European Anti Capitalist Left Manifesto

by Phil M Thu May 13, 2004 17:05

I named two of the people trolling in this thread as examples. One of those trolls was hostile to Dan, laughingirl. The other one was a slight error, (I meant "fact checker" rather than "checker") but was hostile to the Socialist Party.

Scanning up the thread at least half the trolling is from people (SP critic, fact checker) who are hostile to the Socialist Party. Others are pro-the Socialist Party. Others still are so cryptic that I can't work out what the hell they are trying to say.

I have no idea who any of those people are. Nor do I care. The entire atmosphere of this place is toxic. No matter how reasonable an argument you are having (and despite thinking that Dan was talking mince I was quite enjoying arguing with him) anonymous liquid shit just keeps pouring in drowning out everything else.

From what I have seen in my brief time on this site it seems to contaminate everyone who posts here. Even between your post and mine there have been at least two anonymous trolls, again one hostile to Dan and one hostile to the SP. There may be more by the time this actually gets posted.

I've got no problem discussing my political views with people who disagree with me. I'm not going to stand in vomit to do it though. And I don't care if some of the vomit comes from the stomachs of people who agree with me.

by Anonymous Thu May 13, 2004 16:37

"...I won't try to have serious discussions in a thread that has been swamped by anonymous trolling (checker, laughingirl and a half dozen others)."

It strikes me Dan that he is running away from your arguments. You must have hit a nerve. Notice that he fails to name these anonymous trolls.
(Anti Cop Action, fact checker is an idiot, Another checker, An Authoritarian Trot",) Wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that they are all his party comrades.
Now, what was that about people with glasshouses?

by Nora Barnacle Thu May 13, 2004 16:36

Dan where were you when bin trucks were being stopped in your area during the bin tax campaign??

Studying books and attending Labour Party meetings is no substitute for actually being involved in a real campaign

by Joe Thu May 13, 2004 16:31

Phil you are fairly obviously a CWI member (or maybe recent ex-member). Most of what you call vomit is being spewed by people who are also fairly obviously CWI members. So rather then blaming indymedia maybe you should be sending a mail to your internal email list (I presume the CWI has one for its members?) demanding that people cop themselves on.

by Phil M Thu May 13, 2004 16:13

I'm certainly not conceding anything to your persistent arguments against strawmen Dan, but I won't try to have serious discussions in a thread that has been swamped by anonymous trolling (checker, laughingirl and a half dozen others).

I can see why indymedia has such a poor reputation as somewhere where anything can be discussed in a reasonable manner. Real discussion gets obliterated by trolling. Its a pity because other things about this site are great. Apologies to you and the other serious contributors to this debate but I have no intention of standing in vomit to continue it.

by Dan - SA Thu May 13, 2004 15:56

I didn't know Chekov had the blessing of a jesuit education too. Anyway, I take it that by resorting to childish name-calling, you are conceding the argument. Other people on this thread who criticise the SP are called idiots or cops so I suppose I should be happy to get away with being called posh. For what it's worth, I don't come from a wealthy family - I went to a private school cos I got a scholarship, my parents are journalists. Anyway, you might be interested to know that neither Lenin nor Trotsky came from an immaculate proletarian background, nor even Marx (Engels, of course, was a factory owner).

So trotskytists are using the same rhetoric that the French CP used against student radicals in '68. Isn't it funny how you end up becoming the thing you hate...

by Confused Thu May 13, 2004 10:23

"You are forgetting that STV is carried out in multimember constituencies. In no more than one place (Pollock and the surrounding areas of Glasgow) did the SSP get that kind of vote over an area equivalent to a cluster of single member constituencies."

Haven't a clue what you mean here. The SSP got about 15% first preference votes (excluding their vote in the regional list) in several constituencies.
Going on the Irish system this would be enough to probably see them get more than the one seat that the SP member says they would get under the Irish electoral system.

by Laughinggirl Wed May 12, 2004 21:43

They must have put Marx on the curriculum at Gonzaga sometime between Chekov's time their and Dan's.

by Dan - SA Wed May 12, 2004 21:30

Phil M. seems to live in a strange world. Irish partisans of the SSP are a shamefaced bunch who wince with embarassment everytime Murray Smith puts pen to paper, while the SSP leadership are only willing to discuss the nationalisation of the commanding heights of the economy "in private". In reality, neither me, nor any SSP sympathiser I know, are the least bit ashamed, in fact we're quite glad to associate ourselves with a party that actually gets things done and doesn't spend half its time persecuting its own members. And if you look at the SSP website, the first thing you'll see is its commitment to democratic control of the key sectors of the economy, in large print on the front page.

Your earlier posts would certainly give anyone the impression that no reforms can be achieved without abolishing capitalism, and anyone who suggests otherwise is a reformist. Of course, when directly challenged you repudiate this view: it's absurd, so you could hardly do otherwise. Still, this mentality (it's more a mood than a coherent view-point) is rife on the Leninist left. This weakness obviously goes back to the Bolshevik roots of Trotskyism - the Bolsheviks never had to argue against reformism, because reformism was totally impossible in Russia (The German Marxists had to deal with a different situation, which is why Rosa Luxemburg had much more useful things to say on the subject than Lenin).

For most of the post-war era, Trotskyists denied what was in front of their faces and insisted that the next catastrophic depression was just round the corner, instead of dealing with the real task of showing why the reforms that had been achieved after 1945 were inadequate and could easily be taken away again. When the post-war boom came to an end, most Trots sighed with relief and started talking as if it was the 30s all over again; Taaffe, for example, predicted in 1977 that Britain would either experience a socialist revolution in the next 10-15 years, or be conquered by a bloody fascist dictatorship that would kill millions of workers. Militant and the SWP may not have been as crude as Gerry Healy, but the apocalyptic mentality was quite similar.

