where we [respect] stand today, it’s down to George Galloway and his leadership.

[TremulousTetra]

It has taken me several reads, and I have written several responses to this post, and haven't been happy with any of them. I do understand your argument, SW is guilty of creating Popular Fronts instead of United Fronts, I am just not sure how to respond.

To start with, I think it's wrong to see Socialist worker and analysis as "the SWs saw an appeal to the more 'progressive' Labour MPs, Greens etc as a way forward", "about 'appealling' to our 'elders and betters'". that goes against everything Socialist worker has ever said to me, the emancipation of the working class, has to be the act of the working class. MP's TU's etc are means to mobilising as many people possible people into activity. George Galloway can mobilise 165 people to a stop the War meeting in North Manchester the other week, Chris Harman couldn't. Despite how the Labour Party has changed, working class people, our potential audience, are still voting Labour. So the thing was the audience they deliver. I have read the article on stop the War you wanted me to read. I am puzzled. If the demands of the stop the War had been framed the way the Socialist party wanted them, what would have been the result?

Again a lot of of what you say about to wider movements etc sounds like what is said by Socialist worker, but I'm guessing there must be differences. What did you mean by "wider class movements"? an example of this I would have taken from Socialist worker's analysis was their argument that we had to try and include the anticapitalist movement, the greens. So, the difference between SW and S. P. analysis would be, what?

I'm guessing part of the difference might lie here. When you talk about the Labour Party changing its nature, shaking off its working-class membership, are you saying Revolutionarie should no longer work with the Labour Party? or are you saying Revolutionarie should no longer work with the Labour Party, unless that Labour Party is prepared to work with the revolutionaries on a programme the revolutionaries have decided? your criticism of SW is they are prepared to create a Revolutionarie block, but that Revolutionarie block should not compromise, it should not negotiate with reformist, greens, anticapitalist in forming a united front? there should be no negotiation between revolutionaries and members of the United front who are not revolutionaries? If so why should they join, and deliver an audience to revolutionaries? and what about putting the needs of the movement, before revolutionaries? Surely sometimes reformists can deliver victories for the working class?




-----------------

Now they few other questions.

You didn't really answer this question "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 ?"

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

so if the federal structure was not strategic to building the wider working class movement, and the participants in that federal structure voted to abandon it, what was the argument put in SP to justify walking out of the SA?

You talk about left-wing organisations being hung up on their own left-wing importance. Two examples of SW putting the movement before SW. It became apparent that many players were not prepared to be involved in the anti-Nazi league. So the Anti-Nazi league was given up to create maximum unity in United against Fascism. You accept there is no interest whatsoever from SW in "controlling a restaurant with one customer ", respect, and yet even now they are trying to keep Respect going because of the interest of some trade unionists etc, despite membership in SW plummeting, it is Socialist worker presents on the street is diminishing, etc, since its involvement in the SA and respect. Is that a fair point?

 

[TremulousTetra]

I think this is the way I am beginning to look at it. At the time of the Yugoslavian conflict, in Manchester we had an organiser called Sean. Manchester had gone through something of a crisis period. Sean tightly organised Manchester slowly but surely. Strengthening some of the central branches, until they could build their membership and organisation, and then slowly moving outwards branch by branch. At the time of the Yugoslavian conflict, and the excellent mobilisation for the Labour Party conference, Socialist worker after organising itself was looking out to, and working with other organisations including the S. A. the party and its influence grew in this period. We were working with people in genuine United fronts, with limited aims.

Then SW joined the Socialist Alliance. MISTAKE. There was the stop the War movement, along with other United fronts which meant a massive amount of more activity, to free up comrades to be involved in this greater amount of activity, the branches were closed down. MISTAKE. Then came respect. Just compounding all the other mistakes.

To my mind, as I said earlier, democratic centralism with a central committee democratically controlled by the periphery, gives such an organisation to move quickly and Unitedly at times when Haste is needed. This gives us an opportunity to punch above our weight in the formation of such movements such as stop the war. We can get as much as we can out of the reformist leadership to deliver action and an audience to achieving United from aims. However, the reformist leadership's commitment will always be limited, prevaricating, and wobbling. Revolutionaries get what they can, but then had to take up leadership towards revolutionary demands at the base, amongst rank-and-file. The arguments and self organisation have to be coming from the base to push the reformist even further, to strike action etc.

I know in Manchester we did everything we could to build strike action. To build direct action. To build everything we could that would have been better than relying on the reformist. But at the end of the day the historic forces were not strong enough for the working class to spontaneously organise itself to stop the war, and the revolutionary influence was not big enough to convince the working class to organise itself to stop the war. I think if SW had carried on the way it was doing at the time of the Yugoslavian war, we still wouldn't have been big enough to influence the days of a movement as massive as the stop the War movement, but we would certainly be a lot further down that road today.

