Should the Trade unions form a new left leaning party?

[ViolentPanda]

Your on drugs.

I'm prescribed 14 different ones, which I take daily. What does that have to do with tis thread other than obviously being a device by which you attempt to imply I'm off my bonce?

 

[TremulousTetra]

There isn't an anarchist line, you Norbert.

Anarchisms don't offer an alternative way of doing party politics, they offer an alternative way of being, and of conceiving politics that doesn't tend to include top-down diktat as a feature of "policy" formation.

I'll believe you. Thousands wouldn't!

God your like a 15 year old Tory troll. [Get it now?] Why the fuck would I lie.

just because you cannot understand an alternative point of view, does not automatically mean they are lying.

 

[ViolentPanda]

as usual, nothing.

Surprise surprise.

Get it through your head: Unless I know what you mean by "meaningful", then it is impossible for e to do as you requested. I'm not going to write a load of stuff just to have you airily waffle "that's not meaningful", am I?

 

[ViolentPanda]

God your like a 15 year old Tory troll. [Get it now?]

Still better than being like a blinkered Trot, old son.

Why the fuck would I lie.

just because you cannot understand an alternative point of view, does not automatically mean they are lying.

Have I accused you of lying?

You're a hypersensitive wanker, aren't you?

See, there is an accusation, that you're a hypersensitive wanker!

 

[ViolentPanda]

Whoosh!

Mmm, because you know exactly what ayatollah means, don't you?

Be honest. The only person who knows whether or not ayatollah's comment went over spineynorm's head is ayatollah, not you.

 

[TremulousTetra]

Get it through your head: Unless I know what you mean by "meaningful", then it is impossible for e to do as you requested. I'm not going to write a load of stuff just to have you airily waffle "that's not meaningful", am I?

Clue

Because grassroots activism the way that some anarchists practice it doesn't fit in with the template for action most parties have, and is therefore not "meaningful" to those parties.

I don't "do" politics for the benefit of a party that may or may not eventually benefit "my" community, I "do" politics in that community for the direct benefit of my community, in accordance with the wishes of that community, no strings attached.

By your own words, it is what the community would consider meaningful. meaningful in the sense what the community would see as a tangible advancement's. If you don't like the word meaningful, try noteworthy. Is there anything in the past 100 years the UK community would consider noteworthy of anarchist endeavour? I'm honestly not aware of any such manifestation. Are you?

 

[TremulousTetra]

Mmm, because you know exactly what ayatollah means, don't you?

Be honest. The only person who knows whether or not ayatollah's comment went over spineynorm's head is ayatollah, not you.

yes, the evidence does suggest you are a 15-year-old Tory Troll.

 

[TremulousTetra]

Still better than being like a blinkered Trot, old son.

Have I accused you of lying?

You're a hypersensitive wanker, aren't you?

See, there is an accusation, that you're a hypersensitive wanker!

I'll believe you, thousands wouldn't.

 

[TremulousTetra]

anyway, I'll leave you to your pointless endeavour. Have a nice day violent panda.

 

[ViolentPanda]

anyway, I'll leave you to your pointless endeavour. Have a nice day violent panda.

Passive-aggressive much?

 

[ViolentPanda]

ClueBy your own words, it is what the community would consider meaningful. meaningful in the sense what the community would see as a tangible advancement's. If you don't like the word meaningful, try noteworthy. Is there anything in the past 100 years the UK community would consider noteworthy of anarchist endeavour? I'm honestly not aware of any such manifestation. Are you?

Nope, can't think of anything at all noteworthy, can't think of anything anarchists have done. Its not like they've ever got involved in local information dissemination or social centres, or community activism is it, let alone anything like what those Trots (G-d bless 'em) *doffs cap* do, what with publishing news and views and organising them there meetings.

You're not aware because you disregard anything that doesn't fit to your preconceptions. That's why you make the same mistakes over and over again about anarchism, and also why most anarchists on Urban won't give you the time of day - because you ignore anything that's inconvenient to your belief system, and stick with towing the party line.

 

[ViolentPanda]

yes, the evidence does suggest you are a 15-year-old Tory Troll.

I'm sure it does.

