dennisr
the acceptable face
slow work day, Dennis???
I can't face any more work - even though its piling up again - just worked six weeks including weekends with only one day off - driving me bananas mate
where we [respect] stand today, it’s down to George Galloway and his leadership.
- Thread starter TremulousTetra
- Start date
I can't face any more work - even though its piling up again - just worked six weeks including weekends with only one day off - driving me bananas mateTremulousTetra
prismatic universe
Look back through my posts in this thread, and in other threads on the topic. Look back to the comments of SW members when Jerry Hicks left Respect. Look to the comments SW make about George Galloway and his faction today. On every count we say we would have no problem whatsoever working with those people in future. We try to examine the GENUINE political motivations these people hold. We still argue, It is ludicrous NOT to say that George Galloway would truly like to create a political legacy, a Respect party, he coyuld be proud of. We do not come up with a conspiracy theory, or arguments that say there is something innate in those peoples politics which means we can never ever work with them. We just say we believe they are wrong.
Now I would ask you to accept, we, SW SP, can both genuinely disagree. This does not necessarily mean either of us have Machiavellian tendencies are dishonest. PART OF AN HONEST DEBATE IS RECOGNIZING AT SOME POINT YOU HAVE TOO AGREE TO DISAGREE, without resorting to sectarianism.
Now I will bat back and forth in these discussions if you want.
in answer to your question, I don't know. How long is a piece of string? Where do you draw the line in creating a party you hope will reflect the current consciousness of where people are, so you can work with them together and in the process of working with them move their consciousness towards revolution? and at what point do you say no, and let the people walk. When SW went along with things according to people on here, they were wrong everything was SW fault. When SW said no, no further, and the Galloway fraction walked, again they were wrong and everything was SW's fault. Kind of a no-win situation really wasn't it?
Now I understand why people get confused by the contradictory nature of SW's position;;;;;;
To expand upon and would be merely repeating myself, theory and practice etc. If you want me to, I will do, or sufficient to say I don't really accept fully the way you have pigeonholed me.
To add to my point though, yes I agree with you completely about limited opportunities for SW to get involved in mass struggle. I would personally add to the ANL, the stop the War success, but I suppose we would disagree about this. It is really the mass movements that SW party structure can operating, without being too dominant, that is most successful. Seeing as though a revolution, will be a mass activity, that is why I think it is a useful model.
from one extreme to the other, that is the often touted "analysis" , that somehow possessing control over a tiny insignificant irrelevant organisation like Socialist Alliance or respect it is the raison d'etre for SW. WHY????? WTF for? Recruitment is usually the reply. Well HEEEEEEELO. What has the SW membership done since the beginning of SA?
I have an SW viewpoint. Wanting to control insignificant organisations has never been my aim. SW recruitment only makes any sense as a revolutionary if it is part of a virtuous cycle. Part of a equally beneficial symbiotic relationship with the working class. I personally would like emphasis upon the organised working class at the point of production for the reasons I put earlier in the thread.
As far as your other points, I think there comes a point where you have to say we will agree to disagree, BUT STILL BE PREPARED TO WORK WITH EACH OTHER. This is what SW has done with the Galloway faction, and everyone else on the ‘left’ it has ever worked with, and not work with.
PS the Pirates thingy http://www.world-science.net/othernews/080222_pirates
Now I would ask you to accept, we, SW SP, can both genuinely disagree. This does not necessarily mean either of us have Machiavellian tendencies are dishonest. PART OF AN HONEST DEBATE IS RECOGNIZING AT SOME POINT YOU HAVE TOO AGREE TO DISAGREE, without resorting to sectarianism.
Now I will bat back and forth in these discussions if you want.
but it is/was not possible to do that for two reasons at least. 1. There was going to come a point where we would have to agree to disagree. Every single meeting I went to with the Socialist Alliance went on for far longer than they should have done, because people wanted to go on and on and on about past political battles. On a personal level that was one of the reasons individual comrades were so eager to jump ship on a emotional rather than political level. 2. And probably most importantly, not all the people were at the table to have the discussion. Some people outside the party were arguing, something slightly similar to the iwca, that a truly new workers party could not be based upon the old models. The kind of arguments coming from the anticapitalist movement. We did not want to bar people like that from the discussion, by framing a constitution which excluded them. For this reason, we argued the alliance should indeed be formed, "on the hoof".
this is rubbish. We are always being attacked on these boards for having said in the past "vote Labour, but build a socialist alternative". This slogan captures the true contradictory/dialectical nature of our position to voting.
well you consider yourself a revolutionary don't you? So why don't you stand as a revolutionary? Address the argument put by cockney put? Pleaqse
in answer to your question, I don't know. How long is a piece of string? Where do you draw the line in creating a party you hope will reflect the current consciousness of where people are, so you can work with them together and in the process of working with them move their consciousness towards revolution? and at what point do you say no, and let the people walk. When SW went along with things according to people on here, they were wrong everything was SW fault. When SW said no, no further, and the Galloway fraction walked, again they were wrong and everything was SW's fault. Kind of a no-win situation really wasn't it?
Now I understand why people get confused by the contradictory nature of SW's position;;;;;;
you need to look at this imho. http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=7200015#post7200015 because of this analysis I don't have any problem with opinions being contradictory, and changing over TIME.
To expand upon and would be merely repeating myself, theory and practice etc. If you want me to, I will do, or sufficient to say I don't really accept fully the way you have pigeonholed me.
To add to my point though, yes I agree with you completely about limited opportunities for SW to get involved in mass struggle. I would personally add to the ANL, the stop the War success, but I suppose we would disagree about this. It is really the mass movements that SW party structure can operating, without being too dominant, that is most successful. Seeing as though a revolution, will be a mass activity, that is why I think it is a useful model.
from one extreme to the other, that is the often touted "analysis" , that somehow possessing control over a tiny insignificant irrelevant organisation like Socialist Alliance or respect it is the raison d'etre for SW. WHY????? WTF for? Recruitment is usually the reply. Well HEEEEEEELO. What has the SW membership done since the beginning of SA?I have an SW viewpoint. Wanting to control insignificant organisations has never been my aim. SW recruitment only makes any sense as a revolutionary if it is part of a virtuous cycle. Part of a equally beneficial symbiotic relationship with the working class. I personally would like emphasis upon the organised working class at the point of production for the reasons I put earlier in the thread.
As far as your other points, I think there comes a point where you have to say we will agree to disagree, BUT STILL BE PREPARED TO WORK WITH EACH OTHER. This is what SW has done with the Galloway faction, and everyone else on the ‘left’ it has ever worked with, and not work with.