Is a revolutionary alliance necessary? Is it arrogant to believe only your party is the right one?

I don't think a revolutionary alliance is right quite simply because, why have all your eggs in one basket? It is good in evolutionary terms you have a diversity of approaches to the same problem. It is simple evolution, those methods best suited to surviving and working in the environment will succeed, others will fail. If Socialist worker weren't best suited, then hopefully the Socialist party, the anarchists, who ever, would be. I don't think it is arrogant at all that I think Socialist workers politics were best suited to delivering social revolution. If I didn't think they were best suited, why would I be in that party. Surely you think the Socialist party's politics are best suited. I think all you had to add to that, is they acknowledgement that you could possibly be wrong.

 

[dennisr]

To start with, I think it's wrong to see Socialist worker and analysis as "the SWs saw an appeal to the more 'progressive' Labour MPs, Greens etc as a way forward", "about 'appealling' to our 'elders and betters'". that goes against everything Socialist worker has ever said to me, the emancipation of the working class, has to be the act of the working class. MP's TU's etc are means to mobilising as many people possible people into activity.

In a way it surprises me as well and yes it goes against everything I imagined SW stood for regardless of my differences with them. Maybe the nature of SW has changed. In someways I was being a bit facitous (at least I hope I undrstand what that word means... in the bit you quoted about 'elders and betters'. I was genuinely surprised at the approach (and therefore the end result in practice that the remark refers to). I don't honestly know the reasoning behind the SWs new approach - I can only assume either a) the nature of their own organisation has changed or (and this is my suspision...) b) that there is an element of the old trot remark about ultra-leftism and opportunism being two sides of the same coin. That sounds harsh to you - i am sure - I don't intend it to be and would welcome your views but it seems to me that one can only judge reality - as opposed to the rhetoric - by the actual role and actual results in the STWC. That honestly does not mean I think thee is a conspiracy afoot and the SW leadership are willing puppets of MI5. It means I think they found themselves in a position of power - at the head of STWC and responded - i don't know - maybe by a) over-worrying about the influence of other left groups and b) concerned to be seen as 'reasonable' in the face of what would have been a likely media campaign against them - whatever the reasoning they reacted by pulling back from pushing a class response.

George Galloway can mobilise 165 people to a stop the War meeting in North Manchester the other week, Chris Harman couldn't. Despite how the Labour Party has changed, working class people, our potential audience, are still voting Labour. So the thing was the audience they deliver. I have read the article on stop the War you wanted me to read. I am puzzled. If the demands of the stop the War had been framed the way the Socialist party wanted them, what would have been the result?

Of course - these figureheads are useful - remember we, as Militant, had 3 MPs at one time and we had aTD in the Irish parliament. But in the STWC it was the issue that drew the crowds - they wanted an answer as to how to stop the war. Of course those potential figure heads should be encouraged to be involved - but on our terms not theirs ('our' as in the people I mean - not 'our' as in the lefties).

The Poll Tax campaign faced a similar movement of left(ish) MPs and scot nat MPs - but they wanted a campaign of worthies (token 'important' people) as opposed to a mass campaign of millions to break the law. It was the fear of the millions that made Thatcher resign. The majority of the Poll Tax campaigners would not have noticed the nuances in the difference between the Militants 'better to break the law than to break the poor' slogan and that of the worthies (who - with a few honourable exceptions - pulled away when the threat of mass non-payment was put forward) at the beginning of the campiagn. But regardless of a lack of figureheads - ordinary people sure felt their own power by the end of the campaign - when the 'all-powerful' Tory government and Thatcher pooped themselves at the prospect of millions. Basically - class slogans and a class based campaign are about raising the question of who has power - us or them - the same as a strike. Yes, we should march in our millions but lets back that up with the threat of wider mass action - not wait while that mood disipates until many folk - even those opposed to the war - think they are completely powerless. The weight of the STWC could have a made a difference - it did in Spain during the first Iraq War (when a CWI led students strike led to trae union strikes and the withdrawl of spanish troops) . I have to say the SWs were found wanting - they seemed scared - weird given the heroic role played by members in the likes of ANL mark 1.

Again a lot of of what you say about to wider movements etc sounds like what is said by Socialist worker, but I'm guessing there must be differences. What did you mean by "wider class movements"? an example of this I would have taken from Socialist worker's analysis was their argument that we had to try and include the anticapitalist movement, the greens. So, the difference between SW and S. P. analysis would be, what?

Of course - we sound verbally similar - the proof of the pudding is when our respective organisations are tested - the STWC was a big test for SW. I think we would both (orgs not us two individuals) talk of aiming at working class and youth organisation.