 

[SpineyNorman]

Whoosh!

Yes, I've clearly missed a very sophisticated joke there - can you explain it to me please RMP3? I'm probably suffering from a lack of consciousness or something.

 

[SpineyNorman]

... most anarchists on Urban won't give you the time of day - because you ignore anything that's inconvenient to your belief system, and stick with towing the party line.

Not just anarchists tbf.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Not just anarchists tbf.

Fair enough. I was basing my point on the last time rmp3 whined about how anarchists on the board wouldn't give him the time of day, and it was explained to him (at great length) why they wouldn't.

 

[dennisr]

Fair enough. I was basing my point on the last time rmp3 whined about how anarchists on the board wouldn't give him the time of day, and it was explained to him (at great length) why they wouldn't.

anyone with any sense would not give rmp3 the time of day. another thread turned to idiocy by the his/her pointlessness.

 

[ViolentPanda]

anyone with any sense would not give rmp3 the time of day. another thread turned to idiocy by the his/her pointlessness.

And the thread does ask a question that needs to be "put out there", albeit it's only asking the question along a single route, i.e. "should the trade unions form..." rather than "should those with an interest in a new broad left party...". As I made clear, although I've always been a union member when employed, and several times a shop steward, I'm not particularly sanguine about how union involvement would energise or make attractive a party trying to appeal to a broad left audience, or even a party trying to appeal to a narrow left audience - too many of the unions (or at least the hierarchies of those unions) would benefit more from maintenance of the status quo.
Also, to be blunt, is there room for a new mass party? I don't mean this from a voter's perspective, I mean "will the existing set-up allow any party that looks like threatening the status quo to flourish if it means ceding some of their power?". We know from history that the state is entirely happy to infiltrate, subvert and destroy political organisations that they see as even a glancing threat to them.

 

[dennisr]

And the thread does ask a question that needs to be "put out there"

absolutely

albeit it's only asking the question along a single route, i.e. "should the trade unions form..." rather than "should those with an interest in a new broad left party...". As I made clear, although I've always been a union member when employed, and several times a shop steward, I'm not particularly sanguine about how union involvement would energise or make attractive a party trying to appeal to a broad left audience, or even a party trying to appeal to a narrow left audience - too many of the unions (or at least the hierarchies of those unions) would benefit more from maintenance of the status quo.

its a fair point - my argument would be that trade unions have the organisation, resources and potential social weight that can play a lead in initiating a wider social movement and/or political party voice. You have to differenciate between so-called tu leaders and members. The role of tu bureaucracies is a danger - and the answer to that would be in how the structure of that organisation is decided - how that organisation can be inclusive drawing in wider political opposition to the status quo in a way in which those other voices both feel and are, in practice, genuinely represented.

Also, to be blunt, is there room for a new mass party? I don't mean this from a voter's perspective, I mean "will the existing set-up allow any party that looks like threatening the status quo to flourish if it means ceding some of their power?". We know from history that the state is entirely happy to infiltrate, subvert and destroy political organisations that they see as even a glancing threat to them.

always a danger - but again that comes down to the level of accountability of any 'leadership'. ie how easy it can be replaced if it compromises - so partly a question of the structure of the organistion. More importantly though - than even the most 'democratic' formal structure on the planet - would be it relationship to struggle and action outside of political/electoral politics - how grounded it would be (and therefore how grounded - as much as accountable - its representatives will be). That also links back to the importance socialists would place on trade unions - the members not the leaders of those unions. They are still a key organic link to the working class and working class communities. Trade Unions are still the first move most ordinary working people make towards organising themselves independently of other interests. The need for an independent political voice (to reflect this common interest) is merely an offshoot of that common interest not a replacement for it. That's not to discount the importance of single issue or non-workplace based movements that exist but to recognise the power of organising in a workplace. And easy example would be say the anti-war movement - if the working class of this country had crossed its arms and told the government to piss off - to go and fight their own wars - there would be a damn sight fewer soldiers coming back in boxes, many less dead civilians and a greatly reduced 'terrorist' threat to this tiny wee island off the coast of europe. That power is only 'potential' - but it is still there. it still exists.

