Florence: A triumph for the movement

by Hazel Thu Nov 14, 2002 13:37

OPPOSITION TO war on Iraq dominated many of the debates and discussions in Florence. Thousands of people crammed into meetings and forums determined to build a united, strong, mass anti-war movement. An overwhelming majority agreed with a call to turn 15 February into a united Europe-wide day of protest.

The aim will be to bring every European capital to a halt through mass demonstrations and protests against the war. Susan George, one of the best known figures in the anti-globalisation movement, spoke about how we now face a "new moment in the world, where the world's largest and most powerful nation, a megapower, has changed its grand strategy".

She spoke about how the Bush administration has a strategy which "is far more offensive. It is about establishing its empire, setting up new military bases around the world."

"After Iraq", Susan George argued, "the US wants a presence in many places around the world. It wants to create a world empire based on economic domination."

Throughout the debates in Florence ran a huge determination to turn the anti-capitalist movement into a movement which also opposes war and imperialism. Michael Albert from the US summed up that feeling, saying, "The US war on Iraq is about them inflicting the military wing of globalisation. If you are against war in Iraq then you are against corporate globalisation. If you are against corporate globalisation then you are against capitalism."

Most people at the European Social Forum had been inspired by the one and a half million people in Italy who have protested against the war, and by the 400,000-strong demonstration in London on 28 September.

One mark of that was that many people cheered Lindsey German, convenor of the Stop the War Coalition in Britain, before she spoke to a 2,000-strong meeting. Lindsey paid tribute to the recent 200,000-strong demonstrations against war in the US. But she also warned, "We have a harder job in the future. No one should be in any doubt that success for George Bush in the US mid-term elections means that the US will go to war."

Lindsey argued that the anti-war movement in Britain was so strong because it had taken "a clear stand on the question of imperialism. We understood that this was a war for oil and for US power. We refused to take the view that the Taliban or Saddam Hussein are equal enemies with US and British imperialism. We saw that it is the US which has the monopoly on weapons of mass destruction. And we saw that our main enemy is our enemy at home."

The discussions around the war involved activists from many countries. Vietnam veteran Dave Baylock spoke about how US troops had joined the anti-war movement in the late 1960s, and how that had been part of dealing a blow to US imperialism.

Lidia Menapace, a veteran peace campaigner from Italy, was cheered when she argued for a militant campaign to kick out US military bases. Maria Styllou from Greece agreed, arguing, "We have important military bases in Greece, Turkey and Cyprus, and we are coordinating anti-war resistance. Our slogan is 'Close the bases. Open the borders'."

She also argued, "After Florence the anti-war movement needs to build connections with the workers' movement. In Greece the government is attacking workers, refusing to increase pensions or salaries because of financing the war. We are calling for no money for bombs. Give us the money so we can have a decent life. We need to go into our factories, schools and colleges and make these connections, use the power we have where we can organise, and be strong to build a movement with the power to stop the war and win our world back."

There were debates about how to build the biggest and most effective anti-war movement.

'No war at any price' Asad Rehman argued that the Stop the War Coalition in Britain had become so big because it had been inclusive. He criticised the movement in France for failing to make links with North African and Muslim groups. "There is a danger of Islamophobia from the left as well as from the right," he said.

There was also some debate about the role of the United Nations (UN). Ariel Denis from the French coalition of associations against war in Iraq said that the choice facing us is "more power to the US or more power to the UN".

Hans Abrahamsson from the Swedish section of the ATTAC group which campaigns against financial speculation argued that we need to work inside "new arenas". He said we cannot ignore institutions like the UN-rather, we need "confrontational dialogue" inside them.

But others were applauded when they warned that we could not rely on the UN or European leaders to oppose Bush. Tobias Pfluger from the anti-war movement in Germany said we could not rely on leaders like German chancellor Gerhard Schröder. Schröder was forced to oppose the war in the election in Germany. It was the only way he could win. But in reality he is not opposed to war and will not oppose Bush."

Manuela from Spain said, "Our slogan should be 'No war at any price, with or without the UN.' "If war is wrong then it is always wrong. We should build a mass movement to oppose this war and all wars."

Piero Maestri from the Italian anti-war movement agreed: "We are against war-no ifs and no buts. It is a wrong war and we have to fight it on all fronts." And he stressed, "We have a fantastic opportunity now to all move together and to create a Europe-wide movement against the war. "We have to unite on 15 February."