I'm guessing part of the difference might lie here. When you talk about the Labour Party changing its nature, shaking off its working-class membership, are you saying Revolutionarie should no longer work with the Labour Party? or are you saying Revolutionarie should no longer work with the Labour Party, unless that Labour Party is prepared to work with the revolutionaries on a programme the revolutionaries have decided? your criticism of SW is they are prepared to create a Revolutionarie block, but that Revolutionarie block should not compromise, it should not negotiate with reformist, greens, anticapitalist in forming a united front? there should be no negotiation between revolutionaries and members of the United front who are not revolutionaries? If so why should they join, and deliver an audience to revolutionaries? and what about putting the needs of the movement, before revolutionaries? Surely sometimes reformists can deliver victories for the working class?

I still think there are older lefts in the LP in their ones and twos. We do work with both those who split from the LP (left leaning councilors who joined the SAs for example and TU members and other campaigners who are still in the LP. No problem. We would work with left leaning MPs who stood clearly against the war.

For example, I am not saying the STWC "must call for a revolution - anything less is a sellout" - that would be a farce. The STWC was simply calling for a small reform - it was essentially demanding something which was only a concession from capitalism - in was not asking to end all war and stop the profit system . BUT how do we achieve and force that reform - just like workers force a 'reform' from bosses - by strikes - by mass action. Surely that is ABC for any socialist - revolutionary or reformist? Of course, those decent MPs that had the guts to support this reform and stood by us would be welcome - if they exist and without us pandering to them.

continues below...

 

[dennisr]

Now they few other questions. You didn't really answer this question "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 ?"

Theres a lot to answer...

But yes, fully understandable questions. I think our Q above underlines what went through the SW leaderships mind and may explain the reaction

My answer is - we may have pissed off a few figurehads - so what? So did the poll tax movement - we were told that calling for 'breaking the law' would isolate us. Instead millions signed up. Millions - the majority of this country opposed the war - millions marched against it.

As I said above - I am not demanding 'revolution now' - all I am doing is putting REFORMIST (in isolation) demands that pose the question 'where too from here?', 'how do we defeat this governments war aims?' in he minds of those millions - let them take up those demands and make them a powerful force - have faith in those people and the power of our ideas. The working people are the majority - again basic ABC or any socialist isn't it?

so if the federal structure was not strategic to building the wider working class movement, and the participants in that federal structure voted to abandon it, what was the argument put in SP to justify walking out of the SA?

The federal structure was key to building the SAs - We wanted to build the SAs so saw the retreat on this as a retreat for the opportunity for the SAs to grow. The retreat fro ma federal programme as a retreat into 'little left groups standing around shouting at each other and trying to outvote each other' - so what was the point of remaining in it? The subsequent closure of the SAs by the SWP was just the end debarcle - they had a different view of the SAs it seems - they did not see it as a step towards working class self-organisation.

You talk about left-wing organisations being hung up on their own left-wing importance. Two examples of SW putting the movement before SW. It became apparent that many players were not prepared to be involved in the anti-Nazi league. So the Anti-Nazi league was given up to create maximum unity in United against Fascism. You accept there is no interest whatsoever from SW in "controlling a restaurant with one customer ", respect, and yet even now they are trying to keep Respect going because of the interest of some trade unionists etc, despite membership in SW plummeting, it is Socialist worker presents on the street is diminishing, etc, since its involvement in the SA and respect. Is that a fair point?

Yes, but hey have made their bed now and have to lie in it. I think they has created something thy now have great difficulty to get out of without looking ery bad and hypocritical (the SA they just closed down without a wimper - and they will eventually close Respect down)

I would add UAF is another example of a pop front approach - when I think socialists should be pushing for a class programme - on the real things people really care about - housing, jobs, health, education - that cuts across fascist ideas not desperatly trying to gather as many people together regardless of the fact that some may well be liberal and labour councillors implimenting the very cuts that can result in division between people if no clas alternative is on offer

 

[dennisr]

Then SW joined the Socialist Alliance. MISTAKE. There was the stop the War movement, along with other United fronts which meant a massive amount of more activity, to free up comrades to be involved in this greater amount of activity, the branches were closed down. MISTAKE. Then came respect. Just compounding all the other mistakes.

I still ain't convinced this was' united front' work - whatever the schpiel you folk on the ground were told. The mistakes, imo, were not in the activity but in the methods used. That activity has to be done - regardless - wherever left leaning folk gather and all that. Closing the branches down though - madness!!! - I am genuinely surprised that they would do this. Any organisation has to maintain its own structures - for discussion as to agreed tactics within the wider organisations as much as anything. Its al very well having a leadership to led when practical needs must - but they must be answerable. Also - from the point of view of 'leading' the 'troops' on the ground can then see have the confidence to do what they have democratically agreed is needed - otherwise the organisation simply looses its 'army'.

