Squatticus
for an armed populace
rebel warrior said:
You disagree about the speed, but not the Davy-Jones-ward trajectory then?
Campaign for a New Workers Party Declaration
- Thread starter Nigel Irritable
- Start date
You disagree about the speed, but not the Davy-Jones-ward trajectory then?
Donna Ferentes
jubliado
I am going to issue a statement in favour of Oxford United winning the FA Cup this season.
Although a desirable occurrence in itself, there is no chance that this will happen, I cannot do anything to bring it about and there is no general feeling that it should occur.
Nevertheless, I shall issue the statement anyway.
Although a desirable occurrence in itself, there is no chance that this will happen, I cannot do anything to bring it about and there is no general feeling that it should occur.
Nevertheless, I shall issue the statement anyway.
cockneyrebel
New Member
So people supporting the formation of a new workers party getting the RMT to agree to the conference being held in January is not being able to do anything to bring it about?
cockneyrebel
New Member
I thought that was the point Donna was making
cockneyrebel
New Member
I'd say the RMT conference shows there is a chance it will happen. The fact that a resolution was taken at the RMT national conference shows things can be done about it in a practical way, and that the fact that delegates at the RMT conference voted for it shows that there is at least some feeling that it should occur.
Donna Ferentes
jubliado
But, I suspect, no general feeling.
cockneyrebel
New Member
Possibly but if a new workers party was formed out of the RMT that would be a good start.
Udo Erasmus
Well-Known Member
WP argue that a new workers party should be unequivocally revolutionary in its programme calling for the overthrow of capitalism etc. I see no sign among trade unionists, workers breaking from labour, anti-capitalists for a new mass bolshevik organisation in Britain.
This seems a different strategy to that of the SP and SWP who envisage a new workers party as a "United Front" type organisation where revolutionaries and reformists will agitate over various reforms and mass campaigns such as defence of the welfare state, against imperialism, anti-racist activity etc.
Why do WP think that a revolutionary mass workers party is viable rather than a united front type coalition of reformists and revolutionaries like Respect or SSP or Socialist Alliance?
I see no sign that their is a huge revolutionary upsurge in Britain or of mass workers activity comparable to the 70s and I would argue that the move towards organisations such as SA/SSP/Respect etc. reflects the weakness of the revolutionary left.
PS. Isn't it contradictory that WP want reformist trade union bureaucrats to initiate a new mass workers party?
This seems a different strategy to that of the SP and SWP who envisage a new workers party as a "United Front" type organisation where revolutionaries and reformists will agitate over various reforms and mass campaigns such as defence of the welfare state, against imperialism, anti-racist activity etc.
Why do WP think that a revolutionary mass workers party is viable rather than a united front type coalition of reformists and revolutionaries like Respect or SSP or Socialist Alliance?
I see no sign that their is a huge revolutionary upsurge in Britain or of mass workers activity comparable to the 70s and I would argue that the move towards organisations such as SA/SSP/Respect etc. reflects the weakness of the revolutionary left.
PS. Isn't it contradictory that WP want reformist trade union bureaucrats to initiate a new mass workers party?
cockneyrebel
New Member
You obviously haven't read what Workers Power have said about it. Fair enough, but then don't comment on it. WP have said that would argue within a new workers party for it to be revolutionary, but we are in no illusions that it won't be revolutionary when it is formed because as you say the vast majority of workers are currently reformists. The difference with a workers party that came out out of the trade union movement is that revolutionaries could be open about their politics and vote for them, as opposed to RESPECT where the SWP have to vote for reformist politics and against revolutionary politics because they've failed to attract any substantial forces.
Donna Ferentes
jubliado
Does anybody remember that old Not The Nine O'Clock News sketch where the trade union leaders had to speak for (however long it was) without saying "aspirations"?
Donna Ferentes
jubliado
(I ask, because I was picturing a similar sketch with far-leftists and the word "illusions".)
Donna Ferentes said:
I was a great fan of the hero of the Neasden proletariat, Dave Spart who as I seem to remember always began his column 'Once again..'
I have often thought that certain posters on here have done an excellent job in their 'life' imitating art.
Udo Erasmus
Well-Known Member
cockneyrebel said:
The problem is what does "argue" actually mean. From my experience, it means WP members turning up and rhetorically demanding that an organisation adopt revolutionary poistions fully aware that many of the reformists present won't support these measures. WP members then think they are superior and can pose as being good revolutionaries - but in practically winning anyone to a revolutionary perspective they fail miserably.
The SWP as a numerically large and organised bloc could easily turn up to Respect or Socialist Alliance national conference and demand that the organisation adopts the revolutionary road - but such a victory would only be a paper victory, as it would come from resolutions from the top, rather than the long and patient task of working with reformists and trying to pull them towards revolution. Surely, the precise reason for projects such as Respect, SA or SSP is essentially for revolutionaries to work with people who are not (or not yet) revolutionary and pull them leftwards and through practical work begin to win them to revolutionary methodsd and strategy.
The trade union movement is not on the offensive in this country or particularly strong - I think that in any workers party launched by the trade union bureaucracy, the revolutionary left would be systematically marginalised.
cockneyrebel
New Member
In terms of winning the working class to a revolutionary perspective the whole of the left has done miserably for a long time now in the UK. But Workers Power doesn't "demand" anything. For instance in the Socialist Alliance we argued for it to take on a revolutionary programme, when we lost the vote we didn't walk out. The same is the case in the Left Party in Germany and would be the same if a new workers party was formed in the UK. If a new workers party was formed out of the unions of course it would be reformist, I doubt if revolutionaries currently make up 1% of the population at best. As such there would be no problem in revolutionaries trying to convince reformist of their politics. The problem in RESPECT is that it has failed, to all intents and purposes, to get out of the left ghetto. That's why despite revolutionaries making up 1% or less of the population amd the SWP being a tiny organisation, they remain a majority of delegates at the RESPECT conference. As such the SWP has to mimic reformists in order to try and attract them. This is the core problem with RESPECT, it's not revolutionaries interacting with real forces in the working class.
As 1% of the UK population is 600,000 Cockers optimism is to be congratulated but not to be taken seriously.
Can anyone explain the logic of "I doubt if revolutionaries currently make up 1% of the population at best. As such there would be no problem in revolutionaries trying to convince reformist of their politics."? I would have thought that precisely because revolutionariies make up ooh, say 6,000 tops on a good day of the population which is actually about .001% of the population that they would continue to have problems in convincing the reformists of their politics.
On those figures I make the Workers Powers membership 1% of the total population of the revo left and on Cockers logic it should have no problem in trying to convince other revolutionaries of their politics. On the other hand Workers Power are .00001% of the population (obviously not including the On those figures I make external faction.) .
Can anyone explain the logic of "I doubt if revolutionaries currently make up 1% of the population at best. As such there would be no problem in revolutionaries trying to convince reformist of their politics."? I would have thought that precisely because revolutionariies make up ooh, say 6,000 tops on a good day of the population which is actually about .001% of the population that they would continue to have problems in convincing the reformists of their politics.
On those figures I make the Workers Powers membership 1% of the total population of the revo left and on Cockers logic it should have no problem in trying to convince other revolutionaries of their politics. On the other hand Workers Power are .00001% of the population (obviously not including the On those figures I make external faction.) .
Donna Ferentes
jubliado
Yes, but grasshopper, if you empty a glass of water into the ocean and then dip the glass in again, there will still be some molecules left from the original glass....
JHE said:
From this day on that will be the slogan of th external faction of Workers Power.Many thanks.
Similar threads