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

A MEETING on globalisation and the alternatives brought together Barry Coates from the World Development Movement and several other speakers. Barry Coates denounced the "gross failure of neo-liberal policies that destroyed lives across the globe. The fall in living standards in Africa during the last 20 years has been greater than that suffered by Europeans in the 1930s."

He described how the World Trade Organisation would discuss the General Agreement on Trade in Services in September at Cancun, Mexico. GATS would instruct that public services like health and education have to be opened up to private bidders.

He called for everyone to campaign against GATS and quoted Alice Walker's line that 'activism is my rent for living on this planet'."

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

OVER 3,000 people packed out a meeting on Latin America's global crisis and social resistance. There were cheers at the start of the meeting when the coordinator saluted Lula's victory in the Brazilian elections. Miguel Urbano Rodriguez said, "The victory has been welcomed with enthusiasm. But it would be naive to say that there will be no problems with him. If the IMF commitments are honoured, it will be impossible to meet people's expectations for education, for health."

Hugo Albeto Pena from Colombia argued, "There is US intervention wherever crude oil is to be found. The US's Plan Colombia will intensify armed conflict in a system of chaotic destruction. The banks and the companies-BP, Esso, Chevron and others-get rich while the people of Colombia are being sacrificed." The highlight of the meeting was when Estela Carlotto from Argentina spoke. She spoke movingly about how her daughter was one of the 30,000 people who had "disappeared" in 1967 under the dictatorship that then ruled Argentina. "The dictatorship ran the state through terrorism. They used force to impose their economic programme," she said.

"They imposed a system of systematic robbery, of poverty for the people and of fear. That was 25 years ago and we are still fighting for justice." She also condemned the current government in Argentina: "Today in Argentina 60 percent of people are poor. Yet this is a country of wheat, of meat, of very rich land, minerals and all sorts of wealth. We tell politicians this is not acceptable, this poverty, unemployment."

She also stressed, "We are all brothers and sisters. One of the good sides of globalisation is that we have globalised the struggle. The power and strength lies in the hands of the people and we must use it."

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

"WE HAD a huge delegation come to Florence from Greece. It has been brilliant to listen to the debates about the way forward for the movement-on the future of Europe and against the war. The most interesting forum I went to was on the question of the movement and violence.

The meeting was packed out, with thousands of people from many different countries. The main arguments were about the way forward for our side-can we do things as individuals or as token actions, or do we need a mass movement about more fundamental change from below? I am going back to Greece very optimistic and confident that we can build an even bigger movement."

MICHAELE VERVERIS, Athens, Greece

by Victory to the Firefighters Thu Nov 14, 2002 13:38

'We are workers and activists.' How to connect anti-capitalism with trade unionism was a theme that ran through many debates in Florence

THOUSANDS OF trade unionists came to the European Social Forum. Their numbers reflected the rise in workers' struggle in much of Europe. There were members of many British unions present, including the CWU, RMT, Amicus, Unison, PCS, NUJ, Natfhe, Prospect, NUT and TGWU. There were more than 2,000 people at just one of the meetings on trade union struggles.

French trade unionist Annick CoupŽ argued, "Neo-liberalism is a political choice. We have to say that redistributing wealth is possible in our own countries and across the planet." But a speaker from the European TUC was booed when she said, "We need a social market economy," praised the idea of "partnership" with employers, and said that the European Union could be a counterweight to globalisation. Piero Bernocchi from the Cobas union in Italy replied to her: "There is still a basic conflict between capital and labour. Far from employers becoming more pleasant all the time, it is getting worse. The traditional left parties and union leaders who call for 'partnership' are letting companies get away with these attacks."

There was shock around the hall when Marco Bersoni from the ATTAC group in Italy said, "There will always be a difficulty in bringing together workers and the anti-globalisation movement because anti-globalisation militants are active in their time off at work."

There were shouts of, "We are workers and activists!" Despite this bad start, Bersoni went on to call for deeper unity between movements and unions to fight privatisation, defend immigrants and stop war. The audience applauded when he described Bush's foreign policy as being "to create a murderous pile of bones".

Pat Sikorski from the British RMT union explained to the meeting that "there is a real change of mood in Britain. That is reflected in the election of eight left wing union general secretaries in the last three years. More and more workers want to see a fightback. The movement and the unions must work together-and this is possible. It was highly significant that at the TUC and Labour conferences there was huge trade union opposition to the war."