PS the Pirates thingy http://www.world-science.net/othernews/080222_pirates
audiotech
wav, aiff, mp3, ogg, flac
articul8
Dishonest sociopath
you want to join a union
If i'd had that little time off I don't think I'd arguing the toss with Cliffites would be at the top of my list of things to do! Sounds like you're going well though 
Fisher_Gate
Active Member
That's a lie.
Do you want to reconsider that statement or would you like you me to give chapter and verse on how the SWP has tried NOT to work with or even mention George Galloway since the split?
dennisr
the acceptable face
I do think I am banging my head against a brick wall here. Hopefully other folk understand the points being made. This really is not about you or, ultimately, the SWP - it about finding the tactics required to win over those 'wider layers of people'.
It a question of applying a untied front tactic (in as much as it can be applied - it was discussed by trotters as part of a pre-revolutionary crisis involving mass organisations, so one cannot compare like with like ie with nowadays in the UK - but I think the method still applies) - a revolutionary does not hide their differences they are though willing to agree - democratically, openly - on a programme of demands they can fight jointly for. The things the various groups have in common - without for one moment compromising their own organiations differences over what is ultimately necessary. That has to be done openly and honestly. We do it all the time in day to day struggles in workplaces and the same approach has been successfully applied in mass movements in the UK - the poll tax etc (which as the basis for the initial growth of the SSP - regardless of its later isolation and resulting collapse as a force) or in liverpool (in effect a limited form of united front - after all it was not 1921 germany, but the arguement still stands - between decent, genuine reformists and revolutionaries) - a majority of those councillors leading what came close to all out general strike (and the resulting polarisation across the UK would have been massive) with the tory government were not in any way shape or form rounded-out 'revolutionaries'.
A short summary of the united font tactic here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Front
Your personal 'feelings' about the SA are irrelevent and ignore the political approach. The need to apply revolutionary politics to the here and now - to be in a position to be able to win over people (if and when they are convinced) is the key to that political approach.
And i am afraid I really don't give a toss about Galloway v SWP - he had also discussed with the SP, when first splitting from labour. The problem the SP had was that there was an unwillingness to openly discuss the formation of democratic organisation, or openly discuss what programme could be hammered out in common. The SWP took what they then saw as an easy route, an 'opportunity' - without putting the cards on the table, in front of all those looking on from the outside, in the first place. Now they face the consequences.
Thanks for the link re pirates though.
dennisr
the acceptable face
you want to join a union
I've still go my union card but wonder why I bother sometimes - being my own worst enemy and all.I like to see it as theraputic
TremulousTetra
prismatic universe
Can't help feeling you were confirming the point SW makes, that it is better to concentrate on what unites us than what divides us. Is it possible if you had concentrated on my criticisms of SW, we may have found more agreement?
Got to hold my hands up, that response was not very well formulated, but looking back, neither was your question.
However, do you understand/accept this response?
Got to hold my hands up, that response was not very well formulated, but looking back, neither was your question.
However, do you understand/accept this response?
dennisr
the acceptable face
Re 'formulations'. Maybe...
Re: 'accepting responses': I don't think the 2 reasons you site can begin to excuse the closing down of the SAs by a block vote and the setting up - without any discussion, constitutional or other agreement beyond backdoor deals between the SWP and Galloway - of Respect
RMP3
We did not want to bar people like that from the discussion, by framing a constitution which excluded them. For this reason, we argued the alliance should indeed be formed, "on the hoof".
And that bit!!! - Are you trying to pull my plonker without permission?
The SAs had a constitution - a federal one (which was best suited to including all individuals and smaller groups). As I have said/argued already a number of times (on this thread even). For years prior to the arrival of he SWP. The SWP changed that constitutions to one where their block vote could hold sway - as it did when they unceremoniously and without agreement closed the SAs down. So the idea that the SWP were in someways 'concerned about the minority voice' is at best disengenous and an more likely hood an outrageous lie.
No wonder no one trusts them despite bleating about 'wanting to work with others'. Yep, don't we all...
TremulousTetra
prismatic universe
you ask me a question about the SETTING UP of the constitution and to why I agreed with what SW did, and then apply this answer to " the closing down of the SA".
talk about unfair?" a federal one (which was best suited to including all individuals and smaller groups). " precisely. the concern wasn't about minority groups joining, the concern of is about majority groups joining, groups much bigger than SW. the possibility that 10,000 Labour Party members could join, without feeling that they would necessarily be hamstrung by a party with 12 men and a dog. In that situation SW would have been in the same situation as the other minority parties. the kind of situation militant was in in the Labour Party, wasn't they?
dennisr
the acceptable face
you ask me a question about the SETTING UP of the constitution and to why I agreed with what SW did, and then apply this answer to " the closing down of the SA".
" a federal one (which was best suited to including all individuals and smaller groups). " precisely. the concern wasn't about minority groups joining, the concern of is about majority groups joining, groups much bigger than SW. the possibility that 10,000 Labour Party members could join, without feeling that they would necessarily be hamstrung by a party with 12 men and a dog. In that situation SW would have been in the same situation as the other minority parties. the kind of situation militant was in in the Labour Party, wasn't they?
??? - Resist - the SAs had a constitution. They had a federal constitution - to ensure minority rights. The SWP joined and demanded change of that constitution to one were any block organisation could simply outvote by majority. In a desire to get the SWP on board in the hope of the reusulting organisation representing a genuine united left (after 4 years of waiting for the SWP) the other organisations went with this constitutional change. A year later (i think it was?) the SWP proposed and voted through the effective closing down of the SAs on the basis of their new pre-formed baby Respect.
This was not the labour party - it was an attempt at a new left formation where minority views were not witch hunted out and different left views were allowed to exist openly - even if I expand you analogy the Militant was hamstrung by NOT being allowed its minority view. The SWP imposed their labour style constitution as the SAs - dead in the water a year later.
So you are arguenig that the views of the founding groups were mde subservient to the SWPs belief that 10s of thousands of LP members were about to join??? Why did the SAs need to change their constitution - how did it make the SAs more welcoming to these imaginary thousands of LP membrs? What happened? Why did they not go on to join Respect?
Do you believe what you are saying fo one second??? Is this what you have been told??
Really... you are pulling my plonker arn't you ?!!
