TUC...Form a new party?

[Lo Siento.]

any party based on the TUs would inevitably be backward looking and nostalgic, peddling some sort of retro-Keynesian bullshit that nobody particularly liked the first time round. Like equivalent parties around the continent (Italy's PRC, Germany's Left Party etc.), it would be better than nothing as a sort-of stop gap, as a way of pushing some defensive arguments against attacks on working class living standards, but long-term something more forward-looking would have to emerge...

 

[danny la rouge]

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

While "red bureaucracy" could be and was predicted, I don't think you can sensibly blame Marx for Stalin.

 

[dennisr]

any party based on the TUs would inevitably be backward looking and nostalgic, peddling some sort of retro-Keynesian bullshit that nobody particularly liked the first time round. Like equivalent parties around the continent (Italy's PRC, Germany's Left Party etc.), it would be better than nothing as a sort-of stop gap, as a way of pushing some defensive arguments against attacks on working class living standards, but long-term something more forward-looking would have to emerge...

New forces would only emerge out of discussion - as reformist ideas are tested and found wanting. A new workers party would be the forum for that discussion. Trade Union tops do not equal trade union members.

If one was an idiot and simply condemned anyone who did not already think like them one would be isolated and not part of a living movement of working people as it works out its own programme. One would also sound not much diferrent from the average wannabe dictator - as you do idiot.

I have confidence that people are able to work out their own views (expecially given that they already have the collective experience of decades of betrayal by the old 'reformists') when we have a forum in which those views can be honestly and openly discussed.

With no sence of irony on your part you probably consider yourself to be a bit of a wadical anarchist. Silly boy.

 

[kabbes]

The unions can't even agree relatively simple concepts amongst themselves without falling into the kind of backbiting squabbling that stops them making any progress. What the hell chance would they have of presenting the kind of unified front necessary to win power in an election?

 

[dennisr]

The unions can't even agree relatively simple concepts amongst themselves without falling into the kind of backbiting squabbling that stops them making any progress. What the hell chance would they have of presenting the kind of unified front necessary to win power in an election?

Fair point - unlike the bosses - every party says the same thing with minimal qualifiers (usually based on personality differences). And we are meant to vote for the resulting 'choice' and call it 'democracy'

 

[danny la rouge]

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.

I don't advocate a parliamentary road to anything, though. What is wrong with the parliamentary road to socialism isn't the socialism but the parliamentary.

This isn't defeatism, it's an analysis of what (in my view) goes wrong. And what goes wrong is that either joining a ruling elite or becoming a new ruling elite necessarily means you are not able to represent the masses.

The way around this is for the masses to govern themselves, not have someone else do it for them.

This is why I'm an anarchist.

 

[kabbes]

Fair point - unlike the bosses - every party says the same thing with minimal qualifiers (usually based on personality differences). And we are meant to vote for the resulting 'choice' and call it 'democracy'

Exactly. If the rise of Blair taught us anything, it's that actually standing for something and having an honest debate about what that something should be is no way to win an election -- you have to present a united front with no real beliefs at all.

 

[kabbes]

I don't advocate a parliamentary road to anything, though. What is wrong with the parliamentary road to socialism isn't the socialism but the parliamentary.

This isn't defeatism, it's an analysis of what (in my view) goes wrong. And what goes wrong is that either joining a ruling elite or becoming a new ruling elite necessarily means you are not able to represent the masses.

The way around this is for the masses to govern themselves, not have someone else do it for them.

This is why I'm an anarchist.

... and I suppose it's why I am, at the core, an elitist. But that's generally something I would only admit to myself in the wee small and dark hours of the soul.

 

[dennisr]

Exactly. If the rise of Blair taught us anything, it's that actually standing for something and having an honest debate about what that something should be is no way to win an election -- you have to present a united front with no real beliefs at all.

we have to disagree at that point

 

[dennisr]

This is why I'm an anarchist.

