40 responses to “Working for a new revolutionary socialist organisation”

1. Hegemony and Socialist Strategy « Euroleft

   September 14, 2008 at 9:04 pm

   […] and concentrate on their more familiar and time-honoured methods of organising on the left, while others portray the recent militant shift amid economic downturn as being of a potentially revolutionary […]

   LikeLike

   Reply
2. 

   Joseph Kisolo

   September 15, 2008 at 7:24 am

   As I commented before, while I broadly welcome this statement I do think that it does not address the vital question of the appropriate relation between any revolutionary socialist organisation and the broad socialist organisation that it claims we must also build.

   The statement says;
   “The role of revolutionary Marxists in helping to build Respect over the next period will be an important one.”

   This doesn’t seem to be to be anything like robust enough. The internal conflict inside Respect had multiple causes but I would argue that a major factor was the SWP’s clinging to the idea that one can have a ‘party within a party’.

   It is not just the case that revolutionary parties need to be more polite and thoughtful within the broader groups they want to build – rather Revolutionaries must GIVE UP the idea that they need (in this immediate moment) to form a separate party that replicates the mechanics of the broad party – but in a more radical way.

   Any attempt to to this will eventually lead to conflict as resources and infrastructure will be replicated and the two parties will in some ways necessary be in conflict with each other.

   Rather Revolutionaries should aim to organise as currents within broader organisations. The aim of the revolutionary current is not to act as an entrist group trying to win enough people so it can form a better more pure break away party when the time comes, the current should not see itself as the better and finished product for social change rather it should try to increase not it’s influence over the broad party but the influence of revolutionary ideas and strategy within the broad party.

   Central to this is that the revolutionary grouping must accept the primacy of the broad socialist grouping as the vehicle for trying to change the world, thus it must work primarily through it rather than independently through itself. It must recruit first to the broad party rather then itself. It must primarily promote the broad party rather then itself (i.e. most of the time sell the broad parties paper rather then its own). Its members should appear and act in other united founts primary as broad party members (i.e. generally they should not seek to have places on steering committees representing the views of their revolutionary current separate to the broad group).

   Perhaps, some of the last comments are to prescriptive but I want to to give an idea that being a party or platform verses being a current is not just a matter of semantics but has real practical implications.

   LikeLike

   Reply
3. 

   RobM

   September 15, 2008 at 8:46 am

   Joe, I largely agree with you on this (as do a number of others).
   The regroupment sterring committee will be issuing a number of discussion bulletins in the near future and I suggest you submit a contribution to the one on revolutionary organisation.

   LikeLike

   Reply
4. 

   johng

   September 15, 2008 at 9:43 am

   Respect was an organisation with too many revolutionaries and too few reformists. Which is really a way of saying that it was too small, as any larger formation would reverse this equation. The second thing was that it was the product of many different intiatives but centrally the intiative of revolutionaries was very important both in setting it up and in keeping it running. I think that Joseph’s conclusions generalise too much from the resulting (very disputed) experiances. My own view is that the key task for any left of Social Democracy current is to break out of the situation described above before it collapses or fragments. In my own view Respect failed to do this. But in order to break out of that situation the model has to be coalitional. This means that you can’t impose a rhetoric which determines in advance the role that will be played by different forces that will come to it. Out of the debacle that actually happened I’ve come to the view, which I stated fairly early on in these arguments, that the experiance of the LRC in its early years is vital. In this organisation people came togeather with a label but ran their own contests often under their own steam. This was whether they were individuals sponsered by trade unions or on the other hand political organisations. This allowed the left nationally to present a united front on the electoral terraine whilst locally campaigns were run depending on who had a base in a given area, with some limited co-operation natch. But in this way it would be possible to avoid the kinds of tensions which have generated the perspective which Joseph put foward but provide an alternative solution to them. Given the state of the left at present I don’t think a partyist model is possible on the electoral front. I do think however that there are enough local iniatives to sustain a broad coalition whose different components advance under their own steam. This would be my way of moving beyond the current impasses on the left.