Lets say this again - the SWPs proposed constitution did precicely that - it, in effect, excluded minority viewpoints - it got rid of the federal structure of the initial SAs and the proof of this is in the resulting close down of the SAs by the SWP - I could not be ANY clearer
TremulousTetra
prismatic universe
never fitted into the education system, so didn't get one, so I am always prepared to assume responsibility for lack of clarity in my writing. But look at your arrogance, not to me, but to the SA membership;
SW has been saying the SA and respect should be orientated on building a mass membeership alliance for years, at Marxism and elsewhere. I don't seem to have the one I remember John Rees specifically talking about the Socialist Alliance, but have this one on respect. http://mp3.lpi.org.uk/resistancemp3/revolutionaries-and-elections-john-rees.mp3
So SW didn't put any justification for this change? People just bought into it with no political argument? Don't believe you. Not possible. Get the fuckers to stop talking was normaly the problem.
in essence yes. I am arguing SW won the arguement. SW wanted to orientate towards building a MASS party, where POTENTIAL thousands wouldn't be put off joining because the majority would be hamstung by a party with 12 men and a dog. It is the SP mentality, that you have to organise on the basis of politics being a minority sport, which is part of the problem imo. Can you explain to me what is the point of an electoral alliance that orientates on having a couple of thousand revolutionary members?
SW has been saying the SA and respect should be orientated on building a mass membeership alliance for years, at Marxism and elsewhere. I don't seem to have the one I remember John Rees specifically talking about the Socialist Alliance, but have this one on respect. http://mp3.lpi.org.uk/resistancemp3/revolutionaries-and-elections-john-rees.mp3
dennisr
the acceptable face
Sorry the 'prolier than thou' arguement does not wash with me. I can 'out prole' you any day of the week
Arrogance??? - how so - i can fully understand the desire for 'unity', I disagree than any shortcut will achieve this,. Nothing 'arrogant about that. We are still working with many of the individuals and organisations your party has now completely pissed - I don't think that is possible if the SP had been in any way 'arrogant' - sad because they are forced to witness another set back - yes, arrogant - no
So SW didn't put any justification for this change? People just bought into it with no political argument? Don't believe you. Not possible. Get the fuckers to stop talking was normaly the problem.
what are you dribbling on about here?
'politics being a minority sport' ?? - oh dear, is that your replacement for genuine politics your organisation seems to have done a superb job of pissing off the rag-taggle bunch of chancers (the ones you were previously creaming your knickers about) and some of your own members - feck knows where you get the fantasy idea of the 'masses' joining, you. That require a small degree of both trust and respect.
arrogance is often linked with a lack of proportion about what is possible at any given moment in time - maybe you should look in a mirror
oh, john rees said so - it must be on the cards.
You have ignored every simple point made and repeated endlessly.
I can bet now you won't be an active 'revolutionary' in a couple of years.
So you are just another swappie wanker after all - all mouth and no political understanding - another arrogant and shouty liberal waiting for the excuse to be officially 'incorporated'. There seems to be so many members like you in your organisation nowadays which means it will be quite a while before the masses start to orientate towards you (you pissed off the old genuine ultras - at least we know were we stood with them - over the last few years).
wanker
TremulousTetra
prismatic universe
"feck knows where you get the fantasy idea of the 'masses' joining"
I know, creating a mass party is pure fantasy. far better to take no chances, and get nothing wrong like the SP, eh?
I know, creating a mass party is pure fantasy. far better to take no chances, and get nothing wrong like the SP, eh?
Fisher_Gate
Active Member
Any truth in the rumour they refused to turn up to the SWP press conference to announce Michael Gavan's splitting candidature in the GLA against selected Respect candidate Hanif Abdulmuhit?
dennisr
the acceptable face
*sigh*
thats right - you are so right - that is exactly what I said - bang to rights
TremulousTetra
prismatic universe
dennisr, So you eventually grasp im saying that SW has been saying in it’s publications, and in meetings for years "So you are arguenig that the views of the founding groups were mde subservient to the SWPs belief that 10s of thousands of LP members were about to join???"[1] that the alliances should be focused on building mass organisations. Just to clarify, the link to Rees was not to suggest "oh, john rees said so - it must be on the cards." where did I say that? The link was to corroborate the MISTAKEN analysis imho by Rees and the SW leadership, was indeed that we could build a mass party. If you look at Chris Harmans recent article in the ISJ, it is still talking about such alliances should be looking to groups splintering from Labour Party's.[just read it yesterday]
Now, I have already highlighted that I do indeed not know exactly what I am talking about. I'm trying to work through out questions, through discussion. Earlier, you said you respected this process. So can you please clarify for me some things I don't understand about your argument?
I understand what you're saying about the Socialist Alliance having a federal structure. This federal structure made sure that the majority, whoever they were, could not should overrule the minority. Any minority could have stopped the majority from closing down the Socialist Alliance and joining Respect. I do understand that is what you are saying. Is it not equally the case, that any minority could have stopped the majority from reorientating in the members of the alliance focus to building the anti-war movement? you are saying it is right for any such alliance, that when ever history intervenes, the minority should be able to stop the majority from responding to these changing circumstances quickly, yes? Why do you argue this?
1. (This is actually slight distortion of what I said, but I will let it pass so you may understand what is being said.)
Now, I have already highlighted that I do indeed not know exactly what I am talking about. I'm trying to work through out questions, through discussion. Earlier, you said you respected this process. So can you please clarify for me some things I don't understand about your argument?
I understand what you're saying about the Socialist Alliance having a federal structure. This federal structure made sure that the majority, whoever they were, could not should overrule the minority. Any minority could have stopped the majority from closing down the Socialist Alliance and joining Respect. I do understand that is what you are saying. Is it not equally the case, that any minority could have stopped the majority from reorientating in the members of the alliance focus to building the anti-war movement? you are saying it is right for any such alliance, that when ever history intervenes, the minority should be able to stop the majority from responding to these changing circumstances quickly, yes? Why do you argue this?
1. (This is actually slight distortion of what I said, but I will let it pass so you may understand what is being said.)
dennisr
the acceptable face
OK - you understand my distaste for the SWPs role in the SAs demise. The reasons why I think it is wrong and you seem to be saying that you are critical of the SWPs perspectives that led to them taking the approach they did with the SAs? (or are you defending the SWPs reasoning? - which is the impression I had from you original post on the matter)
I think you may have a point that SWPs perspectives influence their approach. I see them as unrealistic and not based on the actual balance of class forces that exit (something you pointed out to another poster being an aspect of SWs analysis you have previously admired). The working class membership have already left the LP, long ago and they have not and are not joining revolutionary parties on masse.
I would not compare either the SAs or Respect with the Anti-War movement. They are different movements by their very nature so tactics would be different. But... there are some important things they have in common (or rather, that revolutionaries should have in common towards them...)