There has been a big change since the early 70s, but you draw entirely the wrong conclusions from this. The greatest danger at present is not that workers will cherish illusions that reforms can be achieved under capitalism. The danger is that Blair and co will convince everyone that global capital is all-powerful and we might as well throw in the towel. Listen to the arguments put forward by Tony Giddens, and just contrast it with Tony Crosland forty years ago. Crosland told us that capitalism had been permanently reformed, that full employment and the welfare state were here to say, that there could never be recessions... whereas Giddens tells us that full employment is a utopian fantasy, the welfare state will have to be dismantled, because capitalism cannot be regulated by governments.

This is what everyone is told, and many people believe it. So the important thing now is to discredit neoliberalism. Things can be done differently, and are being done differently in other countries. Thats why the SSP are focusing their attacks on Thatcherism, while also taking pot-shots at social democracy at the same time. If the ideological climate shifts, they will have to change their emphasis, but for the time being they are doing exactly what needs to be done.

As I said before, the really important thing is not what short-term reforms they call for, but what methods they advocate to achieve those goals. And whether you care to admit it or not, what the SSP tell their supporters is that it's necessary to build an extra-parliamentary movement to achieve any real change; they may put forward bills in the Scottish assembly, but they certainly won't be joining any coalition government. We will have to see in practice how much can be achieved, possibly very little, possibly quite a lot. Whats vital is that nobody thinks we can achieve anything without extra-parliamentary struggle.

As far as I can tell, you expect the SSP to tell Scottish workers that if they want anything at all, they have to overthrow capitalism. As far as long-term goals are concerned, this is fair enough. But do you really expect them to say that free school meals cannot be granted because of the power of global capital? This is exactly what New Labour want people to believe. It's total nonsense; it's just a recipe for defeatism. I suppose you'd also say that Indonesian socialists who go round sweatshops trying to organise workers around the slogan "Fair wages for all" are "encouraging illusions". To be honest this sort of drivel is enough to make me want to kick the screen in.

When the SSP do talk about a socialist Scotland, in considerable detail, it's still not enough for you lot. You accuse them of fostering the illusion that "Scotland could go it alone". So basically, you expect them to say "unless there is a simultaneous revolution all over Europe (or possibly the whole world), it will be impossible to raise the minimum wage by fifty pence". Of course, you will indignantly deny this and ridicule me for saying it, but it is the only logical conclusion to your shabby, peevish attacks on the SSP.

The truth is, you hate the SSP because they practice democracy in their organisation, because they set a bad example for your own members who are supposed to tolerate the nasty authoritarian practices of men like Hadden and Taaffe (don't tell me I don't understand what things are like inside the SP because I've never been a member - we all saw what happened to Dermot Connolly and the others).

You may find it "interesting" to be lectured about Marx, but I don't believe you or anyone else in your party really bothers getting to grips with Marx the thinker, as opposed to Marx the saint and infallible prophet. It's about time you did

by Anarcho Wed May 12, 2004 19:56

"hs - sp" writes:

"really well thought out argument there anarcho! Thanks for the
work you put in, lets see, anarchism good, socialism bad...
think I got it now, thanks again."

Well, as someone else noted Leninism does not have a monopoly on
"socialism" and anarchism is a socialist theory and movement, so
hs is hardly got off to a good start.

Now, apparently, hs complains that I made a short summary comment.
Perhaps he/she would have preferred me to produce a lengthy critique
of Leninism, full of quotes by Lenin, Trotsky and other Bolsheviks
expounding on the need for party dictatorship, top-down organisation,
one-man managers armed with dictatorial powers, state capitalism and
such like. I could also have provided referenced evidence of Bolshevik
authoritarianism before, during and after the start of the Russian
civil war.

But, of course, that would be a wee bit lengthy. Luckily I provided a
link which presents such information to the interested reader:

http://www.anarchistfaq.org

now, of course, hs may dismiss all this as irrelevant. Past is past,
as Blair would say. However, I cannot feel that most sensible people
would check to see if Leninism when it was in power actually implemented
a regime "self-managed from below" or not. Or, indeed, even wanted
such a regime. And the evidence is a resounding "no"! And today we
find the followers of Lenin and Trotsky stealing libertarian rhetoric
to mask the same old "revolutionary government" position of their
ideological heroes.

still, I suppose you can ignore the trouble of understanding history
in order not to repeat it with a "really well thought out argument"
comment! Oh, hum, I'm not surprised. Leninists are generally ignorant
of their own politics and its history when in power. I'm not surprised,
as ignorance is the only way you could think Leninism was a viable
political theory.

by Obviously I'm a cop Wed May 12, 2004 19:45

"CWI will not, and never have, come on here to justify themselves to anonymous fools."

by Fact checker Wed May 12, 2004 19:27

I am hugely amused.

I rather imagine that if the police wanted to know how many members the SP has (and I suspect they have better things to do, these days) they would have other means than Indymedia to do it. However, isn't it interesting. Critics are cops, idiots and a whole bunch of other abusive terms. The argument is never addressed!!!! You just denounce the (imaginary) character of your adversaries, and assume that your abuse invalidates whatever points they are trying to make. Childish doesn't begin to describe it. It does not seem to occur to you that your approach alienates working people - it is NOT the norm in any trade union meeting or other labour movement event I have attended. But the fact that the far left has a reputation for precisely this blinkered approach is, by itself, one of the reasons why it remains a sectarian/ cultist miliue, rather than one with any hope of changing society.

