to achieve them.

In Liverpool in 84-85 when some marxists put forward a programme that led to building more decent houses (in a city blighted by some of the worst slums in the UK) than the restof the country put together at that time - along with community schools, sports centres and creating jobs - they got a huge echo (reelected even -despite a national media campaign against them). Regardless of the myths and lies spread - regaardless of wether or not you like or dislike them in retrospect - people voted for them. The results are concrete - homes, schools etc. It is bread and butter issues - houses, jobs, job security that cut across any labels attached to individuals. More so in a country where the consequences of privatising anything not nailed down is just coming home to roost on a vast scale (as i said above - food and fuel rises, house prices - conrate things for ordinary people)

All very true. If a new party was set up with PRACTICAL people running it, not people who read a lot of books on theory and history and silly PC ideas (reverse racism etc) then it could have huge success.
Obviously the likes of The Sun will lie, exaggerate, distort and the powers that be will even have people sent to infiltrate and discredit it....but worth a try

 

[Demosthenes]

The unions already started a party of working class representation: Labour. A hundred years on, and after very quickly first became co-opted by the establishment, it has finally become another Tory party. For that reason alaone it should be abundantly clear that there’s no parliamentary road to socialism (without even going into MacDonald’s “National Government”).

Well if there's no parliamentary route to socialism then there's no route to socialism at all. You shouldn't be so defeatist about the politics you advocate. It'll put people off.

Primarily it's the defeatism of the left of which comments like the above are exemplary that have stopped there already being a credible challenge to New Labour from a different direction. The way the left trash every attempt to do something effective, I get tempted to think half of them want a tory labour government.

What's wrong with what Danny said, ? It's exactly the same type of argument as you get from raving right-wingers, -- every time socialism has been tried in the past, it's failed, it's ended up totalitarian.--

Only Danny's changed it to, -previous attempts to represent working class interests have been co-opted, so any attempt to do so will suffer the same fate.-

 

[Zachor]

The Stalinist regime is not the sum total of Marxism. In fact, no one sensible would argue that Stalin was some sort of Marxist - he wasn't.

But the revolution was Marxist inspired. If the revolution hadn't happened and there had been organic and social democratic change then Stalin would have probably ended up dangling from a gallows for robbery rather than wreaking havoc and despair on his country.

I don't buy your argument that "Marx inspired deaths are probably higher than those caused by capitalism during the 20th Cent", as you have obviously overlooked the military adventures of the US since the Spanish -American War of 1898.

I also overlooked the rise of the Nazi's as i don't consider them 'capitalists'.

Although I do not support unecessary US military adventures quite a few of the were actions during the cold war and were anti communist in nature. You forget that for much of the time a policy of isolationism was at the centre of US foreign policy.

Maybe if the Marxists hadn't been so intent on world domination there wouldn't have been the desire on the more freaky elements of the US administrations to do the actions that they did. I'm of the opinion that a lot of the Left/Right conflicts in the 20th Cent were sitiuations where neither side has clean hands nor clean motivations.

 

[nino_savatte]

But the revolution was Marxist inspired. If the revolution hadn't happened and there had been organic and social democratic change then Stalin would have probably ended up dangling from a gallows for robbery rather than wreaking havoc and despair on his country.


I also overlooked the rise of the Nazi's as i don't consider them 'capitalists'.

Although I do not support unecessary US military adventures quite a few of the were actions during the cold war and were anti communist in nature. You forget that for much of the time a policy of isolationism was at the centre of US foreign policy.

Maybe if the Marxists hadn't been so intent on world domination there wouldn't have been the desire on the more freaky elements of the US administrations to do the actions that they did. I'm of the opinion that a lot of the Left/Right conflicts in the 20th Cent were sitiuations where neither side has clean hands nor clean motivations.

You argument that the Revolution was "Marxist inspired" is a straw man. Of course it was, but what this has to do with the counter-argument that innumerable deaths that have been caused by capitalism is anyone's guess.

I disagree with your reasoning that the Nazis weren't capitalist. On the contrary, they were. It may be a different inflection on the capitalist model but capitalists they were.

Your last paragraph sounds as though it was written by the Freedom Association (that's the second time that I have referred to them today).

 

[dennisr]

Primarily it's the defeatism of the left of which comments like the above are exemplary that have stopped there already being a credible challenge to New Labour from a different direction. The way the left trash every attempt to do something effective, I get tempted to think half of them want a tory labour government.

My dinners cold - its the left what did it.

Actually Danny makes a pertinant point about some of the limitations of parliamentry politics and the inevitable co-option.

having said that you make a point about the pointlessness of simply standing on the outside pointing in and simply saying 'its all hopeless, its doomed i tell you'

In practice though I would argue that the bigger problem the left faces in the UK is not so much Danny's very much minority view (within the left) but in the illusion in 'getting elected' overriding the principles on which one gets elected or acts when elected - just look at new labour.