   LikeLike

   Reply
5. 

   bill j

   September 15, 2008 at 10:08 am

   I think the idea of an electoral front is misconceived. In fact a mistake and a key reason why it all went wrong.
   I think we need a broad socialist movement, within which various socialist currents can co-operate and argue their politics.
   In that respect, Respect is not anything like we need. It is not explicitly socialist, it is deliberately vague on key issues facing the working class, it is not even working class. So it is too narrow, to encompass the left, but also too right wing to really present the politics that we need to take us forward.

   LikeLike

   Reply
6. 

   johng

   September 15, 2008 at 10:46 am

   My own point was simply that we absolutely need forums for all the kind of work that socialists do, but that whilst of course RR are a party in their own right (I should clarify that!) when we do speak about the electoral front we need to find some non-zero sum game way of discussing the question. Its unlikely that an electoral alternative will start from a single iniative or organisation in other words. There is just this tendency for electoral iniatives to divide though. Think of the ease with which often socialists can work togeather on other issues, and contrast it with the logic of electoralism. I don’t think this means we should turn our back on it. But I do think there needs to be a bit of rethinking about how to go about things.

   LikeLike

   Reply
7. 

   Joseph Kisolo

   September 15, 2008 at 12:03 pm

   Johng – “the intiative of revolutionaries was very important both in setting it up and in keeping it running”

   It is certainly true that SWP members where the back bone of Respect and that SWP members whanted Respect to grow and be successful. However it is also true that the general SWP line was to hold Respect back from developing party apperatus, this wasn’t becasue members didn’t sincerly belive in Respect but rather because there couldn’t hack the idea of Respects organisation getting in the way of the SWP’s – because there where two parties there was a conflictual relationship.

   Johng – “the model has to be coalitional”

   Except that it can be a true coalition, a bringing togeather of different self-organised groups as there is no orgtanised non-revolutionary group to have a coalition with. The people we where trying to win to Respect didn’t have their own organisation – rather Respect had to be that organisation. A situation where new members need the broad organisation to be the primary focus of organisation but where ‘Revolutionaries’ primirally organise seperatly within that seems clearly to me a) not a colaition in the normal sense and b) unsustainable.

   The bits and peices, low commitment aprroch of a franchise name which differnt left groups can take up seems to me even more vunarable to being marginalised by left-groups priorising there own group. Also who can this posibly create a democratic and attractive home for new activists? How could they have any say over the overall charector of the franchise if they weren’t alined to any other big group?

   LikeLike

   Reply
8. 

   Joseph Kisolo

   September 15, 2008 at 12:11 pm

   bill j – “think the idea of an electoral front is misconceived”

   We’ll we’ll just have to disagree on that I suppose. Shit as our system is the working class fought hard for our limited democracy and however much people are disilusioned with it they still see it as the primary site for representation. You can’t ignore or go around the state.

   bill j – “[Respect] is not explicitly socialist, it is deliberately vague on key issues facing the working class, it is not even working class”

   You are living in another universe to me on this one. If you find an average person and show them Respect’s program or a random peice of publisity they will see it as hard left. I’m not sure what you think the key issues of the working class are but in my view they are stuff like th housing criss and the over bread and butter issues that have been Respect’s bread and butter. I all so have no idea what your ‘working class’ looks like.

   LikeLike

   Reply
9. 

   Liam

   September 15, 2008 at 12:15 pm

   No one who is engaged in this process sees Respect as anything other than one fragile but significant element in the building of a much broader and bigger formation. Electoral success is an indispensable part of earning some credibility in the labour movement but, as the resolutions that are being submitted to conference show, there is a strong push to connect the organisation with the economic situation and the wider needs of the class.

   on one of Joseph’s points – whatever else is planned for this new revolutionary current dominating Respect is not on the agenda. All of us agree that Respect, and whatever it evolves into, has to have its own life and its own culture. Trying to control it through organisational methods would simply suffocate it. As Rob says this will be discussed in one of the upcoming bulletins.

   Johng and Bill – i hope that you two are planning to meet up in Manchester at the weekend. It looks like the beginning of a beautiful friendship.