Javier Doz from one of Spain's two main union federations said, "The only way to get millions of people protesting on the streets is to involve the major unions. "In Spain in June we had 12 million on general strike, and two million marched. "This was followed by further action, and the movement was so powerful that it forced the government to withdraw many of the anti working class proposals it had just passed into law."

At another meeting hundreds of trade unionists, mostly rank and file activists, discussed how best to build resistance in the workplace. One theme touched on was how the most militant activists should organise. In some parts of Europe there is a tradition that the most militant union activists form their own unions rather than fighting to build inside the main unions.

But Jane Loftus, a member of the national executive of the British CWU, argued for a different approach. "I am proud that our union has been won to opposition to the war and to support for the ESF," she said.

And she argued that, instead of splitting from the main unions, activists have to "build rank and file networks that can pressure union leaders to fight, and act independently of them if necessary."

by Charlie Thu Nov 14, 2002 13:40

'We are making the future'

Real debate emerged over the role of political parties in the movement

SIX THOUSAND people packed into a huge hangar-like room 150 yards long for a debate on relations between parties and the movement. Bernard Cassen from ATTAC, the movement against financial speculation, said it was "born out of the disillusion with the failure of political parties and unions to deliver the ecological and social policies people want.

"It is vital that it is not a political party or the tool of one or more parties. We have members from many parties-we would lose most if one party dominated our thinking." An MP for the German Greens argued, "Social movements are the real engine of social change. Any social movement that stays in government too long becomes part of the establishment.

"The German Greens were completely wrong to support war against Serbia and Afghanistan." Olivier Besancenot, who won more than a million votes as the presidential candidate of the French Ligue Communiste Revolutionnaire, said, "Social movements, trade unionists and young people especially have all learned to mistrust parties. Who is to blame for this? For the traditional parties, the social movements and the trade unions were little toys for their use or, at worst, punch-bags. It was a great step forwards when those trade unionists learned they could struggle against their own party in government. Our struggle should be to pull together the anti-capitalist left wing, to create a left wing of the left wing, open to the ecological, revolutionary, Marxist, feminist and libertarian traditions."

Chris Nineham from Globalise Resistance in Britain insisted, "There is a difference between movements and parties. The Stop the War Coalition in Britain has brought together environmentalists, anti-capitalists, socialists, trade unionists, many Muslims and pacifists. Its one simple aim is stopping the war. As we increasingly challenge the powerful, they will try to block us. All the issues debated at the ESF are connected. We are not involved in a series of separate campaigns but against a total system. Political parties can play a crucial role in this, but not those who talk radical to get votes and then make peace with the powerful. The parties I want to see are revolutionary ones that try to unite the struggles in order to confront the whole system."

Heavy responsibilities

OPPOSITION TO war on Iraq dominated many of the debates and discussions in Florence. Thousands of people crammed into meetings and forums determined to build a united, strong, mass anti-war movement. An overwhelming majority agreed with a call to turn 15 February into a united Europe-wide day of protest.

The biggest applause at the meeting undoubtedly went to Fausto Bertinotti from the Italian Communist Refoundation party: "Che Guevara wrote that 'politics is a lasting passion'. Politics, real politics, is today being reborn in the proper places-the streets. Some people said this movement would last for just a short time. They hoped the state violence of Genoa would derail it. But this movement was wiser than the movement of my own generation of the 1960s. It did not get drawn into a spiral of violence and repression. Parties that want to relate to the movement have heavy responsibilities. They can take part on the condition that they have no concept of being a vanguard. The movements and parties are together, though different. No party or union should call struggle on its own, unless it is forced to by the failure of other forces to act."

Vittorio Agnoletto from the Italian Social Forum said, "An alliance has been created at the ESF. There is a unity against war and neo-liberalism. I am not a reformist. There can be no compromise with the banks, financial institutions and multinationals. We want to question what democracy means. What does a vote mean to a peasant in Zambia if his choices from the IMF are to starve or accept GM foods?

"We have enormous responsibilities in Europe. We are at the centre of capitalism. We can affect what happens in workplaces. We can affect markets through boycotts. It is not, as some think, that the movement generates questions and the party provides the answers. We should work for the widest possible unity."

Chris Bambery of the British Socialist Workers Party and Marnie Holborow of the Irish Socialist Workers Party were warmly applauded when they spoke from the floor. They stressed the need for debate in the movement on issues like the involvement of women and on the question of political power. They insisted that revolutionary parties have an important part to play in these.

