Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Life after the SWP?

You can't have the whole cake without having control of working class areas first.
you are completely and utterly wrong. You have it completely the wrong way round. Those who control the means of production, control society. Fact! Always has been. Taking control the means of production means we will have control over working class areas. It cannot happen the other way round.
 
you are completely and utterly wrong. You have it completely the wrong way round. Those who control the means of production, control society. Fact! Always has been. Taking control the means of production means we will have control over working class areas. It cannot happen the other way round.

How do you get control of the means of production? And how do you ensure that its the class taking control and not a small group of people with no support?
 
What the SWP teach their members about the Bolsheviks is, at best, distorted, to say;
1. revolutionaries should listen to the working class.
2. revolutionaries should learn from the working class.
3. Revolutionaries should change because of those lessons from the working class.

I don't accept it, but let's say you're right. Out of those three suggestions as to what revolutionaries should do, which do you object to?

Why would they need to distort what the Bolsheviks have done, in order to suggest those three things? they could just say them without reference to the Bolsheviks.

Could it be possible they actually believe these are the lessons from the Bolsheviks?

That's a very selective list you've compiled there. Is that really all you think the SWP took from the Bolsheviks? Is that really all Leninism is?

My criticism was based more on what the SWP leave out of their history of Bolshevism and the Russian Revolution. Taking your three points that the SWP learnt from the Bolsheviks, a critic could easily show where the Bolsheviks did the exact opposite.

Did the Bolsheviks "listen to the working class" when they elected Mensheviks in a number of urban soviets in 1918? Did they "learn" from the working class when a mass meeting of Putilov workers demanded multi party elections in 1918? Did the Bolsheviks change when the Kronstadt sailors asked from freely elected soviets, or only after they slaughtered them?

I think you're referring to the Bolsheviks prior to October 1917 though, aren't you?
 
you are completely and utterly wrong. You have it completely the wrong way round. Those who control the means of production, control society. Fact! Always has been. Taking control the means of production means we will have control over working class areas. It cannot happen the other way round.

So the Bolsheviks stormed the Winter Palace and expropriated the capitalist class before winning support in local areas, getting elected in local soviets and building a base of support amongst workers and peasants in their localities?
 
you are completely and utterly wrong. You have it completely the wrong way round. Those who control the means of production, control society. Fact! Always has been. Taking control the means of production means we will have control over working class areas. It cannot happen the other way round.

Nonsense.

Anyway. Where/what do you think the "means of production" actually are here and now?
 
That's a very selective list you've compiled there. Is that really all you think the SWP took from the Bolsheviks? Is that really all Leninism is?

My criticism was based more on what the SWP leave out of their history of Bolshevism and the Russian Revolution. Taking your three points that the SWP learnt from the Bolsheviks, a critic could easily show where the Bolsheviks did the exact opposite.

Did the Bolsheviks "listen to the working class" when they elected Mensheviks in a number of urban soviets in 1918? Did they "learn" from the working class when a mass meeting of Putilov workers demanded multi party elections in 1918? Did the Bolsheviks change when the Kronstadt sailors asked from freely elected soviets, or only after they slaughtered them?

I think you're referring to the Bolsheviks prior to October 1917 though, aren't you?
And of course there is nothing of the pre 1917 bolsheviki in the organisational structure of the SWP, prior to 1917 the bolsheviki were a permanent faction in a multi faction social Democratic Party,the SWP draws its inspiration from the Stalinised communist party structures of the early 1920s.
 
Comrades, for the sake of learning, and honest discussion, let's just put two side for one moment whether this is a valid depiction of the Bolsheviks.