You might wish to grow out of it at some point, but on past performance I doubt it.

by Anti Cop Action Wed May 12, 2004 18:55

Don't bother engageing in argument with "fact checker". He is trying to get info on the SP for the cops. Of course he's trying to check facts. Don't respond to that idiot.

by fact checker is an idiot Wed May 12, 2004 18:53

Mary Muldowney was not a member of the NC when she left. Get your facts straight. On the situation in England and Wales. All I will say is that you are wrong and that the CWI will not, and never have, come on here to justify themselves to anonymous fools.

by Wiseguy Wed May 12, 2004 16:00

Two SP NC members left: Joan Collins and Mary Muldoony. Another long time member Mick Gallagher also left and is standing as an independent.

by fact checker Wed May 12, 2004 15:36

My information is that the ACTIVE membership of the SP in England Wales (not Britain - Scotalnd is a separate case) is around about 200. Maybe a little more, maybe a little less. We all know that the CWI routinely exaggerates the numbers on its demonstrations, its membership and its influence, so they are in little position to challenge this, with any credibility. However, even if they now claim say 800 members - this is still a catastrophic decline on its peak. Rather than quibble about the extent of the decline, or denounce those who suggest that it has occurred as 'idiots' (who is the bigger idiot - someone who acknowledges an earthquake has occurred, or someone who speaks instead of a minor seismic disturbance?) some effort to discuss why it has occurred might be worthwhile. There is absolutely no sign of the SP or CWI admitting to the slightest problem on their part that has caused this. If I were a member, I would be worried - nobody is inaffalible, least of all the Pontiffs on the SP Central Committee.

by fact checker is an idiot Wed May 12, 2004 15:26

this guy is wrong. In Britain CWI membership is far more than 200! And who are these 2 NC members that left the SP in Ireland? There are 3 types of lie: Lies, Lies, and Cranky statements from anti-SPers!

by Fact checker Wed May 12, 2004 13:50

This discussion is a hoot. The fact is that the SP in England/ Wales have had a catastrophic collapse in their membership, to no more than maybe 200 dues paying active members, down from maybe 8000 in the late 1980s. (And this mirrors the disintegration of the CWI internationally). You can say whatever you like about political context, but any organisation which experiences such a catastrophe (if it is at all sensible) might want to reflect a bit on the quality of its leadership, its internal processes, its policies, its relevance. Only a sect stroke cult would not - and I am afraid that that is what this organisation has become. Most recently in Ireland, it has lost ist former national secretary (Dermot ConnollY), who has publicly berated its decision making processes, and I think two other members of its National Committee. Not much left.... And not much sign from the SP of the kind of reappraisal which alone could offer it some hope. Instead, it continues to deposit faith (amnd faith is precisely what it is, in teh religioous sense of the word) in the benign and wise leadership of Peter Taaffe, Peter Hadden (people who have proved over decaedes their inability to achieve anything) and a few other lost souls.

by Another checker Wed May 12, 2004 12:40

You are forgetting that STV is carried out in multimember constituencies. In no more than one place (Pollock and the surrounding areas of Glasgow) did the SSP get that kind of vote over an area equivalent to a cluster of single member constituencies.

It's not impossible that you could find a second such cluster but I think Phil's general point is correct that the SSP's relatively even support distribution helps under the Scottish system, would hinder a small party in Ireland, and would ensure that they had no chance at all in England or Wales.

by Checker Wed May 12, 2004 12:27

Phil says:
"Under the Irish electoral system the SSP wouldn't have been presented with any likely places for a second MSP."

I don't think you are right on this one. In several constituencies the SSP got around 15%.
O'Snodaigh (SF) got elected with less than that. Some how I think the SSP would do better with under the Irish system.

by Phil M. Wed May 12, 2004 12:16

Militant's main local base in England or Wales was in Liverpool. That was smashed by the Labour Party leadership long before the period we are talking about.

Militant did not have an independent electoral base anywhere in England or Wales along the lines of that achieved in Glasgow. If you are really interested I can go over the details of the first Scottish turn towards setting up an independent organisation, SML, but I don't have the time right now.

Over the last few years however the Socialist Party has been able to begin to develop one in working class areas of Coventry and Lewisham. In Coventry, for instance the SP now has three councillors and polled an average fof 14% across the half of the city it contested in the last election. That level of support is actually greater than the level of support which originally saw Tommy Sheridan elected in Glasgow. However there is no equivalent structure with a favourable electoral system to get voted onto.

by Ray Wed May 12, 2004 11:47

"The preexisting local base of SML. The incredibly favourable electoral system. The huge gap on the left. "

I'm wondering. In England and Wales the SP had a large pre-existing base of ML, and there was as much, if not more, of a 'gap on the left' as there is in Scotland. Sure, the Westminster electoral system is harder on small parties than the Scottish system, but the council election system hasn't changed, as far as I know.
So have the SP been able to take advantage of the gap on the left and the pre-existing base of Militant to increase their number of council seats over the last ten years?

by Phil M Wed May 12, 2004 11:10

Westminster elections give a very misleading impression of the way in which the SSP's base developed.

Scottish Militant Labour developed an important base in working class areas of Glasgow, particularly in the wake of their leading role in the Poll Tax campaign. By the early 1990s they had six elected councillors in the city. The SSP by the way has two elected councillors in Scotland at the moment.