"thats why no one will ever take me seriously"

 

[kabbes]

we have to disagree at that point

Believe me, I'd love it to be otherwise. It's a state of affairs that depresses me to the depths of my boots.

 

[Lo Siento.]

New forces would only emerge out of discussion - as reformist ideas are tested and found wanting. A new workers party would be the forum for that discussion.

Sounds familiar. For the most part though, reformist ideas triumph don't they?

If one was an idiot and simply condemned anyone who did not already think like them one would be isolated and not part of a living movement of working people as it works out its own programme. One would also sound not much diferrent from the average wannabe dictator - as you do idiot.

I've not condemned people for not thinking like me (you on the other hand just called me an idiot for disagreeing with you), just stated why I think this is a dead end. It's arse-about-face, creating something based on social forces that are in decline ...

I have confidence that people are able to work out their own views (expecially given that they already have the collective experience of decades of betrayal by the old 'reformists') when we have a forum in which those views can be honestly and openly discussed.

But the type of forum created determines the outcome, and anything coming out of the TU bureaucracy is going to be rigged in certain ways.

 

[Zachor]

While "red bureaucracy" could be and was predicted, I don't think you can sensibly blame Marx for Stalin.

If you can lay the blame for the Inquisition ultimately on Constantine's severe editing of the christian bible for political ends to make the church a political tyrant then you can, at least, lay some of the blame for Stalin on Marxist thought.

I'm not saying that the bread and butter issues that Marx talked about are not important but maybe in order to build a progressive movement untainted by Marx and Engels and all the other failed nutters of the past we should look further back to people like the Levellers etc and those inspired to work for social justice for religous and other reasons and build progressive movements on those philosophies. Remember, the words 'justice, justice shall you persue' from the Hebrew Bible has lasted longer and had more effect than anything that the 19th Cent philosophers of the left have said.

 

[Demosthenes]

I don't advocate a parliamentary road to anything, though. What is wrong with the parliamentary road to socialism isn't the socialism but the parliamentary.

This isn't defeatism, it's an analysis of what (in my view) goes wrong. And what goes wrong is that either joining a ruling elite or becoming a new ruling elite necessarily means you are not able to represent the masses.

The way around this is for the masses to govern themselves, not have someone else do it for them.

This is why I'm an anarchist.

That's why your politics are even more unrealistic than mine.
The government will continue to exist and continue to mechanically do what the government does, because they have a great deal of money, and control the levers of power, and the legal system.

No amount of self-organisation or grassroots movement will stop the government existing and the police from enforcing the law.

Ultimately, it would be great for there to be no need for a central government, - but they won't disappear of their own accord, - and you'd need to create the right conditions in which things could evolve well without central direction before you'd want to do without a government.

 

[Demosthenes]

You see if the government continues to exist, then people will still get evicted from their homes when they fail to pay the rent or the mortgage.

And if that still happens, then the system won't be any different, - people will still know where the ultimate power is, and will still keep making the system work, in order to avoid being made homeless.

 

[dennisr]

Sounds familiar. For the most part though, reformist ideas triumph don't they?

Well, that depends what you mean. Reformist ideas are not on the lips of tories, labour or the liberals so they certainly don't get an echo from the tops in our neo-liberal world.

ironically even the tories have to adopt some rhetoric though becasue of a mass support (or illusions - depends how you look at it) for those very same reforms despite a decade plus of complete silence from our democratic press and media on the subject

I've not condemned people for not thinking like me (you on the other hand just called me an idiot for disagreeing with you), just stated why I think this is a dead end. It's arse-about-face, creating something based on social forces that are in decline ...

Its OK to call someone an idiot as one individual to another - a bit different from condemning any chance of people being able to discuss and work out their own problems as you did. You seem to think that the majority of trade unionists (and no new party would just consist of trade union embers in any case) would simply follow their leaders without a whimper. Not much confidence in the potential of human beings in those comments is there? Thats why I called you an idiot.