What we can say about this article ,is that it is an attempt by Judith to paint a picture of what the SWP revolutionary party should be like. Now I would like you to honestly contrast this picture, with the ones painted by the non-Bolshevik left in this thread, and on this forum. Wouldn't you say they are completely different pictures?
Lenin’s model of a revolutionary party was the key factor in the ability of workers in Russia to take power, writes Judith Orr
From Russia in 1905 to the fall of the Berlin wall in 1989 the 20th century was an era of revolutions. Yet the Russian Revolution of 1917 was the only one that was successful in putting the working class in power. What was different about the 1917 revolution?
Karl Marx argued that spontaneous resistance is an inevitable product of capitalism. There is an inherent tension in a system where an elite live in fabulous wealth, owning and controlling all political and economic power, while the vast majority of us work long hours for a pittance.
But history demonstrates that however inspiring, spontaneity alone is not enough to win.
For a workers’ revolution to be successful there also needs to be socialist organisation. Spontaneity and organisation are not opposing forces – they are both essential ingredients of a successful revolution.
In Russia it was the existence of a revolutionary party, the Bolshevik party, which meant that the courageous struggles of workers, soldiers and peasants resulted in a seizure of power.
As Leon Trotsky wrote, the party is the piston that propels the steam of the class struggle forward. The piston alone is powerless, but unchannelled steam could dissipate and lose momentum.
The Bolsheviks were rooted in the most militant layers of Russian society, among workers, soldiers and peasants. They were not separate from the working class.
They had fought alongside their fellow workers, suffered defeats and won victories together and had won respect in the course of leading struggles.
But it wasn’t just about being the best activists. They published leaflets, newspapers, pamphlets and books to spread socialist ideas and helped educate workers on everything from the fight against imperialism to women’s rights.
The use of the word “bolshy” today in popular language to describe someone who argues and won’t accept orders comes from these courageous revolutionaries.
The sort of party organisation the Bolsheviks had is often called “Leninist” after one its best-known leaders.
Some falsely characterise Leninist parties as having an autocratic leadership that goes around giving orders, which every member has to automatically and mindlessly obey.
This view more aptly describes a party like the Labour Party, which today has no mechanism for the membership to challenge the actions or views of the leadership.
The Labour Party boasts that it is a “broad church”. But this means that they have as members both bosses and workers, black people and racists, gay people and homophobes.
A revolutionary party has only one view on racism – it is simple, racists are not welcome.
A revolutionary party is not a broad church. It is an organisation of the most politically conscious and most militant working class activists. Lenin called this a vanguard party.
The Bolshevik party was highly democratic. Lenin did not impose his views on the party membership.
Minority
On several occasions he found himself in a minority among the leadership of the Bolsheviks and had to argue to win his comrades in the leadership and in the wider party.
But he did not come to any situation with all the answers. He listened to workers’ own experiences. His strength as a leader was his ability to learn from the class and to be prepared to change tack.
For example, during the revolution in 1905 workers had organised workers’ councils – soviets – for the first time. They were not a Leninist invention but Lenin recognised what an important tool they were.
He foresaw how they had the potential to provide an alternative democratic structure for workers and peasants to organise society, and championed their power in 1917.
One of the key features of a Leninist organisation is its internal democracy – democratic centralism.
After discussion throughout the structures and membership of the party, when a decision is made to act, everyone acts as one and all are accountable.
This is very different to mainstream political parties. MPs are elected every five years and even if they vote for something the majority of their constituents disagree with, they can’t be recalled during that time.
It is, however, a method that will be familiar to any trade unionist. If the majority vote for a strike then every member, including those who voted against, have to support the strike. Otherwise the only real power that working class people have – the power of the collective – is lost.
The Bolsheviks won a mass membership among workers and peasants solely by demonstrating time after time through their actions that they had the ideas to win.
One worker said at the time, “The Bolsheviks have always said, ‘it is not we who will persuade you but life itself’.”
Across the globe, millions still face war, famine and exploitation. As revolts against the system break out from Burma to Venezuela the question of what sort of party workers need is more important than ever.
Revolutionaries today are active in everyday work in trade unions and local communities. We are part of every struggle, from the smallest protest to the biggest strike.
We want to be the people who always have practical and concrete ideas for the way forward. We also make the connections between every act of resistance and a wider socialist vision of how the mass of ordinary people can take control of their lives.
Revolutionaries try to give a lead to all those who want to fight for a better world.
For as the US journalist John Reed said of the monumental struggles in Russia during1917, “The masses of workers are capable not only of great dreams, but they have in them the power to make the dreams come true”.
 
I don't recognise the SWP in that. It's wonderfully vague waffle anyhow. Reminiscent of the time an SWP full timer tried to tell me that "really" the SWP and Anarchists were the same...
 
Comrades, for the sake of learning, and honest discussion, let's just put two side for one moment whether this is a valid depiction of the Bolsheviks.

What we can say about this article ,is that it is an attempt by Judith to paint a picture of what the SWP revolutionary party should be like. Now I would like you to honestly contrast this picture, with the ones painted by the non-Bolshevik left in this thread, and on this forum. Wouldn't you say they are completely different pictures?

What a blindingly stupid request; if we are not able to judge the accuracy of the 'depicition' then why include it at all? Orr might just as well say I think this is what a revolutionary party should be like; her Bolsheviks are there as evidence and as such need to be evaluated.

