9 responses to “Regroupment discussion document”

1. 

   martin ohr

   August 21, 2008 at 3:20 pm

   Liam,

   Well I can see the ecology part of the document you linked to but the class struggle bit seems to be missing 😉

   I know this is entirely predictable, but I think the AWL document passed at our recent conference is superior, largely because we pose the solutions within the framework of transitional demands which actually engage the only agency which can make them happen: http://www.workersliberty.org/story/2008/02/26/climate-change-document-awl-conference-2008

   We’re more than happen for you to adopt this document as part of your revolutionary regroupment -or I can arrange a debate between you and the document author is you think it would be productive.

   LikeLike

   Reply
2. 

   Liam

   August 21, 2008 at 3:52 pm

   Martin thanks for the link. I think there is significant overlap between the two texts and both Paul and I owe a debt to John Bellamy Foster.

   Your conference document reads as though it is summing up a commonly agreed position. The situation we are in is that comrades from other traditions involved in the regroupment process have a range of views about the ecosocialist perspective my document is trying to make that case.

   Anyway it’s the start of the discussion and I’ll be nicking ideas from all sorts of place. As for the debate I’ll get back to you.

   LikeLike

   Reply
3. 

   David Ellis

   August 21, 2008 at 5:43 pm

   Martin:

   I have ploughed through your document and I can safely say that it is in no way superior to what Liam is offering here.

   Far from being transitional it is a mixture of reformism and maximalism. It is far too prescriptive and contains a lot of waffle and demagoguery. In short, it is bureaucratic in spirit and an exceptionally turgid read.

   Liam:

   My gripe with the document would be only this. Although it is of course in there I think you must emphasise more the anarchy of capitalist production and link how it both destroys the environment and undermines working class struggle.

   For instance, and I know you know all this, trade unions are an attempt by workers to abolish the competition between themselves and therefore hamper the employers ability to force down their wages. However, their struggle is constantly being undermined by the competition between the capitalists themselves. Capital moves out and sets up elsewhere leaving an out of work population. It then sets up another operation creating a whole new population on lower wages while the other one languishes in unproductive poverty ad infinitum.

   It is the same for environmentalists. Anarchy in production means there is no reformist solution to their problem. You cannot plan to save the environment when capitalists are leant money to set up business on the basis of profit. Even if there are profitable green ways of doing business the other non green ways will still be there and the money will always be made available to exploit them.

   So, the first and only transitional demand that makes any sense environmentally, which chimes directly with the economic interests of the working class and fits nicely with the global credit crisis is to be found in the Transitional Programme.

   Expropriation of the private banks and state-ization of the Credit System

   I quote from the end of the passage:

   `Even more important, however, is the cirumstance that the entire economy – first and foremost large-scale industry and transport – directed by a single financial staff, will serve the vital interests of the workers and all other toilers.

   `However, the state-ization of the banks will produce these favourable results only if the state power itself passes completely from the hands of the exploiters into the hands of the toilers.’

   Without this the anarchy of capitalist production will constantly undermine not only the struggles of workers but will lead to climate destruction. It must, I think be the first demand in any document on eco-socialism. I urge people to read the whole passage to get a proper flavour.

   LikeLike

   Reply
4. 

   martin ohr

   August 22, 2008 at 1:27 pm

   David,

   The point about transitional demands is that they are er, transitional. If you think that the first transitional demand to be made would be expropriation of financial services then I’d like to hear where you think the working class is now.

   LikeLike

   Reply
5. 

   David Ellis

   August 22, 2008 at 8:31 pm

   The point about transisional demands is that they pose the question of power not that they are reformist.

   LikeLike

   Reply
6. 

   David Ellis

   August 23, 2008 at 7:55 am

   Didn’t New Labour just nationalise Northern Rock?

   LikeLike

   Reply
7. 

   David Ellis

   August 25, 2008 at 8:41 pm

   Are people watching Dispatches tonight: How the Banks Never Lose?

   Very good indeed.

   LikeLike

   Reply
8. 

   Stuart King

   August 25, 2008 at 10:46 pm

   Maybe the ISG and the ex-SWP members dont realise how pompous this all sounds. “Revolutionary Regroupment”, a Regroupment website where we can all follow this exciting process, meetings up and down the country.

   Couldn’t the couple of dozen people inside Respect involved in this “Revolutionary Regroupment” just get on with it and publish the results in their magazine? Then we can all be amazed at yet another re-incarnation of the IMG, Socialist Challenge, ISG, Socialist Resistance.

   LikeLike

   Reply
9. 

   Liam

   August 25, 2008 at 11:16 pm

   Humour us Stuart.

   This will be the first occasion in quite a while in Britain when a group of people have left / been kicked out of the SWP and decide to be part of a revolutionary current.

   Sticking a pdf on this site and opening a blog don’t quite constitute delusions of grandeur. It’s just a way of letting anyone who’s interested know about it.

   LikeLike

   Reply