Social forces in decline - in the basis of that simplistic view (which is a debatable one if you look worldwide at the movements that do exist and the forms they take) should we be instead building a party of spin and wankery in suits - a bit like kabbes argues (after all, superficially, that is the 'dominant trend' if you believe the majority of what you see and hear). trade unions are not going to disappear anytime soon because the reason for their existence will not disappear

But the type of forum created determines the outcome, and anything coming out of the TU bureaucracy is going to be rigged in certain ways.

And you think a new workers party would come from the present TU bureaucracy tops? - If so you are very mistaken - as defenders of the status quo they would be terrified of the idea of being accountable. What is more likely - a few mavericks (an RMT leader here... a PCS leader there...) + a membership of trade union members (ie a membership of people who are not bureaucrats). Something that splits and exposes the TU bureaucracy in practice (and that is how one actually takes on TU bureaucracy - rather than standing on the outside pointing and continuing to be ignored - about as effective as the present day shadow of the Wobblies)

added: and that is the crux of the matter here - HOW do we bring about change? - through what means? - yep, it may be unfair to condemn you personally as an idiot - but the ideas that I suspect you represent in your crude way are idiotic. People change their own world in their own ways through their own experience and discussion. Revolutionaries are simply a tiny minority and they have to find a way of communicating their ideas in a way that makes sense, that can be taken up and tested by that largely silent (at the moment...) majority of people to become more than simply book read ideas. Idiots are an even smaller minority who think that they know 'the way' and provide 'the light' but never provide any possible solutions - simply condemn what exists safely from their personal ghetto most people think they are just a bit odd and best to avoid.

I know a lot of decent people who work through their union branches every day - who win small reforms that mean a lot to their branch members. Those reforms are not to be condemned out of hand by anyone who is serious about changing things rather than projecting their personal 'rebelious' fantasy identity and neither is the work of these people. Through this work those other members draw teir own conclusions as to what is necessary to impove their lives and the role they must play both as individuals and collectively within this process.

 

[Lo Siento.]

Its OK to call someone an idiot as one individual to another - a bit different from condemning any chance of people being able to discuss and work out their own problems as you did. You seem to think that the majority of trade unionists (and no new party would just consist of trade union embers in any case) would simply follow their leaders without a whimper. Not much confidence in the potential of human beings in those comments is there? Thats why I called you an idiot.

The thread is entitled "TUC... form a new party" and was about the poster agreeing with delegates to their conference?! It wasn't too presumptuous to assume that the dominant force would be people like him.

And yeah, being realistic, anything that emerges from the TU movement is going to be dominated by those people with the resources to engage in full-time activism and in the immediate term by those with the kind of profile to secure high positions in it. You think they'll be anxious to establish something that is a free and open forum? Or will it be stitch-up between the various competing factions a la the SA, the SLP, Respect etc?

Social forces in decline - in the basis of that simplistic view (which is a debatable one if you look worldwide at the movements that do exist and the forms they take) should we be instead building a party of spin and wankery in suits - a bit like kabbes argues (after all, superficially, that is the 'dominant trend' if you believe the majority of what you see and hear). trade unions are not going to disappear anytime soon because the reason for their existence will not disappear

But they ARE social forces in decline, they won't disappear, it's not irreversible, but they are currently, and they will continue to do so as long as they keep doing the same things. Setting up a political party will only paper over the cracks if the underlying causes aren't addressed.

And you think a new workers party would come from the present TU bureaucracy tops? - If so you are very mistaken. What is more likely - a few mavericks (an RMT leader here... a PCS leader there...) + a membership of trade union members (ie a membership of people who are not bureaucrats). Something that splits and exposes the TU bureaucracy in practice (and that is how one actually takes on TU bureaucracy - rather than standing on the outside pointing and continuing to be ignored - about as effective as the present day shadow of the Wobblies)

TU bureaucracy seems to have dealt perfectly well with that sort of thing in the past. Why continue doing exactly the same things with diminished returns over and over again?