Louis MacNeice
 
What a blindingly stupid request; if we are not able to judge the accuracy of the 'depicition' then why include it at all? Orr might just as well say I think this is what a revolutionary party should be like; her Bolsheviks are there as evidence and as such need to be evaluated.

Louis MacNeice
you are saying chilango is blindingly stupid :eek:
 
Comrades, for the sake of learning, and honest discussion, let's just put two side for one moment whether this is a valid depiction of the Bolsheviks.

What we can say about this article ,is that it is an attempt by Judith to paint a picture of what the SWP revolutionary party should be like. Now I would like you to honestly contrast this picture, with the ones painted by the non-Bolshevik left in this thread, and on this forum. Wouldn't you say they are completely different pictures?

I think Orr's article sums up perfectly what I said earlier in thread. It's an incoherent, biased history of what the Bolsheviks did before and after October. She either deliberately ignores events which contradict her view, or is simply ignorant of them.
 
I don't recognise the SWP in that. It's wonderfully vague waffle anyhow. Reminiscent of the time an SWP full timer tried to tell me that "really" the SWP and Anarchists were the same...
when compared to say the fascists, conservatives, reformists, and the SWP/anarchists, the differences between the SWP and anarchists ARE pretty small imo, comrades. I've never come across anybody in the SWP who do not consider politically, anarchists fellow travellers to the SWP.
 
What are you talking about? Go read the Menshevik, SR, and anarchist histories, they will elaborate in detail the achievements of the Bolsheviks. Iain McKay seems to have done a good job recently collating a lot of new information, which should be a contrast to uncritical praise put on him by apparatchiks in the SWP.
Tis a derail, but I am hopefully he will see that his interpretation of Lenin, or even how he perceives the party works, is totally bogus.
No, this is a cop out. A dialogue is between more or less equals, this is why your earlier post sounded daft and frankly not in sync with the Leninist conception of the party.
Does the party know the line of attack? Is it composed of the most knowledgable and most advanced sections of the class? If the answer is yes, then why are you having a dialogue with the class? You need to present your ideas, let the class test them, gain confidence and voila!
I think you're purely talking about tactics. So what? You learn a few tricks, but you're dogma remains unchecked.

This is pure hyperbole. The class contains contradictory ideas, even the revolutionary elements of the class, will have organisational methods, tactics, strategy and emphasis. You're 'right level' of approach, propaganda, or whatever belongs to a different age. It's counter intuitive to think one size fits all. In this, all your germinating is new forms of straight jacketing, because your minimising people's own immediate consciousness or concerns.
The issue was about how you saw the paper, it's political purpose, it wasn't about it's content or it's validity.
You are right, the original issue was about how I saw and used the paper, it's political purpose. You contradicted the picture I drew, and yet the article I linked to confirms it. It is here in black-and-white from the Socialist Workers Party.
http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=13412
So would you concede you were wrong? My picture was a more accurate pre-trial of what the Socialist workers party say, than yours?
 
I think Orr's article sums up perfectly what I said earlier in thread. It's an incoherent, biased history of what the Bolsheviks did before and after October. She either deliberately ignores events which contradict her view, or is simply ignorant of them.
to be fair, you jumped into the middle of a discussion which was about
The issue was about how you saw the paper, it's political purpose, [......].
Judith's article elaborates and confirms perfectly, what I summed up in my original comments, about the use of the SWP's paper and the slogan "vote Labour ,with no illusions, build a socialist alternative." :cool:

PS. it's quite ironic how for the IWCA chilango says , don't get hung on the slogan, but the non-Bolshevik left do precisely that with our slogan. :D
 
You can't have the whole cake without having control of working class areas first.

OK, Let's consider this idea of "controlling working class areas" with a real world example. Take, for instance the Stoke area (because the problems of this area and the attempts of its Labour-led council to "manage" the incredible level of ever accelerationg Central Government ordered and controlled funding cuts was the subject of a good BBC4 documentary recently). Firstly Big Capitalism , as with so many previous industrial heartland areas, has pretty much abandoned the Stoke area. The Potteries have mostly been shipped to China. The working class in Stoke are living in an impoverished post industrial wasteland. Local funding for swimming pools, libraries, health centres, nurseries, the NHS, is no longer available. Even a honestly socialist, pro working class, party can no more magic up additional funding to create new jobs on Stoke, or reverse the centrally sourced funding cuts , than the New Labour rabble currently "managing" the death of Stoke by a thousand cuts . Nothing wrong with local self-organisation, in fact it's crucial, but the context of organisation in communities cannot be the illusion of "replacing state services via local collaboration/co-operation" - the communities are too poor to replace the resources stolen via the "austerity agenda" or capitalism generally. To combat that, and deindustrialisation, the looming collapse of the NHS, the robbery of national wealth by the capitalist class, requires a revolutionery, internationalist socialist agenda. Only by placing the local struggles against the cuts in a wider political framework can the local community be deterred from falling either into passive hopelessness at their sheer local powerlessness in isolation - or falling into scapegoatism against easily accessible minority community victims. Always easier , without socialist politics, to blame the local ethnic minority for a shortage of housing or a lack of jobs, or blaming a few grants given to local ethnic minority projects , for their own poverty.