For a small left unity formation (something I would see as one way of moving towards re-building an independant mass workers party - not as that mass party prefectly formed and just awaiting the arrival of those masses of workers!!) I have said already. There is a need to re-build genuine 'unity' - cutting across the old inter-left divisions - that will require an open and inclusive federal structure. You were spot on earlier when you said (though in other words...) no sensible left group would see simply dominating and ruling over such a fragile wider formation as assisting the rebuilding of dialogue and confidence that could lead towards the sort of future mass working class organisation we all agree is needed. What was needed was an application of the basic united front approach (on a small scale obviously) - the right to organise seperately but march together on the thing you agree on in common. But the SWP simply want for a non-federal blunderbuss approach trying to force the rest of the left to follow its own sudden change in perspective (actually what it saw as its opportunity - and what many others see as a retreat to an opportunist 'popular front' approach in practice ) - not by convincing other folk but by voting it through and closing the organisation down. That is not going to re-build left or any other unity. it is something they will have to live with as a result. It is not the first time they have used the same method. it is not how one wins arguements and raises peoples sights, even if one thinks one is right.
The AntiWar movement is not a small left unity project. it was a mass movement. But... it was a mass movement with a left organisation at the head - the SWP. This was their chance to prove their oft spouted 'revolutionary' credentials - heading a mass movement. But how did that left organiation play its advantage? - putting policies forward that were to the advantage of working people? Sadly, no.
As one of the links I put up earlier says:
"to ensure regime change in Britain and stop the war – requires a determination to see things through and mobilise the organised working class. But, despite the words about industrial action and mass civil disobedience at the People’s Assembly, at that stage – a critical moment in maintaining mass opposition to war – some of the Coalition’s officers were in practice moving to the right. In particular they were laying stress on orientating towards the Liberals, rebel Labour MPs and even rebel Tories who had just recently found their consciences, when they felt the hot breath of the mass movement on their necks.
As the Coalition grew it provided a platform that these new rebels wanted to utilise. A broad anti-war movement would obviously welcome Liberals and Tories breaking from their previous support for capitalist wars – if belatedly. However, this should be done on the basis of them joining the mass movement and putting themselves at its service rather than them dictating the political direction of the movement. The volte-face of Labour ‘rebel’ Mo Mowlam, promoted by the STWC officers as a speaker at the February 15 demonstration but who, six weeks later, called in The Mirror for ‘more bombing’ to win the war, shows how wrong it was to place any hope in the new-found ‘friends’ of the anti-war movement."
It then gives further examples of the drift to the right of those at the head of that movement and eventually says:
"We are in favour of building a broad movement against war on the basis of clear anti-war aims. All those participating in the STWC should have the right to argue the case for their own policies and perspectives. In other words, it should be a ‘united front’. But we oppose the dilution of the Coalition’s policies to the lowest common denominator to try to accommodate people like Charles Kennedy, Ken Clark and Mo Mowlam, who do not share the Coalition’s principled opposition to the war. Adopting a ‘classic’ popular front approach we would, in reality, be accepting that the anti-war movement’s fair-weather friends would be the ones determining our policy. Instead we strove to orientate the Coalition towards the forces that were most determined in their opposition to war, above all the class-conscious sections of the working class and radicalised young people."
So - the SWP may talk about the 'united front' their practice in both instances - the practice has been very different. The 'united front' approach is not something that therefore proves us to be 'trotskyists' - that is irrelevant. It is not about us and our respective organisations. It is the label given to a key tactic - one for any self-profesed revolutionary outfit - regardless of what label they use - for linking their arguements for a need to change the entire system if we are ever going to resolve the problems of war etc to the experience working class people are going through in practice. Everyone who was anyone opposed the war - our job is to put across the class perspective and independant class organisation as an alternative. Similarly, our own differences will not be proven or disproven on an internet bulletin board - but by being tested in practice in real struggles. The SWP had a huge opportunity with the anti-war movement and blew it completely - that does not make me happy. it was also a setback for working people worldwide, particularly those facing the results in iraq. Look at the role played by the Militant in the Poll tax movement - an equally diverse initial movement attracting all sorts but pushed in the direction of mas civil disobedience by working class people.
I hope you understand better a) what i am (equally inarticulately...) trying to say and b) that this is not about willy waving ('mine being better than yours' and all that) - its about the need - regardless of the organisation(s) or individual(s) who are going to do it - to put forward tactics and strategies that mean working class folk (not me or you or our respective organisations...) can win their battles.
Fisher_Gate
Active Member
Any Respect branch can ask to use the registered name on the ballot paper for elections. As for the last four years, they just have to ask the constitutionally agreed Nominations Officer, Linda Smith, who will check that the selection process was conducted according to the norms established by the Respect NC and that all paid up members of Respect were involved in the selection meeting.
There is no sign of the splitters of the "Left List" being registered with the Electoral Commission, though the SWP continue to churn out leaflets claiming that name.
I understand that an announcement is due soon about the outcome of negotiations for a broad based progressive list to contest the list seats of the GLA, as per decisions of the Respect NC many moons ago and carried forward by those members of the Respect NC who support Respect Renewal.
TremulousTetra
prismatic universe
Look, I realise you have to work, so don't feel compelled to respond as quickly as possible, just do it when you feel like it. Secondly, there problems in communicating. I may be thick, but one thing I am is honest. If at any time you want to bail, feel free, but if you can bare with me.
Instead of racing on to deal with the issues, I would just clear up the misunderstandings again in his post. Then I will do another post when I have properly digestive what you have said.
Clearly this was not just an SW perspective on potential. The main reason Respect renewal say they have split from SW is that SW intentionally or otherwise was keeping Respect small. The problem isn’t the potential, the reason Respect is too still small by far, is SW. [ sure Fisher will be reading this, so to be fair to him, he can correct me if I'm wrong, but I would say that there is a broad church in Respect renewal. Different people, believe different things in there as to how to achieve such growth. But the only thing that seemed to unite them, is that SW's model was not the solution. As I say, some people seem to have even suggested SW was keeping Respect intentionally small, so they could control it.]
Now I have spoke to Socialist worker members, leading and ordinary members, some in SW and some in respect renewal. I said, that was the theory that perspective of potential mass party, clearly in practice has not been a success. Now some have spun the optimism, quite rightly making historical comparisons of success of Respect compared to other left organisation's. But I have argued, though there is some validity in the argument, it is not enough to qualify the experience as a confirmation of that perspective touted in SW publications for however many years it is. PLUS sw membership has gone from something like 10,000 paper members, to what? 2 1/2 thousand paper members.
but let me come back now, if you are saying to perspective of SW that there was a potential to build a mass party was wrong, I think at this moment in time I would probably agree with you.