To my mind, as I said earlier, democratic centralism with a central committee democratically controlled by the periphery, gives such an organisation to move quickly and Unitedly at times when Haste is needed. This gives us an opportunity to punch above our weight in the formation of such movements such as stop the war. We can get as much as we can out of the reformist leadership to deliver action and an audience to achieving United from aims. However, the reformist leadership's commitment will always be limited, prevaricating, and wobbling. Revolutionaries get what they can, but then had to take up leadership towards revolutionary demands at the base, amongst rank-and-file. The arguments and self organisation have to be coming from the base to push the reformist even further, to strike action etc.

we basically agree on organisational necessities for revolutionaries and how they work within wider reformist groups if all there was too it is what you say above - but I am afraid I come back to - what was the SWs leadership doing? where was the understanding among the membership of what united front work entailed? and where was the united front work?

I know in Manchester we did everything we could to build strike action. To build direct action. To build everything we could that would have been better than relying on the reformist. But at the end of the day the historic forces were not strong enough for the working class to spontaneously organise itself to stop the war, and the revolutionary influence was not big enough to convince the working class to organise itself to stop the war. I think if SW had carried on the way it was doing at the time of the Yugoslavian war, we still wouldn't have been big enough to influence the days of a movement as massive as the stop the War movement, but we would certainly be a lot further down that road today.

You may well have and individuals in the SWP may well have. But there was no build up to this - no systematic pushing for wider action so what action existed was the work of overwhelmed smaller groups (including my own). Yes, you may well be right that the mood was not there - but the waters should have been tested, the necessary thinks pushed for. If SW had pushed a class programme of esculating action during the Yugo war the building further of this action during the gulf war would have been easier.

Even without that confidence of a minority - probably youth - who could have pulled more with them as events unfolded (we shall never know now...) - where were the demands linking war to cuts etc? linking the issues to an attack on the system - on the defence of profits the war represented? after all who do revolutionaries wish to appeal to - workers or guardian readers? More importantly - even if in a minority what issues do revolutionaries wish to get across as a lesson for other folk - the class questions - 'no blood for oil' crude but it made a simple point - this is a war for oil profits, for halliburton, for the oil companies, not the democratic rights of the iraqi people

This is no different to the poll tax - the mood at the beginning was not confident. It was afer a decae plus of vicious tory rule - of working class defeats. No way would anyone have stuck their neck out and said 'yep, millions are going to risk the law and risk jail' (the SWP leadership remained unconfident event as the movement started by the way - telling their members in Scotland to pay the tax because the movement was not strong enough in their opinion - funny how these past ultra-revolutionaries behave when tested isn't it? - sorry I had to add that one!!)

Is a revolutionary alliance necessary? Is it arrogant to believe only your party is the right one?

Yes it is arrogant. We - as individuals form alliances everyday. As revolutionaries we would get nowhere regardless of the supposed purity of our ideas if we cold not convince more working people of the validity of those ideas - That means meeting them where thy are at - meeting them halfway. Yes, I stand by what has been called 'democratic centralism' as an organisational necessity when fighting a massively well-organised enemy (the ruling class, the state etc). I think the belief that my organisation alone has all the ideas and is the 'distilled conciouness of the working class' is just rhetoric though. I reckon my organisation has probably the best combination of ideas - I want that to be tested - by the working class. I cannot convince more that the ones and twos of my ideas - but events and experiences will leave them to draw their own conclusions. Afterwards the question 'were they good? - did they lead from the front? - do they deserve our respect regardless of their weird leftie politics?'.

I think early marxism is to an extent still coming from the 'scientific socialism' and 'positivism' of the time of marx and lenin and trotsky. That does not make the substance of what is said any less valid and I don't believe in any liberal post-modern bunkem about all ideas being equally valid - but I would be more circumspect about shouting 'i have all the answers' (especially in the wake of the experience of stalinism)

I don't think a revolutionary alliance is right quite simply because, why have all your eggs in one basket? It is good in evolutionary terms you have a diversity of approaches to the same problem. It is simple evolution, those methods best suited to surviving and working in the environment will succeed, others will fail. If Socialist worker weren't best suited, then hopefully the Socialist party, the anarchists, who ever, would be. I don't think it is arrogant at all that I think Socialist workers politics were best suited to delivering social revolution. If I didn't think they were best suited, why would I be in that party. Surely you think the Socialist party's politics are best suited. I think all you had to add to that, is they acknowledgement that you could possibly be wrong.

In reply to the last point - to an extent yes - I think we could term it differently - we want those ideas tested by practice - let us either prove them right or you prove them wrong. At the moment they are just ideas . The rest of that paragragh seems a bit confused -or maybe I don't understand the points properly? - Not sure what you are saying or asking here

 

[TremulousTetra]

Originally Posted by ResistanceMP3 View Post
Now they few other questions. You didn't really answer this question "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 ?"

sorry, sorry. I just realised why you are not answering this question, I haven't framed it properly.