   LikeLike

   Reply
10. 

    johng

    September 15, 2008 at 12:28 pm

    Well obviously there is an alternative discussion about how different components of RR should work with each other which I wouldn’t want to intefere with. But I don’t think that any organisation at present is in a position to build a national electoral alternative on the basis of attracting individuals. It will involve a coalition of groups in my view, some of them already existing, some of them perhaps not. So I’m trying to abstract from the particular dynamics of already existing iniatives, none of which in reality are national level electoral alternatives, and look at this question of how national level alternatives come into being. One way of proceeding is looking at how actually existing national electoral parties actually came into being. Almost never on the basis of a few individuals with a base recruiting people individually to an organisation. Its why for me (and I know you differ) the problem with respect could not really be located in the particular behaviours of either individuals or organisations, but in the fact that it was just too small. And being open to individuals would not have helped. It needed wider forces. Of course the question of different levels of responsibility for this is a legitimate matter for debate, but its why I think your mistaken to over-emphasis the immediate causes for the split, either in your general account, or in models for the future. In particular I think there are real dangers with models which effectively target the idea of parties within parties. I think we need loads of parties within parties if there is to be any hope at all. Not to see this is to misunderstand the very embryonic stage we’re at.

    LikeLike

    Reply
11. 

    commie

    September 15, 2008 at 3:21 pm

    Respect was a Popular Frontist project – the idea that it can in any way, except negatively, inform the project of revolutionary regroupment is a complete distortion of Marxism

    LikeLike

    Reply
12. 

    bill j

    September 15, 2008 at 4:14 pm

    Well I’m chairing the last session on Sunday, so hopefully I’ll meet you all!
    I didn’t say elections weren’t important – I said an electoral front was misconceived. If Respects electoral success is important in building its credibility, you might as well give up now.
    Joseph thinks that Respect is regarded as hard left by your average person on the street. Well maybe. In which case why not be what you are perceived to be?

    LikeLike

    Reply
13. 

    David Ellis

    September 15, 2008 at 9:54 pm

    Let’s hope this convention is the bonfire of the sects. This one’s for you bill. Join respect and the rev regroup that’s going on within it.

    Marx to Friedrich Bolte
    In New York

    Written: November 23, 1871;
    Source: Marx and Engels Correspondence;

    The International was founded in order to replace the Socialist or semi-Socialist sects by a real organisation of the working class for struggle. The original Statutes and the Inaugural Address show this at the first glance. On the other hand the Internationalists could not have maintained themselves if the course of history had not already smashed up the sectarian system. The development of the system of Socialist sects and that of the real workers’ movement always stand in inverse ratio to each other. So long as the sects are (historically) justified, the working class is not yet ripe for an independent historic movement. As soon as it has attained this maturity ail sects are essentially reactionary. Nevertheless what history has shown everywhere was repeated within the International. The antiquated makes an attempt to re-establish and maintain itself within the newly achieved form.

    And the history of the International was a continual struggle on the part of the General Council against the sects and amateur experiments which attempted to assert themselves within the International itself against the genuine movement of the working class. This struggle was conducted at the Congresses, but far more in the private dealings of the General Council with the individual sections.

    In Paris, as the Proudhonists (Mutualists) were co-founders of the Association, they naturally had the reins in their hands there for the first years. Later, of course, collectivist, positivist, etc., groups were formed in opposition to them.

    In Germany–the Lassalle clique. I myself went on corresponding for two years with the notorious Schweitzer and proved irrefutably to him that Lassalle’s organisation is nothing but a sectarian organisation and as such hostile to the organisation of the genuine workers’ movement striven for by the International. He had his “reasons” for not understanding this.

    At the end of 1868 the Russian, Bakunin, entered the International with the aim of forming inside it a second International called the “Alliance of Social-Democracy,” with himself as leader. He–a man devoid of theoretical knowledge–put forward the pretension that this separate body was to represent the scientific propaganda of the International, which was to be made the special function of this second International within the International.

    His programme was a superficially scraped together hash of Right and Left–EQUALITY Of CLASSES (!), abolition of the right of inheritance as the starting point of the social movement (St. Simonistic nonsense), atheism as a dogma to be dictated to the members, etc., and as the main dogma (Proudhonist), abstention from the political movement.

    This infant’s spelling-book found favour (and still has a certain hold) in Italy and Spain, where the real conditions of the workers’ movement are as yet little developed, and among a few vain, ambitious and empty doctrinaires in French Switzerland and Belgium.

