october_lost
It's not hip any more...
Possibly it's leftist semantics, but I wouldn't use 'social revolution' to describe anything other than revolution by the working class, and possibly the peasantry, in some cases.
Life after the SWP?
- Thread starter chilango
- Start date
TremulousTetra
prismatic universe
That cant be real, according to you we're into life after the SWP?
chilango
Hypothetical Wanker
That cant be real, according to you we're into life after the SWP?
Technically the WRP still exist too, but I doubt anyone would argue with the idea that they're finished as an organisation.
TremulousTetra
prismatic universe
Well for the sake of butchers, I now have time to break this down.
So when I say some people have more consciousness of social revolution, that isn't something to feel elite about, it's THE problem. Not enough people agree about the need for social revolution, to bring it about. That's a problem I believe all revolutionaries need to acknowledge. That's all.
Is I agree, completely and utterly ridiculous. I've never come across anybody in the SWP who wouldn't oppose such party. The SWP have wrote extensively debunking any notion of revolution by a party on behalf of the working class, in such as its writings upon Che Guevara.
Who, and who isn't closer to, more advanced towards the ideas of social revolution, is constantly changing. Workers can go on strike et cetera and ideas change in struggle. They can lose the strike, and the same workers can move away from social revolution. A Vanguard party does not want to attract racists, homophobes, fascists et cetera, it wants to attract those inclined to social revolution ideas, not to give them a badge of superiority, but a badge of solidarity. Unity is strength. The thousand social revolutionaries acting together, can achieve more than 1000 acting as individuals.
Absolutely correct. Theory and practice, praxis.
WHETHER THAT IS THE BEST STRATEGY ISN'T DECIDED BY THE REVOLUTIONARIES IT IS DECIDED BY THE CLASS STRUGGLE.
All the revolutionaries have done, is done what they THINK is best to achieve the aim of victories in the here and now, and move towards social revolution in the future. That is no different to what anarchists or any other form of revolutionaries do, which is do what they THINK is best.
Absolutely agree with you.
Recruiting from other revolutionary groups, is like swapping deckchairs on the Titanic. The only reason the SWP have at times virtually ignored the rest of the revolutionary left, to concentrate on the working class. Even in the socialist Alliance this made them less likely to listen to fellow revolutionaries, than those with "reformist consciousness".
When they enter into campaigns, activities, they try to win the movement to their strategy. We do this as a group, which makes us stronger. Does shit happen, of course it does. My experience of what the Labour Party, 'Militant', anarchists etc have done when I have been in activity has been horrendous at times. So what?
Many people have pointed out the SWP go from one campaign, Alliance, grouping to another on a regular basis. In my opinion, this is them constantly testing their ideas in different ways.
The class struggle determines what is the best ideas, nothing else.
When I talk about consciousness, that's my meaning, people have different worldviews. When I am looking at consciousness to understand society, I do so in order to be a Social 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.
So when I say some people have more consciousness of social revolution, that isn't something to feel elite about, it's THE problem. Not enough people agree about the need for social revolution, to bring it about. That's a problem I believe all revolutionaries need to acknowledge. That's all.
Is I agree, completely and utterly ridiculous. I've never come across anybody in the SWP who wouldn't oppose such party. The SWP have wrote extensively debunking any notion of revolution by a party on behalf of the working class, in such as its writings upon Che Guevara.
Who, and who isn't closer to, more advanced towards the ideas of social revolution, is constantly changing. Workers can go on strike et cetera and ideas change in struggle. They can lose the strike, and the same workers can move away from social revolution. A Vanguard party does not want to attract racists, homophobes, fascists et cetera, it wants to attract those inclined to social revolution ideas, not to give them a badge of superiority, but a badge of solidarity. Unity is strength. The thousand social revolutionaries acting together, can achieve more than 1000 acting as individuals.
Absolutely correct. Theory and practice, praxis.
Well again, I don't know anybody that says that. What socialist worker actually argue is this. We want to change the world, not just talk about it. That demands action. Democratic centralist, you agree upon a strategy democratically and then agree to work on that strategy whether you voted for it or not, just like a trade union does with a strike.
