Life after the SWP?

[TremulousTetra]

..and you should probably be more specific than "non-bolshevik left".

I will go with any label you want to put upon yourself ,as it is your views I'm interested in. N

No.

That question just doesn't fit with how I see class struggle functioning. It's not as narrow/linear/uniform as that.

take the above scenario of a local housing meeting. How does a revolutionary such as yourself intervene in that class struggle? Or does he not intervene, and just watch the working class learn from its own mistakes and successes?

 

[chilango]

There isn't an easy label to put on me, that's part of your mistake. I'm influenced by a bunch of currents/traditions/tendencies but it wouldn't be accurate to say I belonged to any, nor could you generalise from that point.

I'm not a revolutionary. Not in the sense you 're using it anyway.

Baby has just woke up, so I'll address your scenario later. A dirty nappy beckons.

 

[love detective]

Why not learn the lessons of history?

Why not indeed

As chilango suggests, the left could do with a thorough examination/autopsy into its continued & increasing failure over the last twenty five years

Any sign of that genuinely and realistically happening in-house, from either the cobweb left or the new media left? not in the slightest

 

[TremulousTetra]

All sounds okay, until the tagged on, and unnecessary, final paragraph.

Well you cannot just state that as fact. You need to explain why some kind of organisation to promote the lessons from history about class struggle is unnecessary. Working together after all is not only fundamental to communism, but humanity.


Secondly, my response to frogwoman is a statement of fact, that what I learned from the SWP is that 1. revolutionaries cannot tell people what to do, and that 2. the 'party' is only legitimate if it promotes the emancipation of the working class by the working class. I can't really let myself be painted into a viewpoint, I don't hold.

 

[chilango]

I will go with any label you want to put upon yourself ,as it is your views I'm interested in. N


take the above scenario of a local housing meeting. How does a revolutionary such as yourself intervene in that class struggle? Or does he not intervene, and just watch the working class learn from its own mistakes and successes?

So, in your scenario. There is no straight answer I'm afraid, it all depends...

For example, where I live now, I've only been there a couple of months. The LAST thing I'd be doing is waltzing in and "intervening". I need to get to know my neighbours, become a part of the community, listen/watch/observe/participate in community life so that should such a meeting be called I'd by who, why, where, what the aim might or might not be.

But yeah, first of all listen.

 

[chilango]

Well you cannot just state that as fact. You need to explain why some kind of organisation to promote the lessons from history about class struggle is unnecessary. Working together after all is not only fundamental to communism, but humanity.

It's a BIG leap from recognising the need to "work together" in an organised manner to seeing The Party as the answer.

 

[TremulousTetra]

There isn't an easy label to put on me, that's part of your mistake. I'm influenced by a bunch of currents/traditions/tendencies but it wouldn't be accurate to say I belonged to any, nor could you generalise from that point.

I'm not a revolutionary. Not in the sense you 're using it anyway.

Baby has just woke up, so I'll address your scenario later. A dirty nappy beckons.

you asked me for more accurate definition of the non-Bolshevik left. I said I was interested in your ideas on the topic. So I have no interest in providing a more accurate description of the non-Bolshevik left.

I just need a label you're happy with, other than non-Bolshevik left. I tell you what, let's call it Chilangoism lol

I am using the term revolutionary, in the sense of anybody who would like to see an end to the capitalist mode of social organisation and transition to a classless mode of social existence. Unhappy with that? Y?

 

[chilango]

you asked me for more accurate definition of the non-Bolshevik left. I said I was interested in your ideas on the topic. So I have no interest in providing a more accurate description of the non-Bolshevik left.

I just need a label you're happy with, other than non-Bolshevik left. I tell you what, let's call it Chilangoism lol

I am using the term revolutionary, in the sense of anybody who would like to see an end to the capitalist mode of social organisation and transition to a classless mode of social existence. Unhappy with that? Y?

Fine.

 

[TremulousTetra]

It's a BIG leap from recognising the need to "work together" in an organised manner to seeing The Party as the answer.

Ahhhhh, but at no point have I accepted YOUR interpretation of 'The Party' is my view of the party. Your interpretation does not chime with what I in fact learned on the topic from the SWP. I too am against 'The Party' as you and frog woman present it. There is a pragmatism, and subtle difference to my view of the party, and your view of The Party. But let's forget that.

I'm guessing, GUESSING, your objection to organisational structures is more than just objection to THE Party, of revolutionaries telling people what to do? I'm guessing you share VP's (my label) 'sociological analysis', of revolutionary organisational structures [bureaucracies] taking on their own raison d'être ie the trade union bureaucracy?

ETA
GTG 4 T

 

[Pilum]

Why does the SWP always tell us to vote Labour?

 

[Pickman's model]

Why does the SWP always tell us to vote Labour?

because they have no imagination

next

 

[TremulousTetra]

Fine.

so you happy with that, the sense in which I am using the term revolutionaries? If I called you a revolutionary, with that very broad definition, would you feel comfortable?

