Should the Trade unions form a new left leaning party?

[Random]

Sorry - do you feel this has 'exposed' me? - To what. Stop being foolish.

I think you've very aware of what the Leninist position on trade unions is. As I've said time and time again, I jsut want to point out that you're not really supporting rank and file versus the leadership, are you?

As to your real-world example, where you'd "bring the membership into activity" I just thought that was so embarrassing that I'd just leave it, tbh.

As to solutions I've already said what I think is needed. Honesty: that trade unions cannot be revolutionary. This discussion with you reminds me of arguing with articul8 about the Labour Party. In both cases there's a fundamentally flawed organisation, which socialists would love to 'reclaim' and which I think is and always was fundamentally flawed.

 

[articul8]

I agree that the Labour party and the unions are and always were fundamentally flawed. They are highly unlikely to be won over bag and baggage to a revolutionary perspective. But that doesn't mean that there isn't both a tactical and strategic reason for engaging within them.

Question for Dennisr: what would it take to conclude with the trade unions (as you have with Labour) that they have been permanently lost to w/c interests?

 

[Random]

Question for Dennisr: what would it take to conclude with the trade unions (as you have with Labour) that they have been permanently lost to w/c interests?

A takeover by Mandelson? I think the unions are unlikely to be streamlined and purged, like the New Labour clique did to that centrally-controlled Labour Party. Union activity is too spread out and messy, and inevitably involves class conflict.

 

[dennisr]

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.

That's a relief to hear - stop trying to imply shite then

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.

Fair enough and that's interesting. I do not really see how the view directly above works with the view (that i have taken the liberty of moving) directly below though. Surely that view does not recognise the contradiction inherent within those organisations? (ie even though you talk about contradictions above). I don't agree. I think unions are, ultimately, made of of members who though not 'supporters of revolutionary change' themselves for much of their existence (like the rest of us...) but can be driven by conditions to go way beyond their original starting points. As unions are made up of those individuals - those organisations can also take on revolutionary characteristics - can even be transformed for a period - new forms can grow out of old - I think it is a very practical view.

I guess that when we are talking about working class representation though - we are not even saying it has to be as a whole 'revolutionary'. There can be a platform within such an organisation for the various views to be had out openly. It is just that - a voice for working class people. And - even if as you say the trade unions are assimulated - they are still the only present existing organisations that do give a limited voice to working class opinion - so it would be a natural progression to the political voice. I could argue about the how the nature of that political voice is likely to develop - given the situation we all face but that is another thing entirely.

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.

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.

I know you are not fella (but you are derailing something else - and I am joining in....) Are you saying you would be the unions non-leadership? (if so i am afraid Brendon Barbour beat you to it...) . In the perfect world there would be no leaders. In the meantime - To be very frank i am wary of the term rank-and-file because of its repeated misuse . I am a champion of people taking control of their lives and that would include the organisations that claim to represent them. ie making those who claim to represent them accountable to their collective wills. Ultimately its self-interest for this individual - because it is in my interests too. In the meantime also I am realistic that i cannot proclaim the abolishion of heirarchy and it will simply become so. Folk have to work that out for themselves rather than be told - I would hope through the process of doing (just like I learn through the process of doing my job rather than reading about it).

And you still have not proven your repeated insinuation - but hey, I cannot stop you repeating it

 

[Random]

And you still have not proven your repeated insinuation - but hey, I cannot stop you repeating it.

Which insinuation? I'm genuinely baffled. All I'm saying is uncontroversial stuff, about how Leninist socialists operate, and you've just agreed with it in this post. What's the difference between this and the 'shite'?

 

[Random]

I do not really see how the view directly above works with the view (that i have taken the liberty of moving) directly below though. Surely that view does not recognise the contradiction inherent within those organisations?

Like I say, unions are not and cannot be revolutionary, but union activity can still win gains in the here and now, and I think that a working class that is making gains is in a better position to carry out revolutioanry change and a working class that is barely surviving. But that does not mean that the union work is itself revolutioanry, or will flower into revolution given the right circumstances. Well-funcioning activity is essential also for the smooth accumulation of capital. As a union activist it seems to em that a lot fo the time I'm trying to stop management shooting themselves in the foot. Sad but true.

 

[dennisr]

Question for Dennisr: what would it take to conclude with the trade unions (as you have with Labour) that they have been permanently lost to w/c interests?