    For Mr. Bakunin the theory (the assembled rubbish he has scraped together from Proudhon, St. Simon, etc.) is a secondary affair–merely a means to his personal self-assertion. If he is a nonentity as a theoretician he is in his element as an intriguer.

    For years the General Council had to fight against this conspiracy (which was supported up to a certain point by the French Proudhonists, especially in the south of France). At last, by means of Conference resolutions I (2) and (3), IX, XVI, and XVII, it delivered its long prepared blow.

    Obviously the General Council does not support in America what it combats in Europe. Resolutions I (2) and (3) and IX now give the New York committee legal weapons with which to put an end to all sectarian formations and amateur groups and if necessary to expel them.

    The New York Committee will do well to express its full agreement with the decisions of the Conference in an official communication to the General Council.

    Bakunin, personally threatened in addition by Resolution XIV (publication in Égalité of the Netchaev trial) which will bring to light his infamous doings in Russia, is making every possible effort to get a protest started against the Conference among the remnants of his followers.

    For this purpose he has got into contact with the demoralised section of the French political refugees in Geneva and London (a numerically weak section, anyway). The slogan given out is that the Geneva Council is dominated by Pan-Germanism (especially Bismarckism). This refers to the unpardonable fact that I am by birth a German and do actually exercise a decisive intellectual influence on the German Council. (N.B. The German element on the Council is two-thirds weaker numerically than either the English or the French. The crime therefore consists in the fact that the English and French elements are dominated by the German element where theory is concerned (!) and find this domination, i.e., German science, very useful and indeed indispensable.)

    In Geneva, under the patronage of the bourgeois Madame Andrée Léo (who at the Lausanne Congress was shameless enough to denounce Ferré to his executioners in Versailles), they have published a paper, La Révolution Sociale, which conducts arguments against us in almost literally the same words as the Journal de Genève, the most reactionary paper in Europe.

    In London they attempted to establish a French section, of whose activities you will find an example in No. 42 of Qui Vive? which I enclose. (Also the number which contains the letter from our French Secretary, Seraillier). This section, consisting of twenty people (including a lot of spies), has not been recognised by the General Council, but another much more numerous section has been.

    Actually, despite the intrigues of this bunch of scoundrels, we are carrying on great propaganda in France–and in Russia, where they know what value to place on Bakunin and where my book on capital is just being published in Russian….

    N.B. as to political movement: The political movement of the working class has as its object, of course, the conquest of political power for the working class, and for this it is naturally necessary that a previous organisation of the working class, itself arising from their economic struggles, should have been developed up to a certain point.

    On the other hand, however, every movement in which the working class comes out as a class against the ruling classes and attempts to force them by pressure from without is a political movement. For instance, the attempt in a particular factory or even a particular industry to force a shorter working day out of the capitalists by strikes, etc., is a purely economic movement. On the other hand the movement to force an eight-hour day, etc., law is a political movement. And in this way, out of the separate economic movements of the workers there grows up everywhere a political movement, that is to say a movement of the class, with the object of achieving its interests in a general form, in a form possessing a general social force of compulsion. If these movements presuppose a certain degree of previous organisation, they are themselves equally a means of the development of this organisation.

    Where the working class is not yet far enough advanced in its organisation to undertake a decisive campaign against the collective power, i.e., the political power of the ruling classes, it must at any rate be trained for this by continual agitation against and a hostile attitude towards the policy of the ruling classes. Otherwise it will remain a plaything in their hands, as the September revolution in France showed, and as is also proved up to a certain point by the game Messrs. Gladstone & Co. are bringing off in England even up to the present time.

    LikeLike

    Reply
14. 

    bill j

    September 15, 2008 at 10:13 pm

    Yes an excellent letter.
    “Where the working class is not yet far enough advanced in its organisation to undertake a decisive campaign against the collective power, i.e., the political power of the ruling classes, it must at any rate be trained for this by continual agitation against and a hostile attitude towards the policy of the ruling classes.”

    Funnily enough I couldn’t find this bit anywhere in Respects platform?

    LikeLike

    Reply
15. 

    David Ellis

    September 15, 2008 at 10:19 pm

    It was the SWP who lumbered the rev left with the idea that they must adopt some sub reformist piece of shit programme. They are sectarian in practice but opportunist in theory and politics which is precisely the wrong way round. We should definitely be trying to get respect to adopt a transitional prog but in an exemplary fashion. Also, the stalinist elements are bound to want to try and make it join some rubbish stalinist 2and a half international which we must oppose.