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

'New cycle of mobilisations'

GLOBALISE Resistance organised a meeting on anti-capitalism which brought together some of the different views on how the movement can win and what it is aiming to achieve. Christophe Aguiton is a leading member of the ATTAC organisation in France. He argued, "The incredible success of the ESF is proof of a big change that is taking place. We are entering a new cycle of mobilisations like the 1960s. We were worried after 11 September that the movement would stall. But in fact it has gathered strength and linked the war to other issues. Movements like Jubilee 2000 were very important. The idea of challenging neo-liberal globalisation was important. But now the movement is going further. It is entering into more social issues like unemployment and support for workers. It is now not just an anti neo-liberal movement but an anti-capitalist one."

Luca Casarini from the Italian Disobbedienti movement said, "The new cycle of global struggle represents a desire for revolution, for an end to the slavery imposed by capitalism. We now face a state of permanent war. This reflects the way the system functions. Capitalism has always used wars to dominate markets. Now the system achieves stability by attacking civilians in every locality. We should build days of active disobedience against those who wage war. We must not get trapped between two problems of the same nature-Bush and Bin Laden. They are the same thing-fundamentalists. One is for the market-the other is for intervention in the stock exchange through massacres. We must choose our own way."

Alex Callinicos from Globalise Resistance said, "Here we are making the future. We get a vision of the kind of democracy and self governing economy we want from meetings like this. Who would have said three years ago that 40,000 people would gather to talk about transforming the world from top to bottom? The movement has taught us lessons. Here are four key ones: (1) Democracy-we need openness, inclusiveness, self organisation and debate. (2) War-this is a central issue because there is a permanent war drive in the system. This issue has not paralysed our movements. Instead, in some countries, we rose up and built mass anti-war protests. We have to generalise the best experience of taking on the war. (3) Class-there is a temptation to leave behind the lessons of the past and say that we, the multitude, the networks, are all that is needed. That would be a mistake.

The high points of the movement such as Seattle, Genoa, Porto Alegre and Barcelona saw the coming together of anti-capitalist networks and the organised working class. The future of the movement is bringing these together in a permanent way. As Rosa Luxemburg said, 'The chains of capitalism can be broken only where they are forged.' (4) Revolution-this was a word wiped off the political agenda in the 1980s.We were told the best we could hope for was years of liberal capitalism. Now it is coming back on the agenda. Self emancipation and the power from below are the principles of the new world we want."

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

IS Tendency

THE INTERNATIONAL Socialist Tendency, which the SWP is part of, took a full part in the ESF and the anti-war demonstration. Over 1,000 IST members were at the forum. They came from Britain, Greece, Poland, Spain, France, Germany, Ireland, Denmark and other countries. Each had worked for months to get backing for the ESF from trade unions and other social movements.

They ensured that big contingents came. By the end of the demonstration on Saturday they all felt they had one of the best experiences of their lives and that they had done their part in building a new anti-capitalist movement.

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

"I AM chair of the association of the unemployed in my area in Poland. "I am from a region where there used to be state farms 11 years ago. But in 1993, when the state farms closed down, in my region alone 27,000 people lost their jobs.

I was one of them. After 12 months we were left with nothing-we had no welfare payments at all. So people went out on the streets, and I joined them with my four children. We occupied the local council, shouting, 'We want work! We've got nothing to eat.' Capitalism has solved nothing for us.

Coming to the ESF, meeting people from all countries, everyone is smiling, everyone is equal-it doesn't matter what race you are, what language you speak. It is fantastic.

I'm over 40, and most people here are so young. But this has changed my experience. There is an exchange of ideas. All together we have strength and power. That is the future."

EWA HINCA, Poland

by Buayshaka Thu Nov 14, 2002 14:22

Yes the ESF was great in bringing new energy to the VARIED movement, but for certain groups it just meant a time to merchandise/capitalise their beliefs by standing outside the Fortezza and trying to take over seminars and debates. Lets try to keep an open mind of the diversity of the movement and stop confusing / fooling people and behaving in an undemocratic way. pace a tutti.

(ps sorry if this is going to be followed by a string of bitching between GR/SWP and anarchists. At the ESF, continentals found it bizzare that groups from the Ireland and UK are behaving in this way.)

by Wasthere Thu Nov 14, 2002 14:34

"merchandising" Do you mean you object to groups and parties selling their literature? Some groups sold alternative food, fair trade products etc? Do you object to this?