WHETHER THAT IS THE BEST STRATEGY ISN'T DECIDED BY THE REVOLUTIONARIES IT IS DECIDED BY THE CLASS STRUGGLE.
All the revolutionaries have done, is done what they THINK is best to achieve the aim of victories in the here and now, and move towards social revolution in the future. That is no different to what anarchists or any other form of revolutionaries do, which is do what they THINK is best.
Absolutely agree with you.
Recruiting from other revolutionary groups, is like swapping deckchairs on the Titanic. The only reason the SWP have at times virtually ignored the rest of the revolutionary left, to concentrate on the working class. Even in the socialist Alliance this made them less likely to listen to fellow revolutionaries, than those with "reformist consciousness".
When they enter into campaigns, activities, they try to win the movement to their strategy. We do this as a group, which makes us stronger. Does shit happen, of course it does. My experience of what the Labour Party, 'Militant', anarchists etc have done when I have been in activity has been horrendous at times. So what?
Many people have pointed out the SWP go from one campaign, Alliance, grouping to another on a regular basis. In my opinion, this is them constantly testing their ideas in different ways.
The class struggle determines what is the best ideas, nothing else.
frogwoman
No amount of cajolery...
you say all that but your organisation doesn't follow it in practice does it? Some people in left wing organisations like the SWP do learn from the class struggle, but IMO the organisation as a whole does not, and neither do any of them. its always "consciousness is lagging behind events" "oh no! why are you saying that a 24 hour strike (or whatever) won't work! You're jumping ahead of the class again!" or "the workers will move when given a lead" or some shit like that. In other words trying to determine what the class struggle is and complaining that the workers don't obey it and then when people do go ahead further than what the party would like complaining about "ultra leftism" or "rank and file-ism" or whatever. ( 
)
the left has failed, it has failed again and again and again, with some small victories, some stuff we do right, but a ton of stuff we get wrong and a hell of a lot of big defeats, so who the fuck are we to decide whether we are more advanced or not?
I am feeling pretty grumpy this evening so apologies. I don't mean any criticism of anyone on here or anyone I know in any organisation, I'm talking about the organisations as a whole.
)the left has failed, it has failed again and again and again, with some small victories, some stuff we do right, but a ton of stuff we get wrong and a hell of a lot of big defeats, so who the fuck are we to decide whether we are more advanced or not?
I am feeling pretty grumpy this evening so apologies. I don't mean any criticism of anyone on here or anyone I know in any organisation, I'm talking about the organisations as a whole.
frogwoman
No amount of cajolery...
I think that a lot of people, a lot more people than you think, know that capitalism has failed, believe in workers collective action etc and a lot of those people think that there has to be or should be a revolution for anything to change even if they find the idea personally scary (which it is). It's easy to say now that capitalism or the system has failed and the chances are that people will agree with you. If you say "we need a revolution" or something a lot of the time people will agree with you.
I don't think the problem is that people aren't advanced enough to want a revolution I think the problem is with the approach and tactics of "the left". Especially things like transitional demands and stuff. It's basically putting forward a certain position which isn't "revolutionary" in the hope that people will agree with it and then realise it was not achievable under capitalism, so say things like fight for a £10 mininum wage, which people will do, except they can't because it's unachievable under capitalism! People already know that that stuff is not achievable, and if you are opposed to capitalism why not just say so, it would hardly make things worse because people don't agree with "the left" anyway and already think its views are extreme and weird.
In addition it's not just that - would you want a revolution "led" by the SWP etc? I don't think I would! You can see people thinking, that if the SWP can try to hold a rape case themselves and fuck it up so badly, then what would they be like in power? If your idea of being a revolutionary party is trying to get control of campaigns and that sort of stuff is it any surprise people "lack the consciousness" to support you?
There's also the fact (and i include myself in this btw) that left wing parties are a kind of bubble and a lot of the time the members don't know what's going on outside or what people are thinking.
And some of it is just ridiculous, for example it is commonly thought that loads of people don't support "direct action" (im not always saying this is a good thing btw) and that to support it would be wrong so whenever people do any direct action or rioting etc even when people do support it it's always condemned with stuff like "It's not organised" etc. But lots of people actually do support that stuff, say "good for them" etc even if their views in other respects aren't perfect. Lots of people did have quite a lot of sympathy with for example the Millbank protesters and the Fortnum and Mason occupiers but "it wasn't organised"
Some of the other justifications as well, like it will alienate people - i would say that this type of attitude is itself very alienating to a lot of young people?but then how come their practice is so different in trade unions and stuff like the anti-war movement etc?