    Respect should also maybe be looking to stand in seats where the blairite plotters have shown their hand over the last few days and are now thoroughly hated by the party itself.

    LikeLike

    Reply
16. 

    Liam

    September 16, 2008 at 7:12 am

    David – the SWP were right to insist on Respect not adopting a revolutionary programme. The election platforms on which Respect stood were militantly opposed to British imperialism and took up some of the major economic demands of working people. It has has a pretty good record of supporting strikes.

    Every revolutionary current is in a pretty weak state at the moment and that cannot be disassociated from the combativity of the working class. Propagandistic assertions of the revolutionary programme do not build organisations with real roots at any time, in a period like this it’s not much more than wishful thinking. The job now is to use the upcoming conference to get Respect to turn out to the organisations which will be engaging in struggle.

    LikeLike

    Reply
17. 

    johng

    September 16, 2008 at 7:52 am

    Its worth saying that ‘revolutionary regroupment’ if what is meant is a re-arrangement of revolutionary groups would not change much about reality in modern Britain. The point of regroupment in Britain is to provide a focus for those moving to the left of Labour, and, at some point to break significant forces from the trade union movement from it. In other words to build a left to the left of Labour. I think Respect was for a time a point of attraction for those thinking of making such a break but in the end did not break through. Its possible that it still might of course, but my own feeling is, only as part of a wider re-alignment.

    LikeLike

    Reply
18. 

    Joseph Kisolo

    September 16, 2008 at 8:04 am

    I agree with you there Johng, to me any regroupment of Revolutionaries is an complete waste of time unless it is firmly located with in a discussion of wider regroupment of the radical left – luckly this seems to be what comrades involved in this envision.

    LikeLike

    Reply
19. 

    johng

    September 16, 2008 at 12:01 pm

    Yes, yes Joseph I know. It wasn’t my intention to deny it.

    LikeLike

    Reply
20. 

    David Ellis

    September 16, 2008 at 12:10 pm

    Joseph,

    Despite everything that has happened you agree with the cynic Johng on this matter. Maybe you can take the boy out of the SWP but you can’t take the SWP out of the boy.

    This united front of a `special kind’ is a euphemism for opportunistically dropping or hiding your programme. A united front is only concluded for practical results. Galloway didn’t drop his programme to be part of Respect but the SWP did when they actually had no need. It was because they hid their real intentions that they became a disruptive force in Respect and actually exploded it when it started gaining a bit of momentum despite them. Galloway needed them and they needed Galloway. There was no need to compromise on their programme or Galloway on his (Galloway was probably to the left of them on many things) all that was needed was to just agree to achieve specific practical results. In this case getting Galloway elected and hopefully later some of their people etc.

    If the revolutionaries are going to work in Respect in the same old SWP way then you will have the same old SWP outcome.

    I don’t see why calling for the nationalisation of the banks and stateization of the credit system to the benefit of workers, small businesses, farmers and of course the environment is considered repulsive by revolutionists unless they are not really revolutionists. This kind of policy should be very attractive to very broad layers at the moment. Of course it is the revolutionists policy but they are not going to walk out of Respect if it does not adopt it as a whole, that would be sectarian, but it is going to, or should be going to, fight for it and fight for their right to continue fighting for it. It should also be looking to get revolutionaries into Parliament through Respect. Let the revolutionists fight in Respect in an exemplary manner through political persuasion not in the sub-stalinist ways of the SWP. Their route is the route to irrelevance and betrayal the latter is the route to real growth. If the revs win Resect to its positions and the Stalinists don’t like it they will leave so what.

    Enough of SWP opportunism. Certainly any regroupment of revolutionaries on a reformist programme will be a complete waste of time. In some respects the reformists are becoming more revolutionary than we are thanks to the rank opportunism of the SWP.

    LikeLike

    Reply
21. 

    Joseph Kisolo

    September 16, 2008 at 2:10 pm

    David I think you are a little confused about what my position is, though I admit I am rather confused about yours.

    As far as I can see:

    Johng belives that we need revolutionary parties and that also we need wider ‘coalitions’ between differnt party groups (revolutionary and ‘reformist’) and non-aligned indivudals.