 

[Lo Siento.]

added: and that is the crux of the matter here - HOW do we bring about change? - through what means? - yep, it may be unfair to condemn you personally as an idiot - but the ideas that I suspect you represent in your crude way are idiotic. People change their own world in their own ways through their own experience and discussion. Revolutionaries are simply a tiny minority and they have to find a way of communicating their ideas in a way that makes sense, that can be taken up and tested by that largely silent (at the moment...) majority of people to become more than simply book read ideas. Idiots are an even smaller minority who think that they know 'the way' and provide 'the light' but never provide any possible solutions - simply condemn what exists safely from their personal ghetto most people think they are just a bit odd and best to avoid.

I know a lot of decent people who work through their union branches every day - who win small reforms that mean a lot to their branch members. Those reforms are not to be condemned out of hand by anyone who is serious about changing things rather than projecting their personal 'rebelious' fantasy identity and neither is the work of these people. Through this work those other members draw teir own conclusions as to what is necessary to impove their lives and the role they must play both as individuals and collectively within this process.

Hang on, what on Earth does all this have to do with the discussion we've been having. I've been a union member thanks very much, I'm currently unemployed, but will be a union member when I'm next in work. I've no issue with winning small reforms, and I totally agree that (a) experience and discussion create new ideas, new organisations and that people draw new conclusions from them, (b) there's no use fantasising about revolutionary ideas, when there's a practical job to get on with. None of those ideas inevitably lead you to the conclusion that an NWP drawing on the trade unions and the left is a worthwhile idea.

 

[danny la rouge]

That's why your politics are even more unrealistic than mine.
The government will continue to exist and continue to mechanically do what the government does, because they have a great deal of money, and control the levers of power, and the legal system.

My politics would only be unrealistic if I was predicting the downfall of representative democracy. I'm not.

 

[dennisr]

The thread is entitled "TUC... form a new party" and was about the poster agreeing with delegates to their conference?! It wasn't too presumptuous to assume that the dominant force would be people like him.

And then the thread moved on (in loads of directions at once - but definatly 'on' as threads tend to

And yeah, being realistic, anything that emerges from the TU movement is going to be dominated by those people with the resources to engage in full-time activism and in the immediate term by those with the kind of profile to secure high positions in it. You think they'll be anxious to establish something that is a free and open forum? Or will it be stitch-up between the various competing factions a la the SA, the SLP, Respect etc?

As said beforehand - the trade union tops would be terrified of a new workers party they would do all they could to oppose it and strangle it at birth. For that matter, if the left idiots with their ready made models dominated they would also strangle it at birth by default (hence the aborted attempts you list). Most activists would not be full-time - they would be the sort of people you see opposing NHS closures etc (tens of thousands have marched - not that most people would know it) or those millions who opposed the Iraq war (no matter how ineffective it may have been), or those bus drivers who struck in london last week - the vast majority were not members of any party.

But they ARE social forces in decline, they won't disappear, it's not irreversible, but they are currently, and they will continue to do so as long as they keep doing the same things. Setting up a political party will only paper over the cracks if the underlying causes aren't addressed.

Empty rhetoric. I give concrete reasons you spout generalisations - who is being realistic here. Typical half-baked anarcho. Call it what you like - don't call it a party call it a collective, whatever. The simple fact is alternative poles of attraction of the mass of ordinary people are needed in this country to the career models of the boss parties who all represent the boss class in this country. Those poles of attraction wil inevitable need structures precisely to avoid control by any one group of bureaucrats or whosoever.

TU bureaucracy seems to have dealt perfectly well with that sort of thing in the past. Why continue doing exactly the same things with diminished returns over and over again?