That base never really translated into Westminster election results, and it was never something that was spread nationally. However it was what enabled the Scottish Socialist Alliance to get Tommy Sheridan elected to the Scottish Parliament.

The ability to expand electoral support from there is in part a result of a uniquely favourable electoral system. Under the Irish electoral system the SSP wouldn't have been presented with any likely places for a second MSP. Under the First Past the Post system they would never have got Tommy Sheridan elected in the first place. In either of these circumstances they would have found it much harder to expand their voting strength.

They were further aided by the enormous vacuum on the left of Scottish politics, in a country with a strong tradition of socialism. With the Labour Party already indistinguishable from the Tories, the SNP decided to drop its own social democratic rhetoric. The SSP found a gaping hole on the left and has done well to partially move into that hole. They have of course skillfully used the profile that Sheridan gave them to accomplish that.

The point? None of it would have been possible without three key factors. The preexisting local base of SML. The incredibly favourable electoral system. The huge gap on the left. "Left Unity" had nothing to do with it.

by Anorak Wed May 12, 2004 10:47

"The SSP has its strengths, a real base in the working class being one of them. Although that base is built on the initial work done by Scottish Militant Labour in Glasgow, through such campaigns as the Poll Tax, rather than a result of "the left uniting" or whatever other fantasy many of the SSP's fans abroad like to construct around its growth."

Some how I don't think Carol Voderman needs to be looking over her shoulder.

Westminister
CWI
1992 Scottish Militant Labour 6,287 (0,21%)
SSA
1997 Scottish Socialist Alliance
9,740 (0,35%)
SSP
2002 Scottish Socialist Party 72,516 (3.13%)

Scottish Parliament - SSP vote
1999 Constituency vote 23,654 (1.01%)
1999 Regional vote 46,635 (1.99%)

2003 Constituency vote 117,709 (6.22%)
2003 Regional vote 132,138 (6.90%)

by Phil M Tue May 11, 2004 21:16

I don't argue now and never have argued that no reform is possible under capitalism. The abolition of the poll tax was a reform as was the abolition of the water tax, two struggles that the CWI played a significant role in, to give you just two examples. Socialist's fight for every reform they can get, while always pointing towards the need to abolish capitalism. To be lectured on something that is part of our political tradition (and told to go read Marx!) by Dan, is I must admit an entertaining experience.

But reforms are only good as long as there is a powerful movement to back them up. They are not permanent, they are a site of periodic and sometimes constant struggle.

That is true in any period, but Dan correctly notes that there is a difference between the present day and the period between World War 2 and the mid-1970s. The post war boom made it possible for capitalists to grant concessions to workers. They didn't like doing so, but it was possible for them to do it. It was in that sense a golden age for social democracy. Significant reforms were on the agenda.

Since the end of that boom however, there has been a concerted effort to take back the hard-won gains of previous generations. The capitalists do not have the comfortable margins which allowed them to tolerate working class gains. The attempt to privatise everything that moves, the assault on pensions and all the rest is not just the result of Thatcher's policy. Thatcher's policy part and parcel of a much bigger change in the nature of the world economy.

There is less room to wrestle significant reforms. If you think about even the relatively few victories that have been won by the working class (like say the Poll Tax and the Water Tax) have been in essence defensive struggles rather than a fight for new reforms.

The Labour and Social Democratic parties have given up any pretence of representing working class people. That certainly does leave a vacuum to the left, but that does not mean that significant and lasting reforms are on the agenda.

All of which is an interesting debate, but it is only peripherally related to the real question I have. Why do Dan and WW insist on awarding the SSP a status - "revolutionary organisation" - that the SSP does not itself claim? Why don't they simply argue that the existence of an SSP-like organisation would be a step forward here, something that I think most of us could agree with?

And by the way, Dan, not only does Roger Protz live, he is busy speaking at SWP organised rallies for the Respect Unity Coalition.

by Dan - SA Tue May 11, 2004 20:18 rogerprotzlives at yahoo dot co dot uk

So it's "reformist" to advocate policies that could be implemented without abolishing capitalism? I'd say it was just grown-up and responsible.

Any radical socialist organisation has to strike a balance. If they only focus on the long-term goal of socialism, they will be too far ahead of the majority of workers to be relevant. If they only focus on day-to-day reforms, they will become bogged down in short-term reformist politics. I've read the SSP's programme and I think they do a decent enough job of striking that balance.

The implication of what you say is that no reforms can ever be achieved under capitalism, so only a maximum revolutionary programme is required. This attitude was all very well in 1938 when Trotsky was drafting the programme of the FI; the prospects for reform under capitalism weren't very promising. But it's hardly convincing now. The reality is that many reforms can be, and have been, achieved without an outright revolution. If you base the argument for revolution on the notion that you can't have a basic minimum wage or free school meals or whatever without overthrowing the whole system, you won't find many takers, because it ain't true. The real, convinving case for revolution is that whatever reforms can be achieved don't go nearly far enough and are always vulnerable to being rolled back until we defeat capital permanently. In the meantime, a socialist programme should include all sorts of measures, from very short-range goals to the most ambitious ones.

In the present political context, when social democracy has abandoned its traditional goal of regulating capitalism, it's not only useful but essential for the radical left to expose the likes of Blair by advocating policies that could easily be implemented right now if the political will was there. Between 1945 and the mid70s, social democracy was the orthodoxy in western Europe. Now Thatcherism is, and the radical left will be able to win support from people who support social-democratic policies if we are the only ones arguing for these policies.