This goes back to my original question about a majority in the SA being hamstrung by a minority. I should have framed it like this, "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 IN THE SA could have stopped the majority IN THE SA from acting upon this, couldn't they ?"

You see my point is the image of the left to the trade unions, the Labour party, George Galloway the Greens, probably less so to the anticapitalist, but probably most of the working class, and Socialist worker is that in the life of Brian. You know where Judith comes in and tells the revolutionaries that Brian is on the cross and being crucified. " RIGHT!" They say, "this calls for immediate action"! And they immediately set about drafting a resolution.

You accepted earlier that SW changing the constitution was not about controlling the SA, based on the perspective of a mass party. Why was this change necessary? To make sure that the SA wasn't just a talking shop, it was something based on activity hand building a wider working class organisation. We didn't want a party with 12 man and a dog, continually raising resolutions etc, and stopping the majority from building a wider working class movement. An alliance like this, fulfilling the life of Brian talking shop caricature, would have stopped The majority of organised working class wanting to join it.

George Galloway and the Labour movment were historically wary of the Toytown revolutionary talking shops. What brought him away from this long-held position was working with SW in the anti-war movement. He said he was pleasantly shocked because SW were "Toytown revolutionaries" who, shock horror, got something done. Rather than just continually talking about getting things done.

I believe the SP stubbornness with regard to the constitution of the SA showed they were more hung up on the importance of their organisation than the needs of the working class. Because the thing is, this was a democratic decision, to abolish the old constitution of the SA, taken under the constitution which you the SP supported. When that decision was made, you should have stayed in the SA, and respected the decision process you framed and still supported. When that decision process you lauded came up with the decision you didn't like, you walked. The SP should have stayed in the SA and made an attempted to properly understand the argument SW was making. But it shows something else, something more important to me, the sectarianism of the left.

Earlier I was talking about the pragmatism of SW. Expecting people to stab you in the back, but still being prepared to work with them. I think the SP got out of the SA because they didn't trust SW, they thought they were a bunch of bastards, and this blinded them to properly understanding the motivations of SW. The motivation to leave was not principal, it was fear, the fear of being betrayed by SW, and at the desire to be able to say, they we told you so. The SP put their own interests and desires, before the interests of the working class.

SW had the same problem with George Galloway. The same problem with the Labour Party members who left. The same problem the Greens to some extent, whether or not they can truly be considered left. It is this incessant sectarianism which paralyses the left, and continually forces the left to fulfil the life of Brian caricature imo. And people need to get over this attitude, they need to be pragmatic, grown up, not constantly fulfil the life of Brian caricature.

the intention of the SA/respect for SW was to build wider working class organisation. each branch in each area organising workers to fight over issues in their area.

 

[dennisr]

"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 IN THE SA could have stopped the majority IN THE SA from acting upon this, couldn't they ?"

Its a side issue really but...

I imagine the advantage of a federal structure is that majority decisions are still taken - but the minority gets a say and has the right to put forward it own position seperatly while abiding by majority decision in joint (SA) work. Like if the Militant was able to argue its own position in its own paper and have its own organisation while still part of the old LP but abiding by the LPs majority decision when doing - say - electoral work a part of the LP (in practice the Militant was banned from organising - a bureaucratic means to silence its views).

Ultimately though if the majority of people in the SAs had been opposed to work against the war (unlikely - we do all have some things in common! - this is after all the point of why we would be ina united front with such other people...) - you could always leave if you could not find common ground on such a basic thing. After all - what is the point of being in a united front if it was not united...

I really think you should come back on the substantive points about your organisation though - on united front approach v cross class popular front alliances - its a pretty basic error for a group calling itself revolutionary and a pretty serious condemnation in terms of the unfortunate results of such a position. It really is quite major not just the SP shouting "splitters" in a Judean Popular Front manner

 

[dennisr]

I believe the SP stubbornness with regard to the constitution of the SA showed they were more hung up on the importance of their organisation than the needs of the working class.

I would say the opposite - the wider organisation and the ability for that wider organisation to grow (potentially) depended on an open democratic structure - a federal programme. The SP put the building of that wider organisation before its own interests.

The SWP on the other hand closed that wider organisation down (after changing the constitution from a federal one... - as we warned others you would be able to) without any discussion by dint of its majority vote. It put it own organisation before the wider interests of the wider working class.

Even in your approach to my points you see it as 'them' and 'us'. (SWP v SP) You really don't get it mate do you?? - It is not about our respective organisations its about furthering the chance of wider layers of working people working out things for themselves though their own experience - our organisations simply carry ideas and such ideas cannot be voted through and imposed.
You clearly haven't read a word of what I have wasted my time typing out above have you? its not rocket science.