    I belive that parties within parties are problematic and that we need to work towrds a broad and radical left party with revolutionaies acting as currents within it.

    You (I think) believe that we just need a broad revolutionary party?

    On the specific issue of whether “calling for the nationalisation of the banks and stateization of the credit system to the benefit of workers, small businesses, farmers and of course the environment” is a damand that can rightly be put out by a broad party, I agree it probally is but (in more concrete language) I think you’ll find that this is exactly the sort of demand that Respect has made and will make in the future. (i.e. calling for the nationalisation of Northan Rock).

    LikeLike

    Reply
22. 

    David Ellis

    September 16, 2008 at 5:11 pm

    Joseph,

    Apologies for being a little blunt in my previous comment.

    `I believe that parties within parties are problematic and that we need to work towrds a broad and radical left party with revolutionaies acting as currents within it.’

    I think it is a problem for a sect like the SWP who are interested in themselves rather than the end i.e. socialism. They entered as opportunists and left as sectarians.

    I think any faction within an organisation should be trying to get that organisation to adopt its point of view. How it goes about that is a matter of tactics but it never ceases to develop and put its position across or hides those positions. Think bolsheviks in the RSDP. They were politically sectarian but organisatioinally extremely flexible. Whilst trying to win Respect, the revolutionary faction should also be pushing Respect outwards especially towards the labour party left as Thornett says to grow the audience for its politics.

    The reason the sects don’t build is because they normally don’t go near real movements and when they do they hide their politics which is a lose lose situation. I’m not saying the rev left in Respect should go to the conference with all guns blazing. It is a tactical question as I said but it is not a tactical question that the rev left plays fast and loose with its own politics.

    LikeLike

    Reply
23. 

    johng

    September 17, 2008 at 9:32 am

    Well of course I think what we need is a broad revolutionary party. I also think we need an electoral alternative to new labour. But I don’t identify the two. When I used the early LRC as a model thats an indication that I don’t. What happened with the LRC was that different political parties (including a self styled revolutionary one), different trade unions etc ended up affiliating on the basis of carrying their individual electoral campaigns under the same banner without merging their identities or becoming a single membership party. Each candidate would stand under their own banner but be part of something larger (in this case the Labour Representation Commitee).

    I should be clear that in arguing this its in the context of thinking that the whole question of how to cope with the reality that Respect did not have the forces we all wanted it to have was not well handled by anyone. On the one hand there is a tendency to say what we need is individual membership structure lots of internal life etc (but be a bit unclear about how to get there) on the other hand there was a tendency for the SWP to substitute a bit for the existence of wider forces, not an incoherent strategy in itself but it could become problematic.

    Whats done is done, but I’ve come to the view that the different forces which can pull stuff in different areas need to recognise that they’re not it (I know you already recognise this) and that a broader model (which at some point will probably come) will probably resemble something like the LRC (which would include proponents of both visions) in which different tendencies operate under their own steam but sometimes co-operate. The larger structure will not be Partyist and will in all probability not involve one member one vote. In the LRC this took 19 years (I think that was it).

    This is not to be taken as a proposal. Its just that I think its quite likely that this is what will begin to happen and I think moving on from the current disputes probably involves looking at something like that, rather then premature attempts to resolve disagreements about how different groups organise themselves internally (as we know this is highly unlikely in the short term). Its what I mean by needing more ‘parties within parties’. Its what the LRC actually was.

    None of this is intended as an intervention in how Respect organises itself or how LA will organise itself. I should also say that this is entirely my own view and doesn’t reflect any official position.

    LikeLike

    Reply
24. 

    johng

    September 17, 2008 at 9:42 am

    The belief that the Bolsheviks were politically sectarian but organisationally flexible is an extraordinary one. Its a strange definition of sectarianism.

    LikeLike

    Reply
25. 

    RobM

    September 17, 2008 at 10:48 am

    John, you are in favour of a broad revolutionary party AND an electoral alternative. Are you also in favour of the narrow revolutionary party (ie SWP) maintaining its own structures within the broader revoultionary party as well as within the even-broader electoral formation?

    LikeLike

    Reply
26. 

    skidmarx

    September 17, 2008 at 11:11 am

    “Are you also in favour of the narrow revolutionary party (ie SWP) maintaining its own structures?”