"Undemocratic" Do you mean that groups, including the SWP, contributed to debates and argued their point of view? Do you object to impromptu meetings and gatherings?

"Hijacking" Do you believe anyone can hijack an event of 60,000 participants? Do you think political activists like the GR and the SWP who put on a big show at the million strong demonstration against the war were hijacking the movement? Is you opinion of the tens of thousands of paticipants so low that you think their diversity is threatened by exposure to revolutionary ideas?

Or were you making another point?

by Chekov Thu Nov 14, 2002 15:09

I still don't have any idea what the victory was, what was decided, what structures were set up, what is going to come out of it. Sure it's great that loads of people showed up, but if it's to be more than a mass feel-good therapy session then we need practical things. I mean, thousands of people hearing that capitalism is bad, from hundreds of angles isn't altogether useless, but I came to grips with that a while ago now, as would most of the participants I'd say. So any practical outcomes?

by Brian Thu Nov 14, 2002 15:10

The ageing lefties of the socialist, communist and other statist/leninist/stalinist groups and there cover groups like GR can have their florence, i cared very little for florence, as far as i could see, and this viewpoint is shared by many people, florence was a place where the likes of the SWP and GR could go sell some papers, meet up with like minded state leninists, sing songs of "revolution", march round a city in circles (change of scenery must have been breathtaken guys, italian police instead of irish how revolutionary) and return with a new message.

Now the problem starts, the SWP will return to Ireland and will start claiming it mobilised 1 million people in florence, socialist worker will claim the swp has the role of leaders of the movement, this sort of crap will be poured into the ears of young recruits, GR (being the SWP front that it is) will put these arguments forward as well. So what do the young recruits here the SWP/GR alliance built the movement here in ireland we then organised a march of 1 million in florence, we are the leaders of the movement, we are the anti-capitalists, join the resistance, join the swp...

Sound familiar, it all happened before, post genoa GR madness anyone?

by Bob the trot Thu Nov 14, 2002 15:27

Fausto Bertinotti from the Italian Communist Refoundation party: "Parties that want to relate to the movement have heavy responsibilities. They can take part on the condition that they have no concept of being a vanguard. The movements and parties are together, though different."

by bring the ESF to Eire Thu Nov 14, 2002 15:43

Is it not better that 60,000 people get together in Florence and discuss the practicalities of destroying a crap system rather than sitting in their local bar and listening to the same old arguments again and again?

by Chekov Thu Nov 14, 2002 16:11

which can basically be summed up as follows
- what practical steps, decisions or structures came out of the ESF?

A response such as 'get out of your crappy hovel....' indicates to me an alarming sensitivity to perceived criticism and a pretty shocking inability to communicate beyond slogans.

Still waiting the answer (won't hold my breath though).

by the way Thu Nov 14, 2002 16:39

Why were the SWP singing nationalist sectarian songs that called for British people to be driven into the sea when they were in Florence?

by Nicholas - One World Society UCC Thu Nov 14, 2002 16:45

As far as I am concerned, a mass feel-good therapy session is worthwhile especially if it motivates us to continue our political struggles. The opportunity to hear activist speakers such as Vandana Shiva, Women in Black, Susan George etc. can be inspiring and bring useful ideas back home.

Unfortunately, Florence was not, for me, the best place to make connections because, though there were very many stalls, perhaps there were too many stalls and there were some notable gaps (environmental groups especially).

The vast majority of people at the social forum did not appear to be SWP or GR, although there were big contingents of both. These and some other factions did appear to be speaking on behalf of the movement at the final "plenary" session, and the merchandising of political accessories (Buy your own Made in China Revolution t-shirt etc.) was aggressive (not by any Irish groups that I could see). However, well done to the Irish GR crowd for getting some people there. Perhaps other groups should learn something from their ability to network.