 

[dennisr]

You accepted earlier that SW changing the constitution was not about controlling the SA, based on the perspective of a mass party. Why was this change necessary? To make sure that the SA wasn't just a talking shop, it was something based on activity hand building a wider working class organisation. We didn't want a party with 12 man and a dog, continually raising resolutions etc, and stopping the majority from building a wider working class movement. An alliance like this, fulfilling the life of Brian talking shop caricature, would have stopped The majority of organised working class wanting to join it.

it was a talking shop closed down by the SWP. Sorry , 'activity' does not mean that everybody does what the SWP tells them too 'or else'. Neither does the 'perspective of a mass party' mean everybody does what the SWP tells them to. Where is this mass party then??

You have ended up with precicely "12 men and a dog" after the Respect debarcle (you even lost many of your own members - not just those staying with Galloway but all the others who have quietly dropped out of activity since the orders changed from above - "turn left", "turn right" - they ae voting with their feet mate).

The idea of appealling to my desire for 'action' as an excuse for what the SWP has done with the Anti-War movement etc is risable in its re-writing of history.

The SWPs activity for the anti-war movement was - follow us on our march, follow us on our march, follow us on our march, follow us on our march ad infernitum - that is not activity, that is not leadership. Its a farce

 

[KeyboardJockey]

LOL. I'd like to see him try

So would I.

 

[dennisr]

Earlier I was talking about the pragmatism of SW. Expecting people to stab you in the back, but still being prepared to work with them. I think the SP got out of the SA because they didn't trust SW, they thought they were a bunch of bastards, and this blinded them to properly understanding the motivations of SW. The motivation to leave was not principal, it was fear, the fear of being betrayed by SW, and at the desire to be able to say, they we told you so. The SP put their own interests and desires, before the interests of the working class.

What the same SWP that changed the constitution and then stabbed everyone else in the back by closing down the SAs which they had worked for years to build? (lucky we did not waste further time trying to build it then, due to our 'lack of principles' apparently in the SWP ejets opinion - not due to eminently sensible foresight proven by the resulting experience...).

Sorry, end of patience - this is clearly not a discussion that is getting anywhere - I just hope some other people have seen the laughable crap you are coming out with.

What a waste of my time. You simply ignore the actual points i have wasted my time typing out above. This is not honest discussion and debate it is me having to explain every point to an idiot who then asks another stupid question, ignoring the replys entirelly and just gos on makes up another lie or idiocy that I then have to answer - what a idiot you are and what an idiot I have been for giving you the time of day. God help anyone who is daft enough to follow you as a 'revolutionary'.

bye, bye

 

[TremulousTetra]

Its a side issue really but...

I imagine the advantage of a federal structure is that majority decisions are still taken - but the minority gets a say and has the right to put forward it own position seperatly while abiding by majority decision in joint (SA) work. Like if the Militant was able to argue its own position in its own paper and have its own organisation while still part of the old LP but abiding by the LPs majority decision when doing - say - electoral work a part of the LP (in practice the Militant was banned from organising - a bureaucratic means to silence its views).

Ultimately though if the majority of people in the SAs had been opposed to work against the war (unlikely - we do all have some things in common! - this is after all the point of why we would be ina united front with such other people...) - you could always leave if you could not find common ground on such a basic thing. After all - what is the point of being in a united front if it was not united...

I don't think what you imagine was actually the case. Socialist workER argued in the SA and respect specifically those points. That organisations should be allowed to organise, sell their own paper, and argue its own position. You clearly don't understand the difference between the federal structure that SP supported, and the one SW argued. To be fair to you, neither do I. I thought you was going to illuminate the difference. But the issues you raise there have absolutely nothing to do with it, of that I am certain.

I really think you should come back on the substantive points about your organisation though - on united front approach v cross class popular front alliances - its a pretty basic error for a group calling itself revolutionary and a pretty serious condemnation in terms of the unfortunate results of such a position. It really is quite major not just the SP shouting "splitters" in a Judean Popular Front manner

I did write at the top of my last post a paragraph about how I wasn't being dishonest in not answering all your points, but that I was finding it difficult to frame a response to all your points with the time I have available at the moment. but I took it out, because I thought it was unnecessarily wordy, and we were passed the necessity of being over polite to maintain a civil dialogue.

yes it is a good point you have raised about the difference between the popular front and a united front. that's why I read your link on the topic. and I was going to have a look at some other points of view on the topic.

it is difficult at the moment,as several things have just sprung up, family crisis etc , but I will endeavour to get back to you.

I will read your other posts then.

 

[dennisr]

it is difficult at the moment,as several things have just sprung up, family crisis etc , but I will endeavour to get back to you.

i'm sorry to sound harsh if you are going through personal stuff. I wouldn't want to mean you anything bad re family crisis - I genuinely hope that it works out for you, whatever the stuff maybe

to be frank - your family and real life are more important than jaw jawing on a bulletin board and I honestly don't think we are getting very far - so take your time.