We need honesty first - a new workers party not a party of careerists and opportunists - people who say what they will do (unlike all the major boss parties), fight for and get elected on that - and are not afraid to go beyond electoral politics once the anti-real-democratic machine kicks in as the threat (of being democratically elected) becomes real to those in power. Boss democracy has its limitations - ask the Chileans

 

[trevhagl]

The Stalinist regime is not the sum total of Marxism. In fact, no one sensible would argue that Stalin was some sort of Marxist - he wasn't.

I don't buy your argument that "Marx inspired deaths are probably higher than those caused by capitalism during the 20th Cent", as you have obviously overlooked the military adventures of the US since the Spanish -American War of 1898.

It is a typical right wing argument....if you are left wing you are a supporter of Stalin , mass murder etc. I don't like New Labour but i wouldn't accuse em of supporting Hitler despite how right wing they are

 

[dennisr]

I also overlooked the rise of the Nazi's as i don't consider them 'capitalists'.

Fascism is an interesting phenominum (aside from the appaling consequences). In both italy and Germany, despite using the rhetoric of 'national socialism' - nazis for example - their main role in power was to smash left opposition and as corporatists, ensure the big industrialists remained in power. The US company Ford's still received its profits throughout WW2 from its german subsidary (using slave labour in the case of the Koln factory) - while US troops were dying for 'democracy'. The work/death camps were factories without any democracy. Fascism is a bit of a desperate move by capitalists (the sponsors of both the nazis and the italian brands - Mister Krupps family don't mention that very often) - and not one they would try again too soon (preferring military dictatorships in the example of the US)

Although I do not support unecessary US military adventures quite a few of the were actions during the cold war and were anti communist in nature. You forget that for much of the time a policy of isolationism was at the centre of US foreign policy.

Indeed, re the arly isolationism of the early US - they did very well ouut of the second world war - but 'anti-communist adventure' ties in nicely with expansion of markets, control of markets and control of resources. Hallibutan has a lot to thank those dead and crippled american soldiers in iraq for. They are making a pretty packet out of it nowadays (unlike the soldiers)

Maybe if the Marxists hadn't been so intent on world domination there wouldn't have been the desire on the more freaky elements of the US administrations to do the actions that they did. I'm of the opinion that a lot of the Left/Right conflicts in the 20th Cent were sitiuations where neither side has clean hands nor clean motivations.

The same arguement could be crudely turned on its head - "if the capitalists...." etc etc. In practice Stalinism wanted to come to a status quo with the US (after carving up the 'new' post-warworld at Potsdam). "Socialism in one country" became "socialism in no other country" - the Stalinist bureaucracy was happy to sabotage movements of working people elsewhere - many of the deaths on Stalin's hands are those of thew lefts (firstly the original bolshevicks in the gulags of Siberia, then the Spanish revolutionaries etc etc). The US went along with this, despite the anti-communist rhetoric. ordinary working people went on dying - either through work, poverty and it consequences or when standing up to oppose such things (and getting stabbed in the back by stalinists). The Cuban revolution was not supported by the Russians until after the event. Castro was a fan of 'American Democracy' - not a 'communist' - until the US government tried to crush his democratic revolution.

 

[Demosthenes]

My dinners cold - its the left what did it.

Actually Danny makes a pertinant point about some of the limitations of parliamentry politics and the inevitable co-option.

Why is co-option inevitable?

I just don't see it myself, - unless the argument is that to get elected a party would already have had to have swallowed so many of its principles- that it'd be the type of party to ready to let itself be co-opted in any case.

All the same I don't see anything inevitable about it, - and in principle it's possible for a radical party to get elected without losing its principles. Only in principle though apparently. Maybe in about 20 years, - if you started organising now, if we're still here in 20 years.

 

[dennisr]

Why is co-option inevitable?

I just don't see it myself, - unless the argument is that to get elected a party would already have had to have swallowed so many of its principles- that it'd be the type of party to ready to let itself be co-opted in any case.

All the same I don't see anything inevitable about it, - and in principle it's possible for a radical party to get elected without losing its principles. Only in principle though apparently. Maybe in about 20 years, - if you started organising now, if we're still here in 20 years.

Its not - you are right there (I should have said qualified and said "inevitable attempts at co-option") - but if a left wing government was elected it would face enormous preasure and if it had illusions in what is a very limited 'democratic' system in practice it would be ill-equiped to take on the consequences. We need to learn the lessons of our own history - what happened with the labour party?

The state is not neutral - it represents powerful interests and included powerful forces with very limited democratic controls over them.

In Chile, a country then called the 'Britain of Latin America' (an democratic exception to the other countries on LA at the time) a semi-'marxist' government was elected (on bread and butter issues - housing, wages, etc etc). Because it did not go beyond parliamentry power, curtail the power of the military side of the state, put power in the hands of the people who elected it - after two years - despite huge popular support - it was crushed in an American sponsored military coup.

Thousands were murdered - hundreds in Santiago football stadium and the General's (Pinochet et al) 'free market' (Chicago school economist inspired...) experiment begun.

"A Very British Coup" - the BBC play is a good play to watch - about the consequences of the election of a British Allende