    And if the answer is yes…?

    LikeLike

    Reply
27. 

    johng

    September 17, 2008 at 11:45 am

    Rob I think whats I’ve said is completely clear on this. Have you read it? The answer is yes because thats how the LRC functioned. In other words if this recession breaks big in coming months Labour collapses etc, etc, a real space opens out, what would be wrong with Respect, Left Alternative, Socialist Party etc, etc (sorry don’t want to leave anyone out) all standing under their own steam with their own internal arrangements where they have a base but also being affiliated to a commitee called something like alternative to recession and war (thats absolutely crap, whoever thinks up names, give that job to someone else!). Its an attempt to put foward a framework of discussion which is not a zero sum game.

    LikeLike

    Reply
28. 

    David Ellis

    September 17, 2008 at 11:47 am

    `The belief that the Bolsheviks were politically sectarian but organisationally flexible is an extraordinary one. Its a strange definition of sectarianism.’

    I think you’ll find that the Bolsheviks took no prisoners when it came to Marxist politics and yielded to no man. At the same time they worked in the ultra reactionary Tsarist Duma and within the umbrella of the RSDLP alongside the Mensheviks. The SWP, on the other hand, will believe any old shit but won’t get involved in anything unless they are in charge. That is sectarianism. There really is nothing extraordinary in what I’ve said. It is bog standard Marxism.

    LikeLike

    Reply
29. 

    David Ellis

    September 17, 2008 at 11:50 am

    `In other words if this recession breaks big in coming months Labour collapses etc, etc, a real space opens out, what would be wrong with Respect, Left Alternative, Socialist Party etc, etc (sorry don’t want to leave anyone out) all standing under their own steam with their own internal arrangements where they have a base but also being affiliated to a commitee called something like alternative to recession and war .’

    Just remember the tactics: isolate, exclude, split, dominate and start all over again.

    LikeLike

    Reply
30. 

    RobM

    September 17, 2008 at 1:57 pm

    John, I can perfectly well understand what you are saying about the relationship of the SWP to a larger electoral front (coalition) would be.
    What I didn’t understand was where this ‘broad revolutionary party’ came in. This third element doesn’t seem necessary in your scheme as the SWP as is could participate directly in an electoral coalition without the need to be first in a broader regroupment of revolutionaries.

    LikeLike

    Reply
31. 

    johng

    September 17, 2008 at 3:58 pm

    oh sorry i think we might have crossed wires (my fault). Broad revolutionary party did not mean anything special. I was just responding to Josephs point and thought he was contrasting that with non-party tendencies. My bad.

    LikeLike

    Reply
32. 

    johng

    September 17, 2008 at 3:59 pm

    Dave it is not bog standard to equate political toughness with sectarianism.

    LikeLike

    Reply
33. 

    Joseph Kisolo

    September 17, 2008 at 5:17 pm

    I really do think that there is more to it forming a broad radical left then just sub-parties agreeing to play nicely, the very fact of trying to be a party within a party creates tensions.

    For example at one point in Manchester the SWP line (admittedly agreed by some of the few non-SWP others around) was that there should be less Respect meetings as people where to busy with all the other stuff kicking off – ok perhaps fair enough, except that at the same time the number of SWP meeting was scaled up!? The argument being that we needed the SWP meetings to get our radical heads straight on how to coordinate all the united front stuff. Respect also being seen as a united front (albeit of a special kind) wasn’t seen as a place where radical decisions where made (why should it be if there is all ready an SWP shaped place?) so it didn’t need to have lots of activist meetings rather it should just have broad ‘push out’ meetings.

    Anyway, sorry to go on. On the more positive side just been sitting around in a dental hospital all day today, my partner had a tooth out (that’s not the positive thing!), and happened upon the G2 – to my surprise it had a brilliant selection of proper lefties discussing the credit crunch. From Salma Yaqoob to Lynsey German all make brilliant points and Ken Loach and Tony Benn both plug the convention of the left the only totally duff comment is from Michel Onfray who basically says that capitalism it unkillable, it will just adapt and that the obsession with credit will continue (the last two are probably correct but the ivory tower Onfray seems to have little to say about how we tackle that).