Its probably better to meet up in real life and chat over a beer, rather than continue via this limited medium so if you fancy that when life is a bit more sorted don't hesitate to pm

 

[TremulousTetra]

i'm sorry to sound harsh if you are going through personal stuff. I wouldn't want to mean you anything bad re family crisis - I genuinely hope that it works out for you, whatever the stuff maybe

to be frank - your family and real life are more important than jaw jawing on a bulletin board and I honestly don't think we are getting very far - so take your time.

Its probably better to meet up in real life and chat over a beer, rather than continue via this limited medium so if you fancy that when life is a bit more sorted don't hesitate to pm

the way you deal with work, distracting yourself, jaw jawing on here does help in distracting myself from a quite high level of physical and mental pain.

I met up with durito in London during Marxism. It was a really a weird experience, like going on a blind date with all the "how will I recognize you" etc problems. really weird. And strangely unsatisfying. You do tend to think that the problem is the medium, the Internet forum, but I believe it is more to do with this problem;>>>>>>>>>

Sorry, end of patience - this is clearly not a discussion that is getting anywhere -I just hope some other people have seen the laughable crap you are coming out with.

What a waste of my time. You simply ignore the actual points i have wasted my time typing out above. This is not honest discussion and debate it is me having to explain every point to an idiot who then asks another stupid question, ignoring the replys entirelly and just gos on makes up another lie or idiocy that I then have to answer - what a idiot you are and what an idiot I have been for giving you the time of day. God help anyone who is daft enough to follow you as a 'revolutionary'.

bye, bye

the fake mask has slipped. you know, you accuse the SW of being arrogant, but you are what you protest about. Just like all the people in the SA who pretended to be working fraternally, who pretended to be putting the interests of the working class first, but in actual fact they were just waiting, hoping, for SW to give them an excuse to engage in their favour activity, the life of Brian's style sectarianism. To engage in their pseudo-politics "SW just want control" conspiracy theories. (I guess you have switched back to this delusion now. )

You completely delude yourself that discussion between the left is of any consequence, "I just hope some other people have seen the laughable crap you are coming out with.", but you just confirm what SW has always said, it is completely and utterly useless DEBATING[1] with the sects. This isn't arrogance, just pure pragmatism. If I wasn't the " idiot" you describe, I would engage in a more useful activity like self-mutilation.

If there are any people reading this they would see I am quite prepared to have an open mind, learn from you (you have despite yourself clarified my criticisms of SW), criticise SW, and most of all acknowledge my fallibility. You on the other hand were quite happy when I was criticising SW, but as soon as soon as I dare criticise the SP, you spit your dummy out. You really are a SPbot. I bet you could not possibly think of one single criticism of the SP? (Bet you don't answer this point. )


PS. DURITO, PLEASE DON'T THINK THIS COMMENT ABOUT THE SECTS IS DIRECTED AT YOU. EVEN WHEN WE MET AT MARXISM I STILL FOUND YOU ONE OF THE HONEST, FRATERNAL, AND DECENT REVOLUTIONARIES I HAVE MET. AND UNLIKE dennisr YOU ARE ABLE TO ACCEPT A DIFFERENCE OF OPINION FRATERNALLY.

Footnote
[1.] Notice I say "utterly useless debating with the sect's", and I don't say it is useless working with the sect's. The sects seem so sectarian they are incapable of drawing this distinction, preferring to treat others on the left as the enemy, even before the real enemies of the fascists and the bourgeoisie. (Sadly reminiscent of the KPDs attitude to the SPD.)

edited to add. I'm sorry of my postings are little harsh. it comes out of frustration. I thought you were on of the few who could get over the left propensity to search for any opportunity to drag fraternal discussion down to an insult match, who could think outside the box, not just repeat the party line. you have shattered that illusion. I suppose I have been a bit naive again.

 

[TremulousTetra]

it was a talking shop closed down by the SWP. Sorry , 'activity' does not mean that everybody does what the SWP tells them too 'or else'. Neither does the 'perspective of a mass party' mean everybody does what the SWP tells them to. Where is this mass party then??

You have ended up with precicely "12 men and a dog" after the Respect debarcle (you even lost many of your own members - not just those staying with Galloway but all the others who have quietly dropped out of activity since the orders changed from above - "turn left", "turn right" - they ae voting with their feet mate).

The idea of appealling to my desire for 'action' as an excuse for what the SWP has done with the Anti-War movement etc is risable in its re-writing of history.

The SWPs activity for the anti-war movement was - follow us on our march, follow us on our march, follow us on our march, follow us on our march ad infernitum - that is not activity, that is not leadership. Its a farce

sorry, I can't understand that post. You seem to have grasped you was wrong in your conspiracy theory, but seem incapable of reading what SW has said/written on the other connected topics I have pointed you towards. And you seem unaware you have answered your own point.