The reason they put the constitution in the SA that they did, was because of the perspective,not because they wanted to control it. the same applies to respect.
Frats Rmp3
Instead of racing on to deal with the issues, I would just clear up the misunderstandings again in his post. Then I will do another post when I have properly digestive what you have said.
always have done mate. On an emotional level I have every sympathy with you.
I think I understand that sentence. What I have been saying is this, YES, if you read all the SW publications since the Socialist Alliance, they have been arguing the potential was there, for different reasons at different times, to build a mass organisation. I'm talking by now at least 10 or 15,000 members of Respect. With a view to building a much bigger. Now not everybody in SW including me was convinced of this, but convinced enough to give it a whirl, theory and practice.
Clearly this was not just an SW perspective on potential. The main reason Respect renewal say they have split from SW is that SW intentionally or otherwise was keeping Respect small. The problem isn’t the potential, the reason Respect is too still small by far, is SW. [ sure Fisher will be reading this, so to be fair to him, he can correct me if I'm wrong, but I would say that there is a broad church in Respect renewal. Different people, believe different things in there as to how to achieve such growth. But the only thing that seemed to unite them, is that SW's model was not the solution. As I say, some people seem to have even suggested SW was keeping Respect intentionally small, so they could control it.]
Now I have spoke to Socialist worker members, leading and ordinary members, some in SW and some in respect renewal. I said, that was the theory that perspective of potential mass party, clearly in practice has not been a success. Now some have spun the optimism, quite rightly making historical comparisons of success of Respect compared to other left organisation's. But I have argued, though there is some validity in the argument, it is not enough to qualify the experience as a confirmation of that perspective touted in SW publications for however many years it is. PLUS sw membership has gone from something like 10,000 paper members, to what? 2 1/2 thousand paper members.
but let me come back now, if you are saying to perspective of SW that there was a potential to build a mass party was wrong, I think at this moment in time I would probably agree with you.
WOW!!! Sincerely, thanks very much. I've really been getting frustrated people. People honestly believe that SW just wants to control things, for controls sake. Im not saying SW don’t want to shape things, but controlling SA, would have been like controlling a restaurant, with no customers, pointless. Controlling RESPECT, would have been like controlling a restaurant, with one customer, equally pointless.
The reason they put the constitution in the SA that they did, was because of the perspective,not because they wanted to control it. the same applies to respect.
Now I am sorry. IF I'm going to be totally honest with you, I cannot say I am entirely convinced by my own critique of SW perspective. What would have happened if George Galloway hadn't gone on Big Brother? I have all kinds of questions like that, and I think that is FAIR, don't you? so let's just leave that to one side for the moment.
no I wasn't comparing them. The point I was trying to raise was important, but I will come back to this and the rest of your points when I have clear in my own head what I want to say, and what I want to ask.
respect to you.
Frats Rmp3
TremulousTetra
prismatic universe
I need to clarify this as well. I did specifically say 10,000 members of the Labour Party,but that was wild generalisation, a slip of the tongue, to make a general point. it could have been a thousand members of the anticapitalist movement, why not members of the Labour Party, greens, any organisation really. OK?
dennisr
the acceptable face
- actually my main compulsion has been to try and avoid work for the last week - its just my excuse to do something else and I appreciate your other related commentsWe are all impatient and there is always a danger we start looking for shortcuts. The problem is the shortcuts end up becoming a millstone around our necks. Thats not just true of left wing organiations and individual - anarchists, the IWCA etc - all have the same problem
I think - like a lot of folk who have experienced trying to work with the SWP - I've become a little bit bitter as a result. And tended towards the 'they are individually a bunch of bastards' view (the anarchists here have had more influence on me that i thought...). I know thats wrong and understand better - now - why you raised the idea I supported some sort of conspiracy theory earlier. You have helped me clarify what I think here.
The problem is that - fully accepting that the tactics used reflected their own perspectives (which we both, probably, agree are wrong) - it still leads to the same thing - for some reason they closed down that organisation in effect. I accept it is wrong and crude to simply argue "because they wanted to control it" which sounds either like a conspiracy theory or like some 'popular front of judea' type farce/sketch. BUT.. their perspectives, ultimately, led to a need to control and attempt to push (by way of a 'voting majority' type shortcut...) the rest of the SA in the direction heir perspectives have led them in - ultimately into the Respect debarcle.
My arguements are twofold - firstly their perspectives were and are wrong - and the nature of the resulting organisation (Respect) was wrong BUT secondly - even if they had been right with their perspectives - the method they used to impose this did a lot more damage than good.
OK - sometimes you have to make an unpopular move as an organisation - BUT you have to be open and explain why you feel what is necessary - not just present some fait accompi (spelling - agggghhhh!!)
Well any reply to this goes back to the first argument above. Firstly the SWP hamstrung themselves by either 'allowing' or (for the more cynical such as me) 'prefering for convenience' a non-inclusive non-democratic setup. There was no open and democratic pre-discussion or accountability build into the the structure of this new organisation. Galloway was and is not accountable for instance - which suited him, after all he was looking for an electoral machine to get him elected. There was never even any attempt to try and introduce democratic structures. The SWP seems happy to run an electoral machine where for example trade union affiliation was limited to cheerleading rallies rather than playing the central organising and leadership role they should play in (what people want to see as...) a potential new workers party.
In all of the SPs critisisms we were always careful to avoid saying that Respect - despite these points above - had no chance of ever growing. The SPs view was 'its unlikely - and less likely given the SWPs opportunistic approach to the structures - but it could still grow'. Especially in the wake of the shattering of illusions as a result of the Iraq War alongside the openly big capitalist polices of privatisation etc etc of New Labour.
BUT - and this is the perspectives bit - working people have had their fingers well and truely burnt by New Labour. No one could imagine the extent of the mass privatisation programmes, attacks on the NHS, education, welfare, job security etc when millions voted against the Tories. No one could imagine the depths of the betraile by union bureaucrats - 'bargaining' away the rights we had to fight for with a wave of the hand. We were seen as mad for raising our eyebrows at the time. Millions genuinely thought that the tide of opposition against war 'must have some result'. They were ignored and sidelined. Our democratic rights are trampled on - you vote for whichever fecker is going to screw you. There is complete disenfranchisment from any illusory 'democratic' process or even a sense of ones own oppositional power as trade unions carry out government dirty work for them. We both know all this.