The real question relates to the means. If the SSP were proposing to form a coalition with the SNP or the Lib Dems to introduce free school meals and a minimum wage, that would certainly be reformist. But if they put forward bills in the Scottish parliament from a position outside any government, relying on extra-parliamentary agitation to pressurise the bourgeois parties into making concessions, they are behaving like proper revolutionaries. This is the sort of approach that will certainly be popular with the Scottish working class, even if fundamentalists find it intolerable. Incidentally, your beloved Bolsheviks followed the same approach in the Tsarist duma; their MPs were given instructions to support any legislation that would protect workers, even if it was proposed by the government deputies.

I would certainly like to see a party like the SSP established in Ireland, and I'm not in any way sheepish about saying that. Most of all I would like to see a party that practices genuine democracy and pluralism, and doesn't fuck people over for expressing dissent like the CWI. Taaffeites should just be honest and admit that all their waffle about the SSP's "reformism" is just a mask for their intense dislike of a party that shows a bit of tolerance towards its own members: that sort of thing might spread if it's allowed to catch on.

It won't be possible to have any intelligent discussion about what demands and what programmes we should adopt as long as the word "reformist" is used to describe anyone who suggests that even the smallest advances for the working class can be achieved under capitalism. If you want to turn a blind eye to 150 years of historical development, be my guest (a large section of "Capital" is given over to Marx's description of the Factory Acts, one of the earliest victories for the British labour movement, if you won't take my word for it) .

I don't base the case for socialism on the grounds that the workers have nothing to lose but their chains, but on the grounds that they have a world to win. So did Marx, if you bother to read him...

by Phil M Tue May 11, 2004 19:20

No, in my view that isolated statement of principle isn't enough, WW. It's a leftover of an earlier position and plays no real part in their actual programme as it is now.

More to the point, this is an argument that you could only end up having with fans of the SSP from outside Scotland. It isn't an argument you ever have to have with the SSP itself. The SSP, after all, does not claim to be a revolutionary organisation. It is completely open about that.

In so far as its leadership give it a description, they describe it as a "class struggle party" or as a "broad socialist party" or as a party "which leaves open the question of revolution or reform".

The SSP does not claim to be a revolutionary organisation. The only people who claim that title for it are its slightly forlorn fans abroad who would love to see something like it in their own country but don't want to expose themselves to attack by openly arguing for a party that is not revolutionary. So they award the SSP a title it has never sought. To refuse to give the SSP a description that it doesn't seek itself is hardly an "attack".

The SSP has its strengths, a real base in the working class being one of them. Although that base is built on the initial work done by Scottish Militant Labour in Glasgow, through such campaigns as the Poll Tax, rather than a result of "the left uniting" or whatever other fantasy many of the SSP's fans abroad like to construct around its growth.

by SP Critic Tue May 11, 2004 18:27

If I understand correctly, the SSP is being criticised for alleged reformism. However, it has also been pointed out that Joe Higgins has dropped calls for nationalisation of the top levers of the economy from his European election programme, and instead calls simply for a halt to and a reversal of privatisation. Does this also make him a reformist???? The election manifestos of the SP in the North recently have also been rather lacking in overtly revolutionary rhetoric. It appears to me that the SP has an increasingly peculiar position. On the one hand, it retains the democratic centralist armoury that most ordinary folks view simply as authoritarian, and which in my opinion and in that of many other people turns such organisations into cults. (It was very noticable to me and others that they failed to engage with Dermot Connolly's recent criticisms on Indymedia. This reluctance to engage in open debate with peopel outside its own ranks is suggestive of an inward looking sect/ cult rather than anything else). But on the other hand it increasingly also champions a political programme that is reformist. It will, I think, prove a lethal combination - for the electoral prospects of the SP....

by WW Tue May 11, 2004 18:14

"The SSP is still a small party claiming 2,500 members on paper, with a smaller number active. That is not a "mass party" by anyone's standards although it is pretty substantial by the small standards of the left."

It might not be a mass party but it's bigger than anything that the CWI or their friends the SWP could ever hope to build. And whats more it growing. Let's be honest I might have overplayed my hand on the mass party but it has potential. And I'm certainly not as delusional as the SP member who said the following:

"How can a sect win the support of thousands of working class people in Ireland. In the last election Joe Higgins got 6,500 votes, Clare Daly 5,500 votes. In the last Euro election the SP got over 10,000 votes in Dublin, this year they will likely get more."

Do the maths yourself. Socialism in two constituencies?

"It is indeed a largely working class party and it is democratic. I never said otherwise. That has nothing to do with whether or not its leadership is moving in a reformist direction."

We only have your blinkered opinion on this. What signs were there of this at the last conference? Of course you will be able to point me to details of their deviations. Any chance I can see the motions at your conferences, so I can attempt to assess what deviations you are partaking in?

"The key point is programme - and the SSP does not in fact have a programme which commits it to a complete socialist transformation of society. I recommend that WW join Dan in perusing the detailed contents of the SSP's programme as encapsulated in their lengthy election manifesto."

So this is not good enough?
AIMS AND PRINCIPLES
Our name shall be the "Scottish Socialist Party (SSP)".
The SSP stands for the socialist transformation of society. To replace capitalism with an economic system based on democratic ownership and control of the key sectors of the economy. A system based on social need and environmental protection rather than private profit and ecological destruction.

by Phil M Tue May 11, 2004 17:55

The SSP is still a small party claiming 2,500 members on paper, with a smaller number active. That is not a "mass party" by anyone's standards although it is pretty substantial by the small standards of the left.