For me that could cover people right from reformism, who wanted to do away with capitalism with gradual reform right through to the most radical of anarchists et cetera . Agreed?

I think that language is a great barrier to these conversations. understanding the mindset of the other person , like you would like to understand the people in your locality before launching into political activity , is essential really to frank and honest discussion. So with that in mind, in what sense did you mistakenly think I was using the term revolutionary?

 

[chilango]

so you happy with that, the sense in which I am using the term revolutionaries? If I called you a revolutionary, with that very broad definition, would you feel comfortable?

For me that could cover people right from reformism, who wanted to do away with capitalism with gradual reform right through to the most radical of anarchists et cetera . Agreed?

I think that language is a great barrier to these conversations. understanding the mindset of the other person , like you would like to understand the people in your locality before launching into political activity , is essential really to frank and honest discussion. So with that in mind, in what sense did you mistakenly think I was using the term revolutionary?

Revolutionary as a self-styled identity. A part of one's persona. Something one identifies with, and projects outwards.

To reference the Situs it's a "role" that people adopt.

Not just the SWPs, anarchos too.

Yeah?

It's important to some to be a "revolutionary", it is part of who they are, or at least how they see themselves and how they wish others to see them.

Just to be clear. that ain't me!




...and to return to matters of substance. Such a mindset affects how people act in certain situations. Thus, in your hypothetical housing a meeting the "Revolutionary" would feel:

a) the need to make a intervention "in the style of a revloutionary", and this leads to the danger of posturing and sloganeering. We've all seen this at meetings

and b) obviously would consider themselves "more adavnced" than the those who aren't revolutionary.

But, I don't want to veer off down some side-alley of psychoanalysis. In your scenario what would you do? and what would a Bolshevik approach offer that mine doesn't?

 

[TremulousTetra]

Why does the SWP always tell us to vote Labour?

tell you to vote Labour? and when they 'tell you to', do you do what you are told? That's a fallacy, the SWP has never told anyone to vote Labour.

What the SWP put out there as a strategy/ tactic during an election is, vote Labour, but build a socialist alternative. the reasoning behind that strategy/tactic has had volumous coverage in their publications. Which have you read, and why couldn't you understand it?

 

[TremulousTetra]

because they have no imagination

next

and what would your more imaginative strategy/tactic be? [Seriously)

 

[Random]

That's a fallacy, the SWP has never told anyone to vote Labour...vote Labour, but build a socialist alternative.

Insert Princess Bride meme on definition of "fallacy" here.

 

[TremulousTetra]

Insert Princess Bride meme on definition of "fallacy" here.

1. A false notion.
2. A statement or an argument based on a false or invalid inference.
3. Incorrectness of reasoning or belief; erroneousness.
4. The quality of being deceptive.
Can you show me anywhere in the socialist worker publications where it argues revolutionaries can simply instruct the working classes what to do? Tell them what to do, as in "tell 'them' to vote Labour"?

 

[TremulousTetra]

Insert Princess Bride meme on definition of "fallacy" here.

more interestingly, you've obviously read their logic as to why they suggest the strategy/tactic of voting Labour and building a socialist alternative. How would you present their argument?

 

[october_lost]

How would you present their argument?

Dishonest.

 

[TremulousTetra]

Dishonest.

why? Present their argument, and explain why it is dishonest?

 

[TremulousTetra]

There isn't an easy label to put on me, that's part of your mistake. I'm influenced by a bunch of currents/traditions/tendencies but it wouldn't be accurate to say I belonged to any, nor could you generalise from that point.

I'm not a revolutionary. Not in the sense you 're using it anyway.

Baby has just woke up, so I'll address your scenario later. A dirty nappy beckons.

okay, in what sense are you a revolutionary?

 

[TremulousTetra]

It's a BIG leap from recognising the need to "work together" in an organised manner to seeing The Party as the answer.

n Ahhhhh, but at no point have I accepted YOUR interpretation of 'The Party' is my view of the party. Your interpretation does not chime with what I in fact learned on the topic from the SWP. I too am against 'The Party' as you and frog woman present it. There is a pragmatism, and subtle difference to my view of the party, and your view of The Party. But let's forget that.

I'm guessing, GUESSING, your objection to organisational structures is more than just objection to THE Party, of revolutionaries telling people what to do? I'm guessing you share VP's (my label) 'sociological analysis', of revolutionary organisational structures [bureaucracies] taking on their own raison d'être ie the trade union bureaucracy?

Want to explain why you object to a party structure ? (if you do)

 

[october_lost]

Asking people to vote labour and then a few months later coming out with 'we didn't vote for this...' is remarkably short-sighted, particularly for an organisation which is supposed to be the collective memory of the class. Your position has barely moved an iota from that espoused by Lenin, and when Labour is in power we have not come a whisker closer to socialism, to paraphrase Rocker.

 

[chilango]

okay, in what sense are you a revolutionary?

I'm not.

At least I wouldn't call myself one.

You choose to call me one.

I'm not going to object too much.