The IWCA have (I say "have", but in fact the IWCA as an organisation with significant membership or local councillors is all but completely dead today - a completely failed initiative - which tested that varient of a localist campaigning and electoral strategy to destruction ) specifically abandoned socialist politics , and indeed regularly denounced socialist politics and the Left generally as having "no relevance to the needs of working class people", for a strange mix of localist campaigning and co-operativist, self-help, ideas - aimed at a very narrow subset of the overall UK working class - mainly the poorest, mainly white, unorganised, poorly educated, working class living on a few big housing estates. This group is actually, for well known solid political reasons usually characterised as the marginalised "Lumpen Proletariat" rather than as a potential key actor in the class struggle. It is traditionally the recruiting ground for fascism, and will always be a hard recruiting ground for the revolutionery Left. Organised workers, and better off, less demoralised, workers (many of them wrongly labelled as "middle class"), most not nowadays living on huge housing estates, are still the core target grouping for work by revolutionery socialists wishing to build an effective mass party.

Prioritising political work amongst the Lumpen Proletariat, particularly encouraging them to seek to" replace" failing state provision by their own volunteer efforts, , indeed dealing with any subset of the working class purely as residents, as citizens, as service users, is actually a distraction from the central task of building co-ordinated working class resistance to the cuts in localities, which requires local mass organisation/mobilisation making demands on the state and capitalism - guided by socialist analysis and explanation . Remember that even the Mondragon Co-operative Movement in the Basque Country have been hard hit by the world wide capitalist crisis, and have , unbelievably, actually outsourced some production to China at the cost of lost local jobs ! Localist, self-help politics are a reactionery dead end. Separating the struggle in the local private and public sector workplaces from these local anti-cuts struggles is also a dead end. The working class really only has any "power" , short of actual physical insurrectionery struggle on the streets, at work, creating surplus value - or via strikes - REFUSING to create surplus value and run services. As a resident, a consumer of services, a citizen, the working class person is pretty powerless. No trendy denial of the centrality of the working class struggle TO THE WORKPLACE , can change this basic fact. The poor and workless can generally only riot, in isolation,whilst the working class AT WORK can potentially close down the entire society. Just because , in the UK, it is proving difficult to build a mass radical socialist movement today, at a very early stage of the capitalist cuts process in the UK (compared to, say, Greece, Spain, Portugal) , doesn't mean that this task isn't the only one that leads to any joined up, politically viable, alternative to the world capitalist crisis.

Don't be tempted to abandon your socialist politics now guys, for some localist, self-help, mirage. The impact of the 2008 world capitalist crisis will take some time to mature into new political structures. It's happening in Greece, Spain, Italy, Portugal - and it'll happen here too. A bit of patience needed, not despair.
 
So the Bolsheviks stormed the Winter Palace and expropriated the capitalist class before winning support in local areas, getting elected in local soviets and building a base of support amongst workers and peasants in their localities?
Err, did I say that?