It is indeed a largely working class party and it is democratic. I never said otherwise. That has nothing to do with whether or not its leadership is moving in a reformist direction.

The key point is programme - and the SSP does not in fact have a programme which commits it to a complete socialist transformation of society. I recommend that WW join Dan in perusing the detailed contents of the SSP's programme as encapsulated in their lengthy election manifesto.

As for "attacking" the SSP, I am doing no such thing. I am trying to honestly assess what it is and where it is going. Members of the CWI work to build the SSP as best they can, but they also argue for a revolutionary programme. There is no contradiction between the two.

by WW Tue May 11, 2004 17:45

Marxists, as opposed to cultists, judge a political organisation, on the overall nature of that party:

1. The class basis of the party: The SSP has expanded rapidly in recent years with an influx of overwhelmingly working class new members. In comparison with most so called left organisations it is in reality a party of the working class.

2. Internal structure: Unlike the CWI and its sections the SSP is an open and democratic organisation, where individuals and tendencies win people over or lose them to their ideas by open and honest debate, not by subterfuge and name calling. It is a membership led, botttom up, not elitist top down organisation.

3. The Party programme: This clearly commits the party to a socialist transformation of Scottish society. It also commits the party to transitional demands and short term demands that can be achieved in current circumstances.

(In fact the most recent motion to conference by the Dundee West Branch acknowledges the need to fight for reforms.)


4. Activities: The SSP is a campaigning, activist party. Its branches are continously involved in initiating campaigns to defend the interests of ordinary people and popularise the ideas of socialism. Nor are they constrained, unlike some of the toytown revolutionaries who inhabit the cults, in engaging in direct action, and this includes their public reps.

But of course the biggest problem that the CWI has is the objection to an Independent Scottish Socialist Republic. Why did they not oppose this position when it was adopted as the policy of the SSP?

Instead of attacking the SSP at every oppurtunity (which as not the same as constructive criticism,which no party inc. the SSP should be above), the CWI and their friends in the SWP should concentrate on asking themselves why they have singularly failed, everywhere, in doing what the SSP has done: building a mass socialist party.

by Phil M. Tue May 11, 2004 16:38

What is reformism?

Well, I invite Dan to take a look at the SSP's actual policies. He could start with the manifesto for the last election which he can find prominently linked on the SSP website.

It's in many ways an admirable, fighting document with lots of policies any revolutionary would support. But it is also a list of reforms, reforms which are to be paid for by "taxing the rich" or "setting a deficit budget".

That really does encourage illusions that it is possible to reform capitalism into a liveable system. What would actually happen if a government tried to pay for those reforms by "taxing the rich"? I'll tell you what would happen. There would be an enormous flight of capital. The only way that the working class could conceivably hope to introduce socialist policies would be on the basis of taking into public ownership the bulk of the economy. Yet there is no mention of this anywhere in the document.

Now, I don't think that Sheridan and Co. have reached the bountiful shores of outright reformism quite yet. In private they would probably still say that they support taking the "commanding heights" or whatever the old phrase is of the economy into public ownership. But they've dropped it for public consumption or as party policy.

Revolutionaries don't always turn into reformists over night. There is no Damascene conversion. There is a process, a well-trodden road. And when Murray Smith starts writing long-winded justifications for building a party that doesn't choose between "revolution and reform" you can very clearly see that he is on that road.

Dan does an entertainingly vitriolic line in attacking "Bolshevism". He is entitled to his opinion, and to be honest I don't much care about it. What I am interested in is how he seeks to convince himself that the leadership of the SSP is engaging in a new phenomenon - a return to Luxemburg and Serge - rather than just a rehashing of the same old trek towards reformism that a thousand revolutionaries have walked before.

It appears that the power of wishful thinking remains as strong in Dan as it does in his former associates in the SWP. The difference is only that they channel their blind optimism in a different direction.

by Dan - SA Tue May 11, 2004 16:10 rogerprotzlives at yahoo dot co dot uk

Just to get the Labour thing out of the way: Donal O Liathain decided a few months ago to leave SA and join the Labour party. The rest of us have no intention of joining Labour, so there you are.

I've heard countless attempts by supporters of the CWI and the SWP to paint the SSP and the LCR as "reformists", but none of them are convincing. All yis have managed to do is take a few quotes out of context. A brilliant example of this was last year, when an interview with Sheridan on the BBC was touted around websites worldwide. Anyone who read the full interview would have seen that Sheridan had been arguing for public ownership of all the key sectors of the economy, not some watered-down social-democratic model. If I wanted to show that Joe Higgins was a reformist, or RBB for that matter, I could do exactly the same, but I'd rather not stoop to the same level. The SSP/ISM certainly have a more principled record than the SWP when it comes to flirting with reformism, as the whole RESPECT farce shows.

I don't want to tar the SWP or the CWI with the brush of Stalinism; I'd rather tar them with the brush of Leninism, which is bad enough. In fact, these organisations gladly associate themselves with the bloody abuses of the Cheka. Anyone who defends everything the Bolsheviks did between 1918 and 1921, without any criticism, deserves to be called an authoritarian. Just look at history with your eyes open, comrades...

The word "reformism" has ceased to be meaningful in Trotskyist jargon. Of course it means something in the real world, something very specific, but for you lot, it's just a random term of abuse to be thrown at anyone you don't like. The Sparts call the SWP reformist; in turn they call the CWI reformist, who in their turn call the SSP and the LCR reformist. What is a reformist? Someone who believes that capitalism can be permanently changed into an acceptable system? This is a perfectly sensible definition, but neither the SSP nor the LCR could be accused of advocating that view. Or is it someone who believes that socialism can be achieved though parliament, without any extra-parliamentary movement? I'd buy that definition too, but I don't see it being encouraged by the SSP (one of their MSPs said recently that the parliamentary road to socialism would be as elusive as Saddam's WMDs).