 

[TremulousTetra]

Don't forget I'm trying to understand Chilangoism.

I haven't called you a revolutionary, you said;

I'm not a revolutionary. Not in the sense you 're using it anyway.

have you change your mind, is this a completely redundant statement. There isn't any sense in which you are a revolutionary according to Chilangoism?
How does denying there are people who fit my definition of revolutionary, and the vast majority of the working class middle-class and ruling class who don't, give Chilangoism a better insight? What's the point?

 

[chilango]

Don't forget I'm trying to understand Chilangoism.

I haven't called you a revolutionary, you said;
have you change your mind, is this a completely redundant statement. There isn't any sense in which you are a revolutionary according to Chilangoism?
How does denying there are people who fit my definition of revolutionary, and the vast majority of the working class middle-class and ruling class who don't, give Chilangoism a better insight? What's the point?

There isn't a point.

Chilangoism is something you're attempting to invent/define to make it easier for you to fit my ideas into your way of arguing.

Sadly, my ideas remain confused, contradictory and subject to change at any time.

As for being a revolutionary...I posted my objections to the term above. That's the way I see it used most commonly on the left. Although you defined it as:

I am using the term revolutionary, in the sense of anybody who would like to see an end to the capitalist mode of social organisation and transition to a classless mode of social existence.

Which, yeah, I'd accept, so if you want to call me a revolutionary under that definition, then fine. But it's you, not me, using the term.

But anyway I suspect we digress.

If we go back to your hypothetical meeting/scenario and how I would (not) intervene, how would you?

As I've said many times I've no interest in convincing people that my ideas are "right". Often they're not.

Rather, my ideas come from an interpretation of the situation facing us from my perspective and influenced by the arguments of others that make sense to me.

Obviously, in discussion, such as that in your hypothetical, my ideas may (or may not) be something that I would bring into conversation as a way of looking at things or as suggestions for action based upon experience. But the conversation would not be one way. I would not be arguing for a position.

Does that make sense?

 

[TremulousTetra]

Asking people to vote labour and then a few months later coming out with 'we didn't vote for this...' is remarkably short-sighted, particularly for an organisation which is supposed to be the collective memory of the class. Your position has barely moved an iota from that espoused by Lenin, and when Labour is in power we have not come a whisker closer to socialism, to paraphrase Rocker.

they don't actually say vote Labour do they? They say Vote Labour with No Illusions, Build a Socialist Alternative.

So you believe it makes no difference to the UK body politic, whether workers are voting for a party created by workers, or a openly capitalist party? The rejection of the Labour Party of the 1970s, and the voting into office of Margaret Thatcher had NO effect upon the balance of class forces? How far would you go with this logic, it doesn't matter whether it's a fascist government, economic liberal, or' socialist' (capitalist workers party) government?

Is a strawman argument about which people can feel good about themselves in knocking down , without actually dealing what is actually said by the SWP .

What do you think about Chilangoism, where he argues you should sit and listen to people first, not just harangue people about the "one true path to" revolution?

For me the slogan Vote Labour with No Illusions, Build a Socialist Alternative, is about starting a dialogue with workers on the streets, in workplaces wherever, who may be considering voting Tory, about how that is not any kind of solution. And about starting a dialogue with those who are voting for a capitalist workers party, that a Socialist alternative is needed. It's about engaging with the working class on their terms. If they are not their terms, and they are already revolutionaries, good, join us.

I repeat, it is a fallacy that the SWP TELL anyone to vote Labour.

 

[manny-p]

they don't actually say vote Labour do they? They say Vote Labour with No Illusions, Build a Socialist Alternative.

So you believe it makes no difference to the UK body politic, whether workers are voting for a party created by workers, or a openly capitalist party? The rejection of the Labour Party of the 1970s, and the voting into office of Margaret Thatcher had NO effect upon the balance of class forces? How far would you go with this logic, it doesn't matter whether it's a fascist government, economic liberal, or' socialist' (capitalist workers party) government?

What do you think about Chilangoism, where he argues you should sit and listen to people first, not just harangue people about the "one true path to" revolution?

For me the slogan Vote Labour with No Illusions, Build a Socialist Alternative, is about starting a dialogue with workers on the streets, in workplaces wherever, who may be considering voting Tory, about how that is not any kind of solution. And about starting a dialogue with those who are voting for a capitalist workers party, that a Socialist alternative is needed. It's about engaging with the working class on their terms. If they are not their terms, and they are already revolutionaries, good, join us.

I repeat, it is a fallacy that the SWP TELL anyone to vote Labour.

pants on fire

 

[TremulousTetra]

pants on fire

it is a strawman argument with which supposed 'radicals' can feel good about themselves for knocking down, without actually dealing with what is said.

http://www.workersliberty.org/story/2008/12/13/swp-goes-back-vote-labour-without-illusions

some wishing to attack, have some honesty.

 

[TremulousTetra]

Must add the caveat, I am talking historically. No idea what they argue these days. Haven't read any of their publications for 10 years. (Well maybe the old one, based upon discussions like this.)