It is a question that is seriously back on the agenda - as worldwide the crisis of representation of the other 99% (as they are saying in the US at the moment) comes to the fore while the 1% screw us so openly that even the most gullible (and the most downtrodden and desperate in places like the middle-east) are beginning to think 'hang on a moment..."

Of course I could be kidding you / trying to pull the wool over your eyes and just hopeful that you will 'vote for me' and mine rather than participating in changing your own world ;-)

(note: all the changes I have just made are simply for clarity in what is a long-winded post...)

 

[Random]

my argument would be that trade unions have the organisation, resources and potential social weight that can play a lead in initiating a wider social movement and/or political party voice. You have to differenciate between so-called tu leaders and members.

The members don't have that organisation and resources, though, do they? Getting the unions' weight behind a party inevitably involves wooing union leaders.

 

[dennisr]

The members don't have that organisation and resources, though, do they? Getting the unions' weight behind a party inevitably involves wooing union leaders.

The branches - the grassroots - are the organisation and resources I am talking about here - not 'central office'. OK Unison, for example, has done it best to silence some - but it simply cannot silence all.

If the likes of Barber and Prentis's 'tactical' approach has its way there will be no trade union members left to pay their wages. Within the unions we see a delayed movement to the left. (a movement to the right will simply lead to their own destruction - no membership mean no bureaucrats being paid). You don't have to woo - you have to show left moving tu types their own interests without compromising on accountability (and the 'other side' of the class divide is doing quite a good job of showing up our interests as much as their own at the moment). Even if the likes of Prentis and co will never get it - they depend on their members and can be placed under preasure by those members. The desperate wooing and 'short-cut hopeful' compromise approach of certain arse-licking organisations has simply delayed the building of that new political voice.

 

[Random]

The branches - the grassroots are the organisation and resources I am talking about here - not 'central office'. OK Unison, for example, has done it best to silence some - but it simply cannot silence all.

Branches also have leaders. I'm a union activist myself and I can say that the problems that exist at the top can also be present in branches. Plus, don't the SP back candidates in union leadership elections? It's a bit rich you implying that you have no illusions about the leadership, and that it's all about the ordinary members, when you clearly do want to engage with the very tops of unions.

 

[dennisr]

Branches also have leaders. I'm a union activist myself and I can say that the problems that exist at the top can also be present in branches. Plus, don't the SP back candidates in union leadership elections? It's a bit rich you implying that you have no illusions about the leadership, and that it's all about the ordinary members, when you clearly do want to engage with the very tops of unions.

Of course 'problems at the top can be present in branches' - tell me something new. What has that got to do with the price of fish? So you are saying that standing against the right wing in union elections is 'trying to engage with the very tops of the unions' (therefore with 'illusions') - and there was me thinking that standing in those elections is simply using the opportunity of a platform to appeal to those ordinary members... That's is a bit of a lame arguement (and that's me being nice about it ).

In terms of the SP (if you want to make this an SP v anarcho thing which i guess you do...) you have to ask why SP members are being witch-hunted by right-wing trade unions leaderships if, as you strongly imply, our aim to simply to 'appeal to the tops' - a tactical mistake on our part surely?

Do you believe what you have just said or do you just want to believe it?

You seem to be resorting to the 'look at me I am pure' (if forever unheard) line in your formal opposition to 'taking sides' in union leadership elections - the unfortunate reality is that you end up reinforcing the very disempowerment of those union members from wrestling control of their organisation that you formally wish to oppose. Unions are not an abstraction - they are made up of their members and there will always be an ongoing struggle to make the structures of those organisations accountable to those members.

 

[Random]

Do you believe what you have just said or do you just want to believe it?

I'm saying that you're being incoherant at best and, at worst, dishonest. It's clearly not just about ordinary members for you, and you're clearly not just using union ellections as a publicity platform. you know this, I know it. I'm not saying that this mixed strategy is wrong, but you're the one who's tried to seem 'pure' by pretending that you're only talking about getting the unions on side at the grassroots level.

 

[dennisr]

I'm saying that you're being incoherant at best and, at worst, dishonest. It's clearly not just about ordinary members for you, and you're clearly not just using union elections as a publicity platform. you know this, I know it. I'm not saying that this mixed strategy is wrong, but you're the one who's tried to seem 'pure' by pretending that you're only talking about getting the unions on side at the grassroots level.