The result are a lot of people who are anti-status quo, anti-all politicians,anti-all bullshit about our futures. But we have to go some way to convince them that the 'left' offer any realistic alternative (the neo-liberalism of new labour is a continuation of the collapse of the 'socialist project' as it still as seen in the eyes of many - in the collapse of he stalinist states and resulting capitalist triumpantalism, imo). And so many false starts by forces tied to the dead hand of stalinist theory or practice. Any new formation will only grow massively through mass struggles and assisted by ultra democratic inclusive practice prior to this in any potential rallying point in the form of a new party of the left. (hence my continual reiteration of the points about democratic practise in the SAs and in Respect.
People have been lied too so much, sold out so much and blagged so much that there is no way anyone is going to be massing to join a left party let alone a left revolutionary party or any other party at this moment in time. In a sense we are back to square one - we start again (with the advantage of historical hindsight and experience) There are no shortcuts to that. Now this is not all doom and gloom and it is not to say that we have to go back to 'recruiting the ones and twos' - the flipside of the coin is that disenfranchisment alongside vicious attacks on workers rights in this country is also base of of those future mass movements. I would also add an economic nightmare - directly effecting peoples job security, housing security, savings etc on the horizon (PR would disagree with this - arguing I am being 'catastrophist' - although they have been a little quieter since northern rock and the 'credit crunch' reared its ugly head). I would argue that I am not talking about some 1926 crash - but that a) we cannot seperate struggles across the world and b) that i am talking about economic effects big enough to change conciousness on a huge scale here in the UK (goodbye 'feelgood factor'!).
I would be interested on your views on my points about the anti-war movements mistakes and 'popular front' approach - but thats another question.
Phew these posts are getting longer and longer - anyway - have a good weekend
TremulousTetra
prismatic universe
well this is not all your fault. I have been trying to make this point to anyone who will listen for the past four months, and you are the only success. However, I do think this is a very important beachhead, to a honest critique of SW. As you say “this is not about willy waving ('mine being better than yours' and all that) - its about the need - regardless of the organisation(s) or individual(s) who are going to do it - to put forward tactics and strategies that mean working class folk (not me or you or our respective organisations...) can win their battles.” The whole truth is the holy Grail that is more important than individuals or organisations.
I was the election agent for one the Socialist Alliance candidates. My experience of that election, lead me to very similar conclusions to those above. My problem is, to deal with this here, I feel we are short cutting the conversation. Jumping the gun. There are other issues i need to deal with first. I need to build on the bridgehead we have already established.
I'm going to argue that you and the SP were wrong. I think I can win you to this. The fact SW did not win the SP to this is part of the problem. SW should have took the time to win this argument properly with everyone, if electoral politics was the right road to go down.[1]
I think you're right about ordinary working class people having their fingers burnt. But I also think you're right there was potential. I would put it from the war in Yugoslavia, and there are reasons specific to my experience in North Manchester with SW, United front work, and the Socialist Alliance before SW were members, that lead me to believe this is at the point of the war in Yugoslavia Socialist worker realised new real big opportunities opened up for united fronts. And I would argue, the federal structure of the SA inhibited these opportunities.
Now, I do understand completely the project SP had in mind, and the logic for the federal structure of SA. I can understand why looking backwards you would see as a STARTING POINT left unity, and a starting point of left unity rebuilding the trust. I think the problem SW had in comprehending the extent of this problem properly, and why they should have taken the time to convince the SP etc, is they never had a problem working the left. I am not saying they thought of the left were trustworthy. I am not saying they didn't feel at various times the left hadn't stabbed SW in the back. SW comrades would tell me stories about how other parties had literally beaten up SW comrades. And I have already said in this thread that SW members often found working with the left excruciatingly exasperating. BUT SW's attitude to this as an organisation was, shit happens, so what? to all these people who have been going on about sneaky tricks etc, in my head I have been thinking, get real, grow up, politics is a dirty game. You know at the end of the day the Labour Party is the historical tradition that took a rifle butt and smashed it through Rosa Luxemburg's head. At some point in the future I have no doubt some member of the reformist politics, so frightened at the prospect revolution would do exactly the same thing. But it is ultra left not to be prepared to work with the Labour Party. Do you get what I am saying to you? I’m saying Socialist workers preparedness to work with other organisations on the left is not down to trust, we don't trust them, it's down to pure pragmatism. Who fucking else are you going to work with? it's about a calculation of whether lefts aims, will compel them to work in a fashion that is compatible with the aims of the United front, alongside revolutionaries. Hence George Galloway.
Let's go beyond that. Socialist worker has always argued with me, Socialist worker wants a bigger Socialist party, Communist party, Labour left, anarchist movement. Now I bet a whole load of people would read that and think, fuck off you lying sectarian bastard. Equally, a lot of SW members think most of the left are lying sectarian bastards. BUT! Pragmatism! The bigger the left is, and the better it is organised, the more people there are to fight the Nazis, Tories. Etc.
I have always been a bit of an outsider in SW, and the left in general. I haven't always been politically correct, in the old Communist parties sense use of the term. I haven't always been, on message, I suppose is the fashionable term. But it has always been SW pragmatism, which has kept me loosely tethered to the Socialist workers party.
those last 3 paragraphs for me are another bridgehead point. I think you will want to argue with that. So before I go on to why I think the Socialist party's strategy was wrong, and why and I think the federal structure was wrong for the working class, even though my experience of the working class attitude to a new socialist party concurs with you own, I'm going to wait. I;m going to wait and see if you accept the logical argument about pragmatism, dirty tricks etc.
footnote
[1] Talking to you has given me some clarity as well, 5am this morning unfortunately. I have come to A conclusion of where I think SW went wrong. But again I don't want to jump the gun. If you have the patience, we will discuss that when we get to it.
dennisr
the acceptable face
As i have said before in reply to both points above
a) it is not about winning other left groups - but about winning wider sections of the working clas as a whole. We saw the SAs, potentially the anti-war movement and potentially respect as all movements that could have assisted the movement in the direction of an independent workers organisation
b) I am still far from convinced that - regardless of the rhetoric from the pages of SW - ie that they were attempting in any way to develop (even within the limitations of the present far from pre-rev situation) any form of ‘united front’ - the example of both the anti-war movement and respect is ‘popular frontism’ (to use the leftie lingo)
To be frank left unity is not the problem - we have to build among new ‘layers’. the left is a husk. having said that - any opportunity to get to wider layers of folk is a small start. Irts one of the problems of perspective some other orgs and groups in the old SAs had - rather than ‘regroupment’ we need to ‘rebuild’
The problem with that arguement is it remains and excuse. OK, boss politics is ‘dirty’. That does not give us the excuse to behave the same way. There is a world of difference between fighing tough battles in a tough manner and using dirty tactics. All this is done in front of those people - genuine people we wish to attract. How would such dirty tactics look to them? We need honesty - openness - frank discussion and a willingness to accept we have to go through the exaspiration of working with folk who have a very different outlook on occasion - not silence their views bureaucraticaly. Maybe that is the reason behind the reaction to the SWP by many others on the left?