What the same SWP that changed the constitution and then stabbed everyone else in the back by closing down the SAs which they had worked for years to build? (lucky we did not waste further time trying to build it then, due to our 'lack of principles' apparently in the SWP ejets opinion - not due to eminently sensible foresight proven by the resulting experience...).

with "it was a talking shop closed down by the SWP.". I know that SP has a problem with democracy. When the Democratic vote of the federal organisation goes against them, sectarianism leads them to walk. And when the democratic majority including non-SW decided to shoot the dead horse SA in the head, the SP see this as SW stabbing SP in the back. You really do not get it mate do you? This is not about S. P. versus SW. This is about an honest disagreement on perspectives as to how to achieve wider working class organisation. you lost the vote on two occasions, that's democracy.

I have agreed with you, that the SW's perspective of a mass party may have been flawed. I honestly think that SP model is flawed as well. Sorry this offends you.

 

[TremulousTetra]

i'm sorry to sound harsh if you are going through personal stuff. I wouldn't want to mean you anything bad re family crisis - I genuinely hope that it works out for you, whatever the stuff maybe

to be frank - your family and real life are more important than jaw jawing on a bulletin board and I honestly don't think we are getting very far - so take your time.

Its probably better to meet up in real life and chat over a beer, rather than continue via this limited medium so if you fancy that when life is a bit more sorted don't hesitate to pm

God! you are a bit like Jekyll and Hyde. now an attempt to To have an honest discussion again.

Rightly or wrongly, I believe your problem is you believe your party is right period. You don't seem to be able to grasp it is possible for two revolutionaries to have an irreconcilable difference, which is honestly held. If I continue to disagree with you when you present "irrefutable" proof, then I have to be dishonest, or stupid? Did you honestly believe with a couple of posts you could convince me to leave the sw party and join the SP? You were never going to recruit me to the SP with half a dozen posts and a few links, and I was never going to recruit you to SW. For me this is not what that conversation was about, it was about more honestly criticising SW. That's it. I have benefited from this conversation, because I have clarified my critique, FOR ME. as far as any other people reading this thread is concerned, I don't seriously believe that will be of any consequence.

Sorry my criticising of the SP offended you.

PS. Once a month I have a set of nonpolitical friends i meet up with a go for a pint. On the odd occasion I meet an old friend who is a Labour counciler. we josh each other about politics, and also have some serious conversations over a pint. On the streets around Manchester, I often meet revolutionaries from other organisations, workers Power, permanent revolution, and one of those groups that support Cuba, spring to mind. We often have conversations fraternally. Some of them recognize we have irreconcilable differences, but are quite happy to discuss things without trying to recruit each other. Others fixate on what divides us. My simple point is, I always stop to chat with people I consider comrades. At the end of the day there are strong and fundamental differences which divide the left, but there is more that unites us. Ignoring this is just plain silly imho.

 

[dennisr]

God! you are a bit like Jekyll and Hyde. now an attempt to To have an honest discussion again.

I assume you had genuine personal shite? I was wishing you the best for that

I am not particularly interested in trying to continue any discussion - nowt personal but that takes two and as you live in manc thats definatly not practical to continue

I'm not that interested in 'discussion' - I spent too long typing out reams of stuff that is either ignored or not understood. So have given up bothering. Nothing Jekyll and Hyde about that at all. I am not 'offended' by your view of the SP - I except such

 

[TremulousTetra]

Well, my sister-in-law's father died about eight weeks ago, and since then some 'irreconcilable differences' had grown between my wife and my sister-in-law. Getting them to stand back and look at each other's points of view, enabled me to get them to reconcile their ' irreconcilable differences'. Sound familiar?

I think the problem we are having is that you are jumping to conclusions, and then flying off the handle, to mix metaphors. Look at this;

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.

It is not the first time you have accused me in this thread of being dishonest, avoiding the main question, and being a wanker. And then all of the sudden you understood what I was getting at, and understood how I wasn't being dishonest, avoiding the questions etc. With a bit of patience you called understand what I am saying to you once again. You may understand how your picture of SW being arrogant is just as misconceived as the "conspiracy theory" of SW just wanting to control the SA. You may then be able to understand how this misconception imo influences your perspective on SW and the United front/popular front.but I think you had to accept two things,I cannot just answer every question you have immediately, sometimes I have to deal with life as well. and, sometimes it simpler to break down all your questions into smaller parts, rather than trying to deal with many questions in one post.

at the end of the day, it is your choice.

PS. I am not having a go at you here, suggesting you are thick or something, in fact quite the opposite. when you develop a political understanding, it is difficult not to look at points without that political perspective, those political goggles, influencing the perception. this holds true as much for me as for you. also, the point about the "conspiracy theory" seems so obvious to me, it can from be difficult to find the right words to express the same point in a different way so the reader/listener may understand it. I think that is a bit of what you are experiencing too.