No, it seems that a "reformist" is anyone who doesn't accept the shibboleths of whatever sect you happen to be a member of, who doesn't accept that Tony Cliff or Peter Taaffe or whoever is the one true heir to the Marxist tradition. If that makes me a reformist, so be it.

Of course neither the SSP nor the LCR are infallible, and they are likely to make plenty of mistakes, and deserve to be criticised. But this is what happens when you have a living movement. What Rosa Luxemburg said a hundred years ago is still true today: the errors of a real movement are much more useful than any infallible central committee.

I think the last thread betrays the attitude that's rife in orthodox Leninism, the "original sin" theory of reformism: if you stray from the true path once, you will be forever damned. The "true path", of course, is Bolshevism. Everything that the Bolsheviks did and said must be copied in every regard. This is what Trotskyism has been doing for the last half-century, and it has led failure after failure after failure. I may be totally mistaken about the SSP and other European far-left parties, far from returning to the tradition of Serge and Luxemburg they may end up drifting to the right, but this won't change the fact that they were right to move beyond Bolshevik-Leninism, which has proven to be a dead-end. And the best way to prevent them from drifting towards reformism is to engage them in constructive dialogue and criticism, not to abuse them dishonestly.

by Phil M. Tue May 11, 2004 14:22

I wouldn't tar Dan as a right winger. I don't know enough about him or his views to comment. I would describe him as deluded however if he thinks that the SSP leadership and the recent changes in the LCR are inspired by some kind of return to the views of people like Luxemburg and Serge. He is seeing what he wants to see rather than what actually is.

The SSP leadership and the LCR leadership are doing something that has been done a thousand times before by erstwhile revolutionaries. They are moving to the right, starting first by blurring the difference between revolution and reform. This is not a new phenomenon on the revolutionary left and it doesn't take a genius to spot it. It is of course almost traditional on the left to claim that your opponents are on a right wing trajectory. Sometimes it's true, sometimes it isn't. Here it very patently is.

That's not to say that the LCR and in particular the SSP don't have their attractive features. They undoubtedly do. But we should never let wishful thinking get in the way of clear analysis.

by Non-Authoritarian Tue May 11, 2004 13:24

"Dan does not really make any sense in his posting. He says that many lefts are drifting away from having organised tendencies, therefore it must be good. Is it good to dissolve your views? Is it good to pander to political islam as the SWP are doing? Do you think it's good not to mention the word "socialism" in an election platform agreed between socialist groups?"

Ah the strawman way of arguing. My reading of what Dan said, had more to do with the method of organising. He doesn't say anything about not organising nor for that matter anything about dissolving your views, pandering to Islam or not mentioning the word socialism.
Is it good to have an organisational model which discredits those who have given many years service over differences on tactics not ideology. Is it good to have an organisational mode which places the 'professional revolutionarie's' on a higher plain than 'ordinary' members of our class who orientate towards socialism.

"You falsely say that the CWI and SWP hate the SSP. That's not true. Both the SWP and CWI are in the SSP and are participating in, building it and want to see the SSP become a mass party. What's wrong with these groups voicing thier opposition to Tommy Sheridan's reformism? Or is it that you agree with reformism, and write off the opponants of Sheridan as "authoritarian trots" or "crazy leninists". While we're at it is there any truth to you or other SA members joining the Labour Party?"

It is true that the CWI and the SWP are in the SSP and as such are participating and building it and perhaps want to see the SSP become a mass party but what is funny is that the CWI use every CWI communication to give the impression that the SSP is reformist. Look at your paragraph above. Sheridan is the SSP. Wrong - The SSP is its membership (not Tommy Sheridan) and the CWI has been continually defeated in some of its positions which it continues to bring back to the floor every year. Do it here in Ireland and we know what happens. The mark of dissident would be painted on your door. At least there is open democracy within the SSP. They openly advertise where their conference will be, all motions are published way in advance. Any chance I can know where the SP is to hold its conference in advance and to see the motions. No, I thought not.
Furthermore I am surprised that you can equate the CWI's orientation towards the SSP as that of the SWP's.

"Who needs right-wingers when we have people like Dan to tar socialists with the bruch of stalinism!"

I'm with Dan here, the point he is making I am sure is that your organisational methods have more in common with Stalinism than you think. And you show this by trying to tar Dan with being a right winger. Crude, deceitful arguments are very much a Stalinist trait.

by "An Authoritarian Trot" Tue May 11, 2004 11:54

Dan does not really make any sense in his posting. He says that many lefts are drifting away from having organised tendencies, therefore it must be good. Is it good to dissolve your views? Is it good to pander to political islam as the SWP are doing? Do you think it's good not to mention the word "socialism" in an election platform agreed between socialist groups?

You falsely say that the CWI and SWP hate the SSP. That's not true. Both the SWP and CWI are in the SSP and are participating in, building it and want to see the SSP become a mass party. What's wrong with these groups voicing thier opposition to Tommy Sheridan's reformism? Or is it that you agree with reformism, and write off the opponants of Sheridan as "authoritarian trots" or "crazy leninists". While we're at it is there any truth to you or other SA members joining the Labour Party?