I think if your personal viewpoint was really the outtlook of the entire SWP it would be a dangerous admission. It was no ‘united front’ - far from it. Others were not allowed to ‘march seperately so we could all srtike effectively together’ - there was no democratic discussion and agreement over programme or structure in respect. It shows a certain arrogance - the SW cannot represent the ‘left’ let alone the working class as a whole (and therefore impose its views - not if it wishes to build genuine ‘united fronts’ - it is simply one set of ideas among many.
So does everyone - the question we are dealing with here is HOW do we build a left, what methods, what tactics, what strategies. That is why other react the way they do - decause they too want to rebuild the opposition to the system - only to find themselves used and then dropped when convenient
I think we have to clarify what a ‘united front’ tactic actually means first - I think my earlier comment on the nature of the anti-war movement show what it is not and provide an opportunity for discussion
I would of course be interested in where you consider the SPs strategy is wrong - I have outlined where I feel the SWPs perspectives, tactics and strategy are wrong.
TremulousTetra
prismatic universe
Hmmm. Perhaps I hadn't understood as well as I thought I had the logic of SP on federalism, and the SA. How does federalism attract atomised members of the working class, rather than keeping on board minority organisations of the working class? and if regroupment is not necessary, why not do what you're aiming to do as the Socialist party? what is the purpose of the regroupment in the Socialist Alliance? are you really talking about the IWCA modle, which I respect? [ just give me a link to something read on all this topic, if you want.]
Yup, I thought my sloppy post would invoke this kind of response, and left it in because it is a topic necessary of discussion.
You are of course absolutely correct. This is not a moral argument, it is a logical argument. YOU NEVER LIE TO THE CLASS! Not because it is wrong morally, but because it is fucking stupid. You get caught, and then what you look like? Why should they trust you? It just make you look as bad as the politicians. Equally so, you are right about using bureaucratic methods to closing debate down. I was recently talking to a leading member of SW, who did make that criticism of another leading member, over something that happened in respect. So I am not going to pretend SW members don't do things that are wrong. The only point I am making is that, there is no philosophy of "politics is dirty so that give you excuse to behave the same way”. Individuals do it, but they are fucking wrong.
I really don't understand this response. Perhaps it because as I have admitted, I wasn't completely clear in the post you responded to.
You see, when I was talking about shit happening, I wasn't talking about the shit SW perpetrated, I was talking about the attitude of SW to shit perpetrated by others, particularly the Labour Party, on SW. Hence my comment about Rosa Luxemburg. You of all people, militant supporter, should know that given any opportunity the Labour Party will shit on the likes of me and you from a great height. And yet, if we are going to do some work around stop the war, anti-Nazi work, the first people we would think of getting involved, the Labour Party. Personally, I was involved in a direct action group, as an individual but I never hid my politics. There were some anarchists involved, who weren't perhaps caderised about SW. When a more caderised @ist from outside the group found out I was SW, without even knowing me, he did such a job some members point-blank refused to work with me. Fortunately, I had managed to work with the group on several actions, and the majority managed to convince the individuals that I was sound. Shit happens, I still work with @ists.
So I am sure you will not want to pretend SW are the only ones that do things wrong. Especially the Labour Party, but others of well, do things wrong. You're still prepared to work with the Labour Party aren't you, so why not SW. The same with trade union leaders, prepared to crap on the left from a great height, it happens so often you expect them to do it, but we are still prepared to work with them aren't? so why not SW? SW's attitude is, shit happens, fighting the Nazis, or stopping the war, is more important. So i don't see how the admission "we are quite aware of the possibility of the left manoeuvering or being sectarian, but sw is pragmatic about this and it is prepared to work with them" is such a damaging admission.
Where I think the federalism of the SP was wrong. As I've said, my understanding of your strategy may not be as good as I thought. So I will just explain why I think federalism was wrong.
Perspective of SW, and myself, was that the SA should try to become a real electoral alternative. Involving other groups, such as the Green party, anticapitalist groupings, and fragments from the Labour Party (George Galloway broke, so why not others if a momentum was seen to be gathering) was seen as a real prospect. In Manchester our experience over the war in Yugoslavia with the rest of the left was a good experience. We thought we could move past the old sectarianism. We didn't see any reason why we could not involve other groups. If this were to happen, it was argued, the federalist structure which could stop the majority from acting with speed at times in history when necessary, such as the stop the War movement, would put groups like the Green party off. I mean why get involved in an organisation that would just end up talking shop, because whenever you wanted to do something a party with 12 men and a dog could just hold everything up?
Now you may disagree about stop the war being a genuine united front. But that doesn't undermine the point SW was making, does it? If stop the War had been a genuine united front, a tiny minority could have stopped the majority from acting upon this, couldn't they ? if I remember rightly at the time of the stop the War movement there were groups inside the SA who argued against throwing all our weight in to the stop the War movement, weren't there?
scifisam
deleted
How the fuck did he ever serve the community in Bethnal Green and Bow? He barely even voted, even when it was something important to his constituents, such as Crossrail!
He alienated a lot of non-Muslim voters by various tactics such as standing outside a C of E school canvassing opinions, then only talking to the three mothers in headscarves who didn't manage to run away from his cameras fast enough (this was my daughter's school, and it was one of the few times that the parents, of all races, actually stood and chatted; everybody hated the partisanism, including the Muslim parents).
He's damaged Respect far more than anyone else or any idea possibly could have.
TremulousTetra
prismatic universe
You have obviously got a closer perspective than me, so I trust what you're saying is true. I was in the same fashion trusting what he said . "I was one of the resident directors of the Poplar Housing and Regeneration Community Association, making some changes on the estates: that was how I came into politics." If you are saying this is untrue, that's interesting. And if you are saying, he did represent the community, but he did so in a sectarian fashion, represented the Muslim community, that is also interesting.
If he represented the Muslim community in a sectarian fashion, that is wrong, period. Socialist worker should have done everything they could to stop this kind of sectarian representation, period. it would do nothing but undermine an electoral alternative to Labour.