I would say that if such a party has any chance of changing society it would have to attract fascists etc and convince them that their existing positions were wrong. Not to tolerate their views but by their actions see that they were wrong all along etc. And a lot of the time the SWP especially just seems to want to recruit people not to win them over to its "revolutionary" positions but to boost it's membership numbers - if that's not the case how come there seem to be so many people the SWP CC are now saying "never really understood" despite being in the party for decades in some cases?
TremulousTetra
prismatic universe
what I do is just point out what you attack isn't socialist workers stated position [on ie the Vanguard party or Lenin) in their publications.
Outline the model of the Vanguard party people are against, and then show me a socialist worker link that promotes that model. Simple.
If you can do this, I will cease to post to this forum.
discokermit
Well-Known Member
.
TremulousTetra
prismatic universe
frogwoman chilango I don't object if you want to interpret advanced, as superior, that's up to you. My problem is, that some people share that interpretation, and then impose that interpretation on me.you say all that but your organisation doesn't follow it in practice does it? Some people in left wing organisations like the SWP do learn from the class struggle, but IMO the organisation as a whole does not, and neither do any of them. its always "consciousness is lagging behind events" "oh no! why are you saying that a 24 hour strike (or whatever) won't work! You're jumping ahead of the class again!" or "the workers will move when given a lead" or some shit like that. In other words trying to determine what the class struggle is and complaining that the workers don't obey it and then when people do go ahead further than what the party would like complaining about "ultra leftism" or "rank and file-ism" or whatever. (
the left has failed, it has failed again and again and again, with some small victories, some stuff we do right, but a ton of stuff we get wrong and a hell of a lot of big defeats, so who the fuck are we to decide whether we are more advanced or not?
I am feeling pretty grumpy this evening so apologies. I don't mean any criticism of anyone on here or anyone I know in any organisation, I'm talking about the organisations as a whole.
I USE the term consciousness, to make sense of the balance of class forces, AND THAT's IT. I use it in the same sense that Marx says "the dominant ideas in any society, are those of the ruling class." And Chomsky talks about "the Manufacture of Consent". But Chomsky marx don't just say that, they go on to discuss how ideas change as well. If you don't analyse how ideas are shaped, how can you hope to understand how they change, and contribute to that change in a positive way?
I think you made a very valid point. Have the Revolutionaries (R) learned all the lessons they could/should? No! But is that possible? I think you're being a bit harsh on the revolutionaries (R) and by that I mean everyone from anarchist to militant/SP. For two reasons.
When I was in the party, and now I've been out of the party for 10 years, I can't help admire anyone who tries to do anything to make the world a better place. I come across so many moaning bastards, who complain about this, blame the government for that, but do nothing about it. (Not judging, I do nothing about it.) At least these people are having a go.
And that is all you can do have a go. Nobody can know what the right thing is to do. You just have to try, this, then that, then the other, and see what works. THAT's it. I get the impression that all Revolutionaries (R) TRY to experiment, and they make mistakes.
But at the end of the day, I think you over exaggerate the importance of the revolutionary left. Communist Party in the 1930s is probably the only example of a mass left-wing party in this country. Have the actions of the revolutionary left led to those defeats, or the actions of the working class? At the end of the day the emancipation of the working class has to be the act of the working class, not revolutionaries. At the end of the day the working class has to take responsibility for its own destiny, whether that is capitalism or communism/anarchism. The revolutionary left are just a small and insignificant part of that working class. We may be failing, but we are trying. Can the same be said about the rest of the working class? (Not judging, I do nothing about it. So I can understand why people choose this option.)
So if you are going to use the term advanced, in the sense of inferior or superior, then revolutionaries can't say who is and who isn't advanced. But if you are going to use the term to identify, and bring into activity those who want to make the world a better place now and in the future end to capitalist mode of social organisation and a transition to a classless mode of social existence, why not?