Who needs right-wingers when we have people like Dan to tar socialists with the bruch of stalinism!

by calgacus Tue May 11, 2004 01:01

On May 1, 2001 the membership of the Socialist Workers Party in Scotland collectively joined the Scottish Socialist Party.

by EACL man Tue May 11, 2004 00:06

I've been keeping an eye on the EACL for a while. It's a curious and welcome development, being pushed by the LCR.

Most of the parties and groups mentioned above are either broad parties or electoral coalitions. Some of them are interesting some are not. All, without exception, include Trotskyists.

The other groups attending the European Conference of the Anti-Capitalist Left include the Irish, Dutch and English and Welsh Socialist Parties as well as Refondazione Comunista and Synaspismos. The Dutch SP is a broad party, originally Maoist but now including people ranging from social democrats to the Trotskyists of the CWI.

The decision of Refondazione to join a European party made up mostly of current and former Stalinist organisations has put the dampeners on the idea of an EACL list at least for the moment.

by DD Mon May 10, 2004 23:49

Thought the SWP are part of the SSP which is a fairly broad coalition party.
Did I get that wrong Dan or did you just make your stuff up?

by Dan - SA Mon May 10, 2004 21:11

You might have noticed that this article was not posted by a member of the SP or the SWP, but by one of the small band of Irish Marxists who find "democratic centralism" too hard to swallow. If you bother to cast your gaze beyond Ireland, you might notice that anarchists are not the only people who have a problem with the authoritarian behaviour of the CWI, IST and other groups who ape the Bolsheviks. In fact a large chunk of the traditionally Leninist left is moving away from orthodox Bolshevism as it's been practiced for so long by so many groups with such depressing results.

This is true of several of the groups named at the end of this statement. Neither the CWI nor the SWP can stand the SSP, for example, and their cardinal offence was probably the fact that they practice genuine democracy and pluralism in their organisation. The Sparts were giving out about the counter-revolutionary politics of the French LCR in their paper a while ago; the most damning proof they cited of this rightwards drift was that when asked would Trotsky have been much better than Stalin, the LCR's presidential candidate replied "Probably not". I presume no anarchist would have much problem with that.

Theres always been a tradition of Marxism, going back to Luxemburg and Victor Serge, that rejected the authoritarian deformations of Leninism. Most of the European Marxist left is re-orientating towards this tradition, because the 57 varieties of M-L have obviously failed. Theres still a way to go now, and I think many of the groups mentioned above are still too soft on Bolshevism. But don't tar them with the same brush as every SWP fool who's told you that Trotsky was always a perfect democrat and Kronstadt was a White conspiracy. That sort of thing is going out of fashion very fast, and I'd say it won't be long before Ireland catches up.

This still leaves plenty of disagreements between anarchists and Marxists, over elections, for example. But I think those arguments can be conducted with a little more civility than you'd waste on a half-witted apologist for the Cheka.

by Major Woody Mon May 10, 2004 14:50

See http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/527/03swpabortion.html

by Concerned Gay Rights Supporter Mon May 10, 2004 14:43

I was recently talking to a friend of mine who lives in Birmingham. He takes an interest in left-wing politics. He forwarded me the text of 2 leaflets.
This is from the SWP/MAB/Galloway alliance RESPECT:

"Don't forget - local elections are being held on the same day as
the European elections. On polling day we ask everyone to mark 'X'
next to 'Respect' on the ballot paper for the European elections.
And vote People's Justice Party (PJP) for the elections to
Birmingham City Council."

Later in the week my friend got a leaflet off the People's Justice Party. The PJP were criticising the LibDems. Fair enough, BUT it was on the ground of them supporting children being told of Gay relationships in school!

"Another Lib Dem policy not in favour of the British
Muslim community is the teaching of gay sex education
to your children at a very young age. The Lib Dems are
also in favour of equal rights for gays and lesbians.
DO YOU WANT THIS?"

WHAT are the SWP up to? Why are they getting into alliances with these people? How could any Socialist go into any electoral pact with anti-gay rights people!

by Jack White Sun May 09, 2004 23:42

In 1930 in Ireland there was an organisation called the PCRWP (Preparatory Committee for a Revolutionary Workers' Party) it was headed by Peadar O'Donnell in conjunction with a number republican socialists and Comintern-Communists. The ECCI (Executive Committee of the Communist International -the Comintern) sent a document to Ireland stressing the need for a 'united front from below'.

Today we have Leninists calling for a Europe "self-managed from below". Can you spot the difference?

And hs, Anarchism is a socialist movement. So no it's not 'anarchism good, socialism bad'. Leninists don't have a monopoly on the socialist movement although it is clear they think they do. You see although 'anarchism good, socialism bad' is nonsense, 'anarchism good, Leninism bad' makes total sense and is completely true.

Socialism from below = Libertarian Socialism = Anarchism

Rhetoric = Rhetoric = Rhetoric = Leninist Lies

by hs - sp Sun May 09, 2004 20:58

really well thought out argument there anarcho! Thanks for the work you put in, lets see, anarchism good, socialism bad...
think I got it now, thanks again.

by anarcho Sun May 09, 2004 12:08

"self-managed from below"?

Nice to see Trotskyists attempt to steal yet more anarchist rhetoric to build support
for their top-down state-capitalist politics...

Given all these parties support the need for a "workers' state" and "revolutionary
government" they clearly don't know what "self-managed from below" actually means.
Self-management excludes the idea of government by a few, hierarchy and all the
other things which Trotskyism applies in practice.

visit "An Anarchist FAQ" for more about real socialism from below and why Trotskyism
is a con:

http://www.anarchistfaq.org