All I would say is, just because the messenger is a shithouse, it doesn't necessarily mean the message is shit. The question remains for me in my mind, were careerists jumping in, using abusinessman finance to buy "pocket vote's", for career opportunities? this was the charge made by many people outside respect. Socialist worker now seem to be saying, there were problems they tried to do things about behind-the-scenes instead of destroying the alliance, and George Galloway saw Socialist worker trying to do things about these things as an electoral liability. (the criticism of socialist worker for trying to get people to go on the Gay pride demonstration, and the Socialist worker manoeuvres to try and oppose the all Bengali candidate list in Birmingham etc.) If opposing sectarianism, and the business element is seen as an electoral liability, then this does indeed represent a shift to the right of the respect perspective, doesn't it? well at least the one held by socialist work and many other socialists etc.
PS. I know you will want to jump in here fisher. That argument from Socialist worker is not, everybody in respect renewal is from the right wing, and everybody in respect he is from the left wing. The argument from Socialist worker is, respect renewal over all, represents a shift to the right of the political perspective. I don't think this is true in north Manchester. Whether it will be true in places like Tower Hamlets and Birmingham, we will see. now I have actually got over the emotional response, i do hope sw will turn out to be wrong, we will see.
TremulousTetra
prismatic universe
Dennis, you might want to take up the post above, and ask how does that square with the philosophy "never lie to the class".
dennisr
the acceptable face
Hi, the SP/CWI, I think (just my opinion through - partly reading between the lines) viewpoint is that where there is an opportunity for re-groupment we think its a good thing but we don't think that is the key or central task. Some hard left organisations put regroupment forward as the main task to be carried out but we are a bit more flexible - seeing the opportunity as depending on the forces involved. In Brazil for example the left split from the PT involves thousands, including key trade unionists. In germany - again there has been movements involving key left ex-SPD leaders. In Belgium key trade unionists. In the UK - nowt spectacular (the SSP being the biggest opportunity to have occured - but still very much a regroupment of small sections of the left rather than a splitting of the LP in two). In all instances though the CWI has pushed for a re-orientation to the wider class movements were possible - not simply for an electoral agreement (the SAs was a bit of an exception really - too small to play much of a role in this at the stage it at reached - it was more of an uneven regional thing and very much small left forces). By reading between the lines - I think the continual re-statement that new movements will come largely from 'new layers' - that the limited left groups are not the central forces of genuine of future mass 'regroupment' of an independant working class left speak for themselves.
Overall I think the view is that the 'set of ideas we carry as the SP' - rather than the SP as a specific organisation is the important thing - I hope that last sentence makes sense. What I am trying, clumsily, to say is something like "the small left organisations are hung up of the importance of their own specific wee groups as opposed to the seeds of ideas those wee groups may or may not carry" and that "those ideas (and therefore the political currents they represent) only really become important when taken up on a signifcent scale by wider movements of working people". Hence the empthasis on the need for a new worker's party - a genuine body where the ideas of various left groups can be tested in practice, taken up or dropped in the process.
This is not a moral argument, it is a logical argument.I am glad we agree on the basic point My initial comments earlier in the thread were basically saying that the SWs have, unfortunately, broken that rule to the detriment of the entire left on a number of occasions - we can agree to disagree on that given the theory about what is needed is more important than my pointing the finger at other groups to prove the theory
I think my point all along has been - it is not about working with groups that is the problem - it is about HOW one works with these groups - (again back to the approach of the united front). Ultimately it is about how various strands of working class opinion can be put before activists and tested in practice (rather than SP v LP or SW v Anarcho). And confidence in ideas/tactics/strategies means confidence in a democratic approach - not bureaucratic means to silence alternative ideas. For all of the Militant/SPs bad experience of the LP leadership - for a long time it gave us a chance to have those ideas evaluated and tested in a dialogue with other stands of opinion (therefore it is were most of our membership came from). It was only the LP bureaucracy that did not like that - at the time the LP was still the main body of working class opinion in the UK - it was where thousands of tu members and activists and young people went to to change the world - regardless of the illusion involved (because of the actual nature of the LP - something on which we both agree). And it was dialogue and re-evaluation of ones own politics on a huge scale (despite bureaucratic manouvres) - it meant Militants ideas could be placed at the head of the Liverpool struggle despite the fact that the Militants themselves were a small minority of the membership of liverpool labour party. The vicious and oft repeated innuendo (with no proof) that the Militants forced their view on those other LP members is an insult to those members as much as to the Militants. It is like the fantasy that Scargill 'forced' out tens of thousands of his own members against their will and kept them out for a year in the 84-85 miner's strike. That sort of lie is a desperate attempt to avoid answering the question - "well, if everything was honky dory - why did these tens of thousands of people stand against it and risk so much - livelihoods, families, security, state attacks, criminalisation etc etc etc?" We think the nature of the LP has changed - its membership to a shell of the old working class membership.
I think you may be mistaking my comments on the SAs as some sort of general 'answer without exception' - some sort of hoped for organisational or structural solution to resolve all the problems of working class organisation. It is not intended as such. The most perfect theoretical constitution in the world could not resolve such problems
All I was really saying was - given the nature of the SAs (the forces involved, the size of the org and the potential for 'dominance by one or two groups - the SP and SWP) - a federal structure provided a way of a) allowing all groups and individuals to be included and therefore b) the best way for the various ideas to be tested - democratically - before the entire membership
I think thats why I keep pointing to a discussion about the nature of the united front - A united front approach is about working class stands of opinion uniting on a common minimal programme in which they are in agreement. The greens are welcome to support this as is Mo Mowlem but no compromise of class programme is made for them - that is the (sticking to the marxist lingo...) 'popular front' mistake. See my points on the anti-war movement above. SW was in a position of leading that movement - but watered down a w/c programme in the basis of the arguement that it need to attract these non-w/c groups. The result was the ineffectiveness of this tactic. Part of that mistake is their evaluation of the LP and its 'left' MPs - the nature of the LP has changed. It is the main party of neo-liberalism - not a 'mistaken' w/c trend. They looked to a couple of individuals still hanging to the coat-tails of the LP - but they are just that - individuals.
As above - the SWs saw an appeal to the more 'progressive' Labour MPs, Greens etc as a way forward - as marxists we would argue only mass w/c movements would have been able to stop the war - not a rebellion among some of the ranks of the elite (no matter how decent or otherwise those individuals by or may not be). A united front tactic is about pushing for the development of that mass movement. A popular front tactic is about 'appealling' to our 'elders and betters' to save us. Yes, some decent MPs could have become useful figureheads of that movement (although should be controlled by that movement democratically) - but the hope of that should never have been the basis of our programme.
Similar threads