The ESF did not decide anything. It did not create new structures (beyond itself). But that does not mean it was pointless. Yes there was plenty of rhetoric, but there was also an opportunity to hear from other important perspectives (those who have travelled to war zones, community activists from around the world etc.) And don't tell me you've heard it all before, because you haven't.

by fluffy Pat Thu Nov 14, 2002 22:38

Well done Chekov for insisting on answers to your questions, but this never seems to happen on Indymedia.
As for the ESF tourists my prediction is that they will be mostly members of the fluffy Rabbit labour party in a few years time however much they will deny it now.

by Kevin Wingfield - SWP Fri Nov 15, 2002 01:21

The ESF was set up under the auspices of the WSF which conceives of the these events as spaces where debates, discussions and encounters can take place. Political parties are considerably restricted in the way they can particpate and resolutions and declarations are not supposed to be taken. These are weaknesses reflecting the a young, multi-stranded movement emerging from years of defeat and reaction.

Of course the anti capitalist movement has many threads. The curresnts at the ESF included some to the Left and others to the Right of the movement.

Some of the Left (including the SWP's internatinal grouping the IST) argued that the event be more pro-active. In particular we called for antiwar activity to be centre stage. There was some opposition to this but the fact that the million-strong protest against the war on Saturday took place was an important step forward.

In addition a call went out at an enormous "Movement of the Movements" meeting on Sunday for immediate action action when war begins and large scale action the following Saturday in every city, culminating in a European Day of Action on February 15th.

These seem to me modest but worthwhile accomplishments particularly if they are translated into action by activists across Europe.

Most of the participants in Florence were Italian, as you would expect. Huge numbers of people just becoming involved in anti-capitalist and anti war activity were able to hear a whole range of ideas for taking the movemnt forward.

Naturally the SWP and IST participated in these discussions and urged revolutionary politics and the placing of building mass resistance to the war at the centre of the movement's strategy.

These issues will continue to provoke controversy but from our point of view the response was very encouraging.

By the way I think the fact that up to a million people organised and took buses and special trains from across Italy, joined contingents of trade unionists, etc and marched in a huge demonstration -- in other words *actively* participated in the anti war movement -- is a fact of the first importance.

Each of them will have had their resolution and morale strengthened by the experience and will take the message to their friends and work mates. Building a mass anti war movement in this way prepares the ground for mass workers' action -- including political strike action -- against the war. This is a lesson that has not been lost on hundreds of Irish anti war activists.

by Curious Fri Nov 15, 2002 14:56

Fausto Bertinotti from the Italian Communist Refoundation party: "Parties that want to relate to the movement have heavy responsibilities. They can take part on the condition that they have no concept of being a vanguard. The movements and parties are together, though different."

Do ye think that the SWP "has no concept of being a vanguard?"

by Kevin Wingfield - SWP Fri Nov 15, 2002 15:54

In answer to "Curious's" posting:

I think political parties should be free to organise openly and debate their positions. For example at the World Social Forum Lula participated and indeep his party had a lot of influence behind the scenes. It would have been very helpful for those in the movement to question his reported willingness to abide by IMF/WB strictures. The "no parties" position meant that his party was not put to the test in that way.

I think an number of political parties have approached the growing anti-capitalist movement in the spirit of "We have all the answers". We've had echos of it on these threads where someone commented to the effect "We know what the anti-capitalist movement is against but what is it for? -- It needs to be for socialism". I imagine it is this ultimatist attitude that Bertinotti has in mind.

I think it is too soon to talk of a well defined and organised "vanguard" and much talk of such things from sects is really to use the words of Marxism and forsake the substance.

But I *do* think a new left is emerging and all sorts of questions are being posed by the movement. As is well known the SWP and its sister organisations in the IST are enthusiastic for the anti-capitalist movement and think its is a development of great importance.

*One* of those questions is the relationship of parties to the movement, the issue of party and class. We have a lot to say on this as well as other issues (reform or revolution, the working class as the agent of revolution; a *mass* anti war movement, not just a small group of "direct action specialists, to confront the crisis of imperialism and war without end).

Specifically on the need for a revolutionary party, it is clear to us that the lesson of history is that to be successful in the revolutionary struggle for power the working class needs to organise for itself a party of the most militant workers linked to the revolutionary traditions of previous revolutionary periods.

Such a party will be in a minority in the period before revolution corresponding to the generally reformist consciousness of the majority of workers in non revolutionary periods.

But the party needs to be mass, deeply rooted and essentially *part of* or *a fraction of* the working class.. Then a dialectical relationship of the party simultaneously learning from and teaching the class can exist. Clearly no such party exists at the moment. But the arising mass movement and radicalisation and the emerging of new left is pregnant with possiblities. The SWP and IST wants to be part of and throw itself into these extremely encouraging developments.

I hope this has been of some help.
Kevin Wingfield