"its all hopeless" - typical pseudo-anarcho copout. Look, humanity has thus far failed on that basis - so the only option is to kill yourself or shut up and work for the man like a goodfella. Yes, mistakes are sadly repeated, we, as in human beings go through many false starts and aborted mistakes, that is how we all learn and how society moves on. If you can show me a concrete alternative to my suggestion and a concrete reasonong as to why this failure is 'inevitable' then I am willing to hear it. Just repeating your opinion with no explaination of how you draw your conclusions is a bit pointless though.

what is your answer mr 'sorry'? what is your alternative??

 

[dennisr]

My politics would only be unrealistic if I was predicting the downfall of representative democracy. I'm not.

I think this is an unrealistic viewpoint

 

[kabbes]

Away from the philosophical musings, here is a very practical question:

If a TUC party did succeed in gaining power, how would it then balance its relationship with the unions with its duties as a government? Wouldn't it suddenly find that it has the exact same problems that (old) Labour faced? Except even more so?

 

[dennisr]

Hang on, what on Earth does all this have to do with the discussion we've been having. I've been a union member thanks very much, I'm currently unemployed, but will be a union member when I'm next in work. I've no issue with winning small reforms, and I totally agree that (a) experience and discussion create new ideas, new organisations and that people draw new conclusions from them, (b) there's no use fantasising about revolutionary ideas, when there's a practical job to get on with. None of those ideas inevitably lead you to the conclusion that an NWP drawing on the trade unions and the left is a worthwhile idea.

In workplaces - and the vast majority of people have to work as you and I do - trade union members and organisation represents the most important forum within which people think outside of the box (as well as where left ideas are genuinely tested, exposed or learnt). it is where the vast majority of day-to-day discussion and opposition to attacks on the majority of working peoples living conditions is formented. Not that we hear about any of this in the media.

I think there is a reason for that - I think its shows that the concept of class struggle is still a valid one. I think that a recognition that the working class needs its own independent representation is key to any new party (or whatever formation). I am happy to put my viewpoint across within that new formation although I think in practice a new party or whatever it will be will come out of tu struggles in any case. The neo-liberals don't have the cash to spare for reforms only cuts in our living conditions -so, inevitably, working people will have to defend themselves and the tou branches are the formations that presently exist within which they will do that.

I would argue that that basic grass roots organisation (along with the concept of specifically organising themselves on the basis of what they have in common - through working) would be a key basis of any new workers party.

is that all clear to you?

 

[dennisr]

Away from the philosophical musings, here is a very practical question:

If a TUC party did succeed in gaining power, how would it then balance its relationship with the unions with its duties as a government? Wouldn't it suddenly find that it has the exact same problems that (old) Labour faced? Except even more so?

If - and it unlikely precisely because of this - the present TUC became the leaders of a new party in the mold of a slightly more reformist old/new/whatever labour party, the first major conflict they would face is with their own members.

 

[danny la rouge]

I think this is an unrealistic viewpoint

You think it's unrealistic that I'm not predicting the downfall of representative democracy? Or you think it's unrealistic of me to say my politics would only be accurately said to be unrealistic if I was predicting the downfall of representative democracy?

 

[Lo Siento.]

And then the thread moved on (in loads of directions at once - but definatly 'on' as threads tend to



As said beforehand - the trade union tops would be terrified of a new workers party they would do all they could to oppose it and strangle it at birth. For that matter, if the left idiots with their ready made models dominated they would also strange it at birth by default (hence the aborted attempts you list). Most activists would not be full-time - they would be the sort of people you see opposing NHS closures etc (tens of thousands have marched - not that most people would know it) or those millions who opposed the Iraq war (no matter how ineffective it may have been) - the vast majority were not members of any party or those bus drivers who struck in london last week.



Empty rhetoric. I give concrete reasons you spout generalisations - who is being realistic here. Typical half-baked anarcho. Call it what you like - don't call it a party call it a collective, whatever. The simple fact is alternative poles of attraction of the mass of ordinary people are needed in this country to the career models of the boss parties who all represent the boss class in this country. Those poles of attraction wil inevitable need structures precisely to avoid control by any one group of bureaucrats or whosoever.