Hang on are you saying its OK to stand - but you don't want to actually win over the majority to your argument in practice!! - I'd be happy if the most effective tactic was to stand and win the leaderships of trade unions. We would (and do announce this when standing in elections) then use that position to push for a new workers party. I have no problem with taking over union leaderships but, firstly, it simply is not going to happen like that (certainly not in the big unions) - and secondly, where it is a possibility it would be based on the central idea that we could only build and maintain such an advantagous position if we bring the union membership into activity. In the wee PCS, for example, the left may well have won - and maintained - a leadership position but we have to recognise that does not automatically make up for a lack of active membership and division across many small workplaces so the left has been pushing and pushing to re-build the active structures and branches that had been all but destroyed in the previous 20 odd years of right-wing control. It does not mean that the formal leadership of the PCS can assume it can simply lead its troops like the grand old duke of york up and down hills - It still has to win those members to what is necessary - their own action to be able to defeat attacks on those members. There is nothing wrong, incoherant or dishonest about taking a position like that.

And where union leaderships are moving to the left - where there is a willingness to work towards an independant political organisation - there is nothing wrong, incoherant or dishonest about pushing them further than they would otherwise go. The accountability of those left leaning tu tops will depend on their members taking up the initiative and ensuring those tu tops remain accountable. That is why the SP puts such strong store on the idea that the growth of any political organisation is likely to come largely out of existing movements and campaigns - like the ones we are seeing building now in workplaces. That is also why I have put strong store on the need for clear democratic structures. A political party 'announced' by Bob Crow would come to nowt in and of itself - unless it filled out with those grassroots union members (ones already moving into struggle due to lack of choice).

Dishonesty is taking a position of permanant and impotant 'opposition' and claiming that position is 'revolutionary' and all others are suspect. Sometimes you have to get your hands dirty - even horror of horrors sit on the same platform as a trade union bureaucrat or a left reformist (I guess you must have done this as a trade union activist). That does not mean for one moment you forget the actual relation between 'leaders' and 'members' or no longer recognise the central need for those ordinary members to take the leading role. Its ABC for tu reps on the ground surely - you are only as effective as the will and determination of those you are elected to represent.

 

[Random]

Dennis a lot of that is you just spewing ready-made arguments at me, wanting to take up some debate you think I want to have, rather than answering my actual points.

i'll confine myself to commenting on one of your statements:

I have no problem with taking over union leaderships but, firstly, it simply is not going to happen like that

As I think this illuminates what I meant about your incoherance/dishonesty. You'd love to be able to run a union, by having the leadership on your side; your current pious statements about how it's all about the rank and file members, honest! are based on a tactical judgement. Just like many Leninists were happy to work inside the Labour party to reclaim it, until that became parently obviously impossible, many Leninists want to work within the union hierarchy, and when they fail they say, well, we only really care about the rank and file really.

Hierarchical socialist groups don't have any real critical analysis of what is structurally wrong with unions, or left political parties. You're always waiting for the wind to change, to bring about a moment when proper socialists can slip into a leading role in these unions and parties.

 

[dennisr]

Random - on a side note - i think I have made some reasonable points the could develop the discussion on the OPs original question (not in the direction i would necessarily wish to go in - but, for example, question of accountability of 'leadership'; inclusion of minority platform opinions etc) .

It would be a bit pointless to be led up the cul-de-sac of "you have illusions in tu leaders even if i cannot prove it" line - I'll say no. You'll say yes. And it will all become very boring. If you are trying to prove that the SP believe that 'leadership' can exist without being necessarily inherently evil - well yes we do. You have proven your non-point (actually you did not you just tried to say us authoritarian types just want the control ourselves by implication but without proof). A decent 'leadership' that recognises that it can only be a representative (and only then at a certain point - ie if it remains responsive to the changing mood of its electors).

How about you expand on your solutions to the bigger questions. Otherwise you will simply end up sounding like one of those anarcho nutjobs who drove poor rmp3 bananas and into permanant incoherency

 

[Random]

It would be a bit pointless to be led up the cul-de-sac of "you have illusions in tu leaders even if i cannot prove it" line - I'll say no. You'll say yes.