I don't think the Bolsheviks tried to achieve (IWCA) Working Class Rule in Working Class Areas. the working class cannot rule working class areas,
OK, Let's consider this idea of "controlling working class areas" with a real world example. Take, for instance the Stoke area (because the problems of this area and the attempts of its Labour-led council to "manage" the incredible level of ever accelerationg Central Government ordered and controlled funding cuts was the subject of a good BBC4 documentary recently). Firstly Big Capitalism , as with so many previous industrial heartland areas, has pretty much abandoned the Stoke area. The Potteries have mostly been shipped to China. The working class in Stoke are living in an impoverished post industrial wasteland. Local funding for swimming pools, libraries, health centres, nurseries, the NHS, is no longer available. Even a honestly socialist, pro working class, party can no more magic up additional funding to create new jobs on Stoke, or reverse the centrally sourced funding cuts , than the New Labour rabble currently "managing" the death of Stoke by a thousand cuts . Nothing wrong with local self-organisation, in fact it's crucial, but the context of organisation in communities cannot be the illusion of "replacing state services via local collaboration/co-operation" - the communities are too poor to replace the resources stolen via the "austerity agenda" or capitalism generally. To combat that, and deindustrialisation, the looming collapse of the NHS, the robbery of national wealth by the capitalist class, requires a revolutionery, internationalist socialist agenda. Only by placing the local struggles against the cuts in a wider political framework can the local community be deterred from falling either into passive hopelessness at their sheer local powerlessness in isolation - or falling into scapegoatism against easily accessible minority community victims. Always easier , without socialist politics, to blame the local ethnic minority for a shortage of housing or a lack of jobs, or blaming a few grants given to local ethnic minority projects , for their own poverty.

The IWCA have (I say "have", but in fact the IWCA as an organisation with significant membership or local councillors is all but completely dead today - a completely failed initiative - which tested that varient of a localist campaigning and electoral strategy to destruction ) specifically abandoned socialist politics , and indeed regularly denounced socialist politics and the Left generally as having "no relevance to the needs of working class people", for a strange mix of localist campaigning and co-operativist, self-help, ideas - aimed at a very narrow subset of the overall UK working class - mainly the poorest, mainly white, unorganised, poorly educated, working class living on a few big housing estates. This group is actually, for well known solid political reasons usually characterised as the marginalised "Lumpen Proletariat" rather than as a potential key actor in the class struggle. It is traditionally the recruiting ground for fascism, and will always be a hard recruiting ground for the revolutionery Left. Organised workers, and better off, less demoralised, workers (many of them wrongly labelled as "middle class"), most not nowadays living on huge housing estates, are still the core target grouping for work by revolutionery socialists wishing to build an effective mass party.

Prioritising political work amongst the Lumpen Proletariat, particularly encouraging them to seek to" replace" failing state provision by their own volunteer efforts, , indeed dealing with any subset of the working class purely as residents, as citizens, as service users, is actually a distraction from the central task of building co-ordinated working class resistance to the cuts in localities, which requires local mass organisation/mobilisation making demands on the state and capitalism - guided by socialist analysis and explanation . Remember that even the Mondragon Co-operative Movement in the Basque Country have been hard hit by the world wide capitalist crisis, and have , unbelievably, actually outsourced some production to China at the cost of lost local jobs ! Localist, self-help politics are a reactionery dead end. Separating the struggle in the local private and public sector workplaces from these local anti-cuts struggles is also a dead end. The working class really only has any "power" , short of actual physical insurrectionery struggle on the streets, at work, creating surplus value - or via strikes - REFUSING to create surplus value and run services. As a resident, a consumer of services, a citizen, the working class person is pretty powerless. No trendy denial of the centrality of the working class struggle TO THE WORKPLACE , can change this basic fact. The poor and workless can generally only riot, in isolation,whilst the working class AT WORK can potentially close down the entire society. Just because , in the UK, it is proving difficult to build a mass radical socialist movement today, at a very early stage of the capitalist cuts process in the UK (compared to, say, Greece, Spain, Portugal) , doesn't mean that this task isn't the only one that leads to any joined up, politically viable, alternative to the world capitalist crisis.

Don't be tempted to abandon your socialist politics now guys, for some localist, self-help, mirage. The impact of the 2008 world capitalist crisis will take some time to mature into new political structures. It's happening in Greece, Spain, Italy, Portugal - and it'll happen here too. A bit of patience needed, not despair.
 
PS. it's quite ironic how for the IWCA chilango says , don't get hung on the slogan, but the non-Bolshevik left do precisely that with our slogan. :D

It'd be ironic if I was saying the IWCA is "the answer" or defending the slogan.

I'm not doing either.

Just saying that their ideas/approach is worth looking at and taking on board.
 
Means of production
specifically I would target those means of production, where capitalism forces collective working class organisation.

One worker said at the time, “The Bolsheviks have always said, ‘it is not we who will persuade you but life itself’.”
Likewise, it is not revolutionaries who organise the working class, but capitalism forces it upon them.
 
The SWP never taught me that.
but that's what they taught me. And When I repeated what they had taught me, originally about the use of the paper, and the slogan "vote Labour, with no illusions, build a socialist alternative" people said I was misrepresenting what the SWP said, when the article confirms I was correct.
 
Back
Top Bottom