"its all hopeless" - typical pseudo-anarcho copout. Look, humanity has thus far failed on that basis - so the only option is to kill yourself or shut up and work for the man like a goodfella. Yes, mistakes are sadly repeated, we, as in human beings go through many false starts and aborted mistakes, that is how we all learn and how society moves on. If you can show me a concrete alternative to my suggestion and a concrete reasonong as to why this failure is 'inevitable' then I am willing to hear it. Just repeating your opinion with no explaination of how you draw your conclusions is a bit pointless though.

what is your answer mr 'sorry'? what is your alternative??

Thing is, I'm not in any party or group, I don't think I have an alternative. I'm just a regular, independent, far-left inclined person and I don't know what the answer is. But I'm not convinced by yours.

I'm open to being convinced, if something exists that looks like it works, be it a political party or whatever, then I'll join in and work hard damn to make it a success. But I'm not going to deliberately walk down dead ends because it's the only thing to do.

 

[dennisr]

You think it's unrealistic that I'm not predicting the downfall of representative democracy? Or you think it's unrealistic of me to say my politics would only be accurately said to be unrealistic if I was predicting the downfall of representative democracy?

you have every right to say 'touche'

 

[dennisr]

Thing is, I'm not in any party or group, I don't think I have an alternative. I'm just a regular, independent, far-left inclined person and I don't know what the answer is. But I'm not convinced by yours.

With the previous experiences folk have had of phantom workers parties you wariness is fully understandable.

But your first post condemned all possibilities and seemed to blame this on the very idea of a party. You also equated the german left party (and others) with the very limited attempts we have had in the UK. I don't think you can write the Left Party off as a bureaucrats party - what ever its limitations.

I think a genuine force that could be tested in practice would attract people like you (and me) precisely because because it would be an alternative to the 'nothing' we both have at the moment. We both know it has to change - I am suggesting that the break with new labour by a section of the trade unions (and primarily union members) is likely and that the possibilities that arise from this could be very positive.

I'm open to being convinced, if something exists that looks like it works, be it a political party or whatever, then I'll join in and work hard damn to make it a success. But I'm not going to deliberately walk down dead ends because it's the only thing to do.

That opinion probably reflects the views of a lot of ordinary folk. Its healthy and one of reasons I don't think any new formation could ever be simply a re-modelled labour party. Folk have 'been there done that'.

The thing is what choice is there? - we - as in the vast majority of people in this country - are not represented - in parliament or anywhere beyond a few decent but largely silenced individuals in workplaces (and out of them). That's not saying parliament is the be all and end all (far from it). It would be a useful start to making the voices of the rest of us heard - through it the democratic movement outside of parliament can discuss and organise.

Now I am slipping into generalisations - but I hope you can see the practical reasoning behind them

 

[tbaldwin]

Watched a bit of the TUC on TV this morning and the people who spoke up spoke like me, had roughly the same ideals as me and had generally the same social awareness as me.
It also came clear by many of the speeches that many in the hall had become disillusioned with New Labour and despised the thought of the Tories getting in power. The hall resounded to the calls for a windfall tax on the super rich energy companies, a fairer tax system where the more you earn the more you pay, not stopping at 40%, withdrawal from world policing with the USA, etc.

Question:- Why does not the TUC form a new party, say the Peoples Party?

Question:- Would you vote for the 'Peoples Party' rather than New lab or Tories?

Seeing as there are roughly 6 million trade unionists would they not at least get some foothold in power at the next election?

Ever heard of the Socialist Labour Party.....Started by Trade Unionists who felt betrayed by New Labour......What would be different about any new party now to come out of the trade unions?

 

[trevhagl]

Ever heard of the Socialist Labour Party.....Started by Trade Unionists who felt betrayed by New Labour......What would be different about any new party now to come out of the trade unions?

It would have funding