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/sep/17/recession.labour

    LikeLike

    Reply
34. 

    David Ellis

    September 17, 2008 at 5:56 pm

    johng: I didn’t but I can certainly rely on you to get the wrong end of the stick.

    LikeLike

    Reply
35. 

    steve

    September 18, 2008 at 1:40 am

    “As a system for the distribution and exchange of goods, you can’t beat the market.” Livingstone

    To be honest with you Livingstones piece is the worse by far. The idea that the market distributes well is fucking mind boggling….!!!!! what fool would politically attach themselves to Ken with politics like this..ahh bit of a sore subject. lol

    LikeLike

    Reply
36. 

    johng

    September 18, 2008 at 11:29 am

    Joseph,

    the admittedly too abstract comparison i made with the LRC would rule out the kind of thing your worried about. the difficulty with what i would call partyism is that there is not enough agreement on the left for that kind of thing to exist at more then local levels. hence the tensions. However if you added the local iniatives togeather without anyone having the ability to intefere in the internal workings of others there might be enough for a kind of national platform. thats my argument. referring to the LRC is a way of pointing out, not only that there is a real historical example of this, but also that it took a very considerable period of time before one could move beyond this kind of coalitional as opposed to party structure at national level. we might have been trying to run before we could walk.

    LikeLike

    Reply
37. 

    Halshall

    September 19, 2008 at 10:41 am

    Joseph,

    I agree that there will be a tension between a growing broad-front pluralist left reformist Respect and a revolutionary ‘party ‘within it, but fail to see that simply calling such a ‘party’ a ‘current ‘can make a difference.

    Clearly you mean more than a semantic difference; but can a ‘current ‘ with it’s own internal political life and publications be anything really different from a ‘party’, with it’s own internal life and publications ?
    Does the old canard of democratic centralism really need to be a barrier to avoid permanent splitting and feuds? Or is there a need for revolutionary discipline that recognises difference within the wider ‘party’ whilst keeping comrades on line?
    Does there need to be any lines at all?
    Clearly some basic principles of agreement need to exist, but what about the fine detail, especially as things develop in struggle ?
    These are questions that have to be faced, whilst still looking outwards and relating to the class.
    No-one who wants to build a mass organisation well to the left of the LP and that actively supports workers in struggle wants to repeat the mistake of the very recent past, and how to do so must be on many minds. I myself have been really put off the idea that this is even possible given what’s happened in the last year, but maybe there is a way. I just can’t see it yet.

    LikeLike

    Reply
38. 

    David Ellis

    September 19, 2008 at 11:17 am

    Halshall

    I think the rev socs within Respect will see themselves as a faction of Respect not as a party within a party or on a raiding mission. Their aim will be to gain the leadership of Respect which is just as much theirs as anyone else’s. Problem with the SWP was that they hid their politics and that is what made them a party within the party as opposed to a faction of the party. I think we should recognise the difference between those who have left and were only interested in the means and those who remain and are interested in the ends.

    LikeLike

    Reply
39. 

    Liam

    September 19, 2008 at 12:09 pm

    Halshall – all the recent European experience is that these new formations are politically diverse and can be pretty fragile. The most obvious example is Rifondazione in Italy.

    There is no guarantee that Respect won’t collapse at some point. It might end up in coalition with neo-liberals. All sorts of good and bad things are possible. Scotland and Italy are precedents. That’s why we are trying to build a politically coherent current which is active inside and outside Respect. It’s a long road to building a new party and it’s good sense to old together a nucleus of people with similar idea.

    Equally we will want to develop ideas in more depth than is possible in a broad party. Our discussions on ecosocialism are one example and next week we are discussing events in Bolivia and Venezuela. That’s not stopping us bringing up several hundred copies of the Respect paper to Manchester tomorrow.

    David – we don’t want to be the leadership of Respect. We want to be a component part of the organisation which wins and loses by political argument rather than numbers and organising capacity.

    LikeLike

    Reply
40. 

    Hegemony and Socialist Strategy « European Left Forum

    October 8, 2008 at 2:41 pm

    […] and concentrate on their more familiar and time-honoured methods of organising on the left, while others portray the recent militant shift amid economic downturn as being of a potentially revolutionary […]

    LikeLike

    Reply