(R) Anybody who would like to see an end to capitalist mode of social organisation and a transition to a classless mode of social existence.
TremulousTetra
prismatic universe
yes! Pretty much the same conclusion I had come to.
TremulousTetra
prismatic universe
Anti-war movement. You need to be a bit more specific as to what you see as the contradictions.
With regard to the working class, what should the SWP have done different? With regard to, pulling as many working class people into activity and learning through their own struggle, what should the SWP have done different?
How could we have pulled more people into activity? How could we have pulled more people into better activity?
You can debate those issues, at the end of the day nobody knows what is the right thing to do. What I can say is, I was massively active in the anti-war campaign in Manchester. My/our only criteria for my/our activity was getting as many working class people into activity as possible. If anybody in my area would have suggested going on strike, occupying the BBC, anything more radical than what we were doing, we would have done it. We did try to push for more.
Getting as many people as you can ,into as radical activity as you can ,is fully in line with promoting emancipation of the working class by the working class, isn't it?
PS. Probably missed your point. As I explained, party members do not believe their actions contradict what the party says about emancipation of the working class by the working class et cetera. I think I know what you're alluding to, but I'd rather you make it clear first.
ETA you don't need to type it all out. if you can link me to a clear critique of the SWP in the anti-war movement, I'll read it .
TremulousTetra
prismatic universe
Not been a member the 10 years. Can only really talk about my experience of the party.
On the fascists, Trotsky, fascism, Stalinism, and united front. Creating a pole of attraction. You attract the fascists from the revolution of despair by creating a revolution of hope.
Still happy with Trotsky on fighting the fascists.
Broke my neck in 1984, got involved with the SWP through my physio at North Manchester general hospital in about 1985/6 . By 1989 I gone through absolutely loads of party material, educational is, meetings and discussions with comrades. I was in a pub after the meeting talking to a comrade, "you know it all seems to make sense this. Racism, imperialism, feminism, sectarianism, economics all from the working class perspective. It all seems to fit together so well, but I can't just put my finger on what it is, that binds it altogether." At the end of 89 there was ISJ on the French Revolution. That in itself was good, but right at the end John Rees did an article The Algebra of Revolution. Bingo!
In 1985 had no political background, or even interest. I had no formal education. Just an argumentative bastard. When comrades explained, and I read and it explained Northern Ireland (big issue at the time), it was like, wow! A truly revelatory experience. [Waits for sarcastic comments :-D ]
The whole socialist worker thing, the viewpoint, it just makes sense of the world. Isn't just one area that make sense, it all makes sense, and it all fits together. FOR ME!
To be fair, things did change from the level of 'education' in the downturn. The level of activity went up. Trying to chase that elusive upturn, that has never really arrived, HAS IT??? [Think the lack of an upturn, is a major factor in the problems for all revolutionary organisations.]
Have socialist worker made mistakes? ABSOLUTELY. Are there structural issues of the party that have compounded problems? Possibly. Does the SWP's version of Leninism make such problems inevitable? No.
There may be structural problems with the SWP, that the likes of Tony Cliff, Duncan Hallas et cetera, could overcome through their strength of leadership. Pretty much like Lenin's influence on the Bolsheviks. Given the benefit of hindsight, and distance, I'm beginning to suspect that.
andysays
Love and solidarity
Returning to this thread after a few days abstinence, there's some interesting ideas going around about class consciousness.
Firstly, I don't think there's anything elitist about suggesting that a particular individual or group has more advanced, correct or better developed ideas and practices than some others, or even any others, though it's difficult to prove definitively.
Where it becomes problematic is when the idea of a vanguard party leads one group to suggest that they, as the self-declared VP, have a monopoly on rightness, now and forever.
As an example, if we accept for the sake of argument that the IS tradition was once the most advanced development of revolutionary class consciousness, that certainly doesn't mean that that the current SWP, as the declared inheritors of that tradition, are currently the most advanced development of that class consciousness.
It seems pretty obvious to me, even before the monumental delta fuck up which is merely another nail in their coffin, that even judging them by their own Leninist criteria, they've failed.