We don't need to go any further, you've already said that you'd like to gain control of a union's leadership. What's to argue over?

If you are trying to prove that the SP believe that 'leadership' can exist without being necessarily inherently evil - well yes we do.

I've not named leadership, I'm saying that you've no real criticism of the structural problems with parties and unions.

How about you expand on your solutions to the bigger questions. Otherwise you will simply end up sounding like one of those anarcho nutjobs who drove poor rmp3 bananas and into permanant incoherency

I've not mentioned any solutions. What do you want me to expand on?

 

[dennisr]

Hierarchical socialist groups don't have any real critical analysis of what is structurally wrong with unions, or left political parties. You're always waiting for the wind to change, to bring about a moment when proper socialists can slip into a leading role in these unions and parties.

Whereas abstract anarchist groups get lost in the impotant mist of purity?

So it is what you want to believe then?

I have repeatedly refered to the critical points about the actual relationship between leadership - 'representatives' - and those they represent - and how those representative can or cannot be made accountable. Your only concern is to abstractly insinuate that actually we really want the 'power' ourselves. No proof of this - just constant insinuation. Think about it rationally (and take those moralistic goggles of for one moment...) - if all we wanted was 'power' don't you think we are going about the wrong way around???

Let me help you - Maybe it would improve your attempts to argue you case if you recognise that actually we don't want 'power' for ourselves and that - try as you might you cannot prove that. Surely the more reasonable anarcho arguements try to show how the methods used cause an 'inevitable' slip into totalitarianism?

Or maybe - instead - you could use your fantastic critical analysis to show solutions to this concern. Devlop the pointers i did actually raise above (rather than the devious and evil communist double-speak you deperately tried to 'expose'... Or are we going to simply go back to the purile 'no leaders. man' position? (I am guessing you are not that daft...)

 

[Random]

I have repeatedly refered to the critical points about the actual relationship between leadership - 'representatives' - and those they represent - and how those representative can or cannot be made accountable. Your only concern is to abstractly insinuate that actually we really want the 'power' ourselves. No proof of this - just constant insinuation. Think about it rationally (and take those moralistic goggles of for one moment...) - if all we wanted was 'power' don't you think we are going about the wrong way around???

I'm not saying you want power for it's own sake, like some cartoon supervillain. There are socialist movements that like hierarchies and want to bring about social change using methods including using hierarchical and bureaucratic organisations, and Leninism is one of those. I think that's a fairly uncontroversial statement.

I'm ignoring your digs at anarchism because I'm not actually putting forward any anarchist way as a solution. I think the world we find ourselves in is full of contradictions, and often gains can be made by working within parts of the existing system.

As i said before, I'm not saying you're a bad person, or your party is evil or something; I just want you to come clean, rather than pretending to champion the union rank and file versus the leadership. because, in your perfect world, you would be the union leadership.

Myself I think unions cannot become supporters of revolutionary change, I think they have become assimilated into the capitalist system. they can help to make life under capitalism more bearable, but then so can a lot of other non-revolutionary institutions, such as Citizens Advice Bureaux or similar.

 

[dennisr]

We don't need to go any further, you've already said that you'd like to gain control of a union's leadership. What's to argue over?

Sorry - do you feel this has 'exposed' me? - To what. Stop being foolish. Why not read the rest of the paragraph - the practical points that elected control of the leadership of a union does not actual mean one controls that union r its membership - I even gave a real world example. Something you have yet to come up with...

I've not named leadership, I'm saying that you've no real criticism of the structural problems with parties and unions.

I was the one that raised the dangers inherent in such organisatons in the first place - I was the one who raised possible solution. All you have done mate is repeat insinuations with out substance and get a bit arsey becasue i keep pointing this out to you - you keep talking about your profound critical analysis but haven't actually got around to telling anyone what it is yet?

I've not mentioned any solutions.

Yes, I know, I am clear on this - this is precisely what I was asking you to mention or expand upon.
If you feel you have the correct answers to the problems the least you could do is educate the rest of us about them.