Not because they haven't yet brought about the revolution, but because they've totally failed to build the vanguard party in any meaningful way. Instead, they've had a revolving door of generally short term members and activists, have lurched from one opportunist campaign to another in away which has repelled as many as it has attracted, and haven't even been successful at disseminating and developing a coherent and effective IS position/practice among their members, the wider left, and far less the working class in general.
Which, I'm well aware, still leaves the question of life after the SWP unanswered...
Firstly, I don't think there's anything elitist about suggesting that a particular individual or group has more advanced, correct or better developed ideas and practices than some others, or even any others, though it's difficult to prove definitively.
Where it becomes problematic is when the idea of a vanguard party leads one group to suggest that they, as the self-declared VP, have a monopoly on rightness, now and forever.
As an example, if we accept for the sake of argument that the IS tradition was once the most advanced development of revolutionary class consciousness, that certainly doesn't mean that that the current SWP, as the declared inheritors of that tradition, are currently the most advanced development of that class consciousness.
It seems pretty obvious to me, even before the monumental delta fuck up which is merely another nail in their coffin, that even judging them by their own Leninist criteria, they've failed.
Not because they haven't yet brought about the revolution, but because they've totally failed to build the vanguard party in any meaningful way. Instead, they've had a revolving door of generally short term members and activists, have lurched from one opportunist campaign to another in away which has repelled as many as it has attracted, and haven't even been successful at disseminating and developing a coherent and effective IS position/practice among their members, the wider left, and far less the working class in general.
Which, I'm well aware, still leaves the question of life after the SWP unanswered...
andysays
Love and solidarity
Unless/until you can give us some specific examples, it's difficult to guess exactly how broad a sense you mean (far broader than the sense in which many here would use the term, I suspect).
What, none of it? This, on the other hand, seems to be drawing the boundaries of "the left" so narrowly as to exclude most of that which many here would use the term to refer to.
For just one example of the left who certainly did argue for something that was in essence very different to capitalism, and which I alluded to earlier, maybe you should read this:
The Society of the Spectacle
TremulousTetra
prismatic universe
I could nitpick, but essentially there is little I could disagree with there.
you talk about working class consciousness , nobody bats an eyelid , you talk about revolutionary consciousness and "the dominant ideas in any society are those of the ruling class" and people are outraged. genuinely doesn't make sense.
The 'criticism' I would make of the idea, is that it is a Revolutionary (R) centric view. It is viewing the consciousness of people purely in relation to revolutionary ideas. Revolutionary consciousness. However, being revolutionary centric is the point. It is a tool for understanding the political landscape, by revolutionaries.
Secondly, I can't knock your appraisal of the situation. That is definitely the results. However, I don't think there is any organisation on the left that produces more educational material, and disseminates more educational material. socialist worker are the bookstore of the TUC, have their own bookmarks bookshop, and probably sell more publications than any other organisation (not saying this is gospel, probably. If people can correct me, then fair play.) So though there may be in fact a revolving door I don't think there is a revolving door by design (as so many suggest on here), or a failure to attempt to encourage the take-up of their ideas.
Contrary to what some people say, I have no problem with people objecting to the ideas of socialist worker, I am genuinely intrigued how people can honestly suggest socialist worker are not genuine socialist, two-faced, liars, saying one thing doing another.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(R) Anybody who would like to see an end to capitalist mode of social organisation and a transition to a classless mode of social existence.
TremulousTetra
prismatic universe
well if you were to talk about the left in the broadest sense, including the Labour Party, then it has had massive impact upon the country. If you think about nationalisation, the NHS etc et cetera, which have not only had social, economic, and cultural consequences, but have radically shaped the political consciousness of people in this country.
Even though people bemoan the Labour Party, quite rightly, they have probably had more 'socialist' influence, than anyone. But it's not just the Labour Party. All the communists and anarchists have had influence as well. When you think about the level of racism today, homophobia, the level of working class consciousness, and popular culture, have all been influenced by the revolutionary left. The term "political correctness" originally came from the left. LOL
TremulousTetra
prismatic universe
I know, just as you think the topic/thread is getting interesting, people disappear. LOL and on that note, I guess butchers has missed my invite to expel me from the forum.
Should I nudge him with a p.m.? LOLTremulousTetra
prismatic universe
So still no answers? Hmmmmm..
Similar threads