Personally - regardless of any party line - I try and avoid 'inevitabilities' - There is even the very faint possibility that the LP could be transformed again (its a bloody unlikely one at the moment though....)

Re the trade unions - its a bit of an abstract question but i guess you could look at blue unions or state set-up unions in the old soviet system as examples of 'permanantly' lost unions. Even there it is contradictory though - Look at the changed role of the old state unions in Poland, or the changed role of the PCS or of the POA. Not so sure one could be that prescriptive.

 

[dennisr]

Which insinuation? I'm genuinely baffled. All I'm saying is uncontroversial stuff, about how Leninist socialists operate, and you've just agreed with it in this post. What's the difference between this and the 'shite'?

No I did not agree with "it". (Que: 'yes you did' - 'no I didnt' - pantomime episode). I thought you were an anarchist not a conspiracy theorist?

 

[Random]

No I did not agree with "it". (Que: 'yes you did' - 'no I didnt' - pantomime episode). I thought you were an anarchist not a conspiracy theorist?

Is that it? That some socialist parties like to operate through bureaucratic parties and unions? You don't have to agree with it, it's still a mainstream analysis of Leninism, rather than a 'conspiracy theory.' You're the one bringing in the pantomime elements tbh.

 

[DotCommunist]

Spanish civil war re enactment, get your spanish civil war re enactment tickets, right here, etc etc

 

[Random]

Spanish civil war re enactment, get your spanish civil war re enactment tickets, right here, etc etc

you don't think this discussion has any bearing on political action in the here and now? Odd.

Edit: sorry, should have said 'Jetztzeit'.

 

[DotCommunist]

just taking the piss tbh- the conversation is an interesting one mind, I have my own reservations with unions but they are what they are and what we have to work with now, even if the dread hand of the trotskyist SP do talk to leaders and ranks- well what else have we got. The revolution?

 

[Random]

I have my own reservations with unions but they are what they are and what we have to work with now, even if the dread hand of the trotskyist SP do talk to leaders and ranks- well what else have we got. The revolution?

I've not said anything to disagree with that. What I'm against is spreading the false belief that unions (or the Labour party) can ever be won over to revolutionary change.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

If DotCommunist had been in charge of the Comintern at the time of the Spanish Civil War I have no doubt that the correct revolutionary road would have pursude and Franco would have been forced to do that famous Mussolini upsidedown swing thing. Word.

 

[Random]

If DotCommunist had been in charge of the Comintern at the time of the Spanish Civil War I have no doubt that the correct revolutionary road would have pursude and Franco would have been forced to do that famous Mussolini upside swing thing. Word.

He'd probably have converted the Moors to socialism and then established Red Spain supported by a Red-Green north african coast.

 

[DotCommunist]

@random

history shows they'd sell it out first ennit. What we can do with them while it can be done though. Labour party- goner as far as even soc/dec comes in. Unions? well I've outlined my thinking on them elsewhere but in defense of colleagues they should be supported. As to the wider question about them forming a new left leaning party well...the likelihood isn't high and do we really want the supines that head most unions to be at the forefront of this hypothetical venture?

I still maintain that unions should be supported etc.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

And he would've pwned Hitler. Fact.

 

[articul8]

Personally - regardless of any party line - I try and avoid 'inevitabilities' - There is eventhe very faint possibility that the LP could be transformed again (its a bloody unlikely one at the moment though....)

did Militant think that the Labour party could be taken over - en bloc - to be a revolutionary vehicle (as opposed to being a useful area to try to recruit and organise in for the here-and-now?)

Re the trade unions - its a bit of an abstract question but i guess you could look at blue unions or state set-up unions in the old soviet system as examples of 'permanantly' lost unions. Even there it is contradictory though - Look at the changed role of the old state unions in Poland, or the changed role of the PCS or of the POA. Not so sure one could be that prescriptive.

So why is it that it's ok to be prescriptive (if not inevitablisit!) about the Labour party?

For me it's a tactical judgement - given that millions will vote Labour even if solely as a means to kick out the other cunts, isn't it at least as productive to work inside (without triming sails to support the leadership and its programme) - linking up with anti-cuts activists outside - as to tilt at windmills?[/quote]

 

[butchersapron]

Without trimming sails? Have you heard the shit you've come out with over the last few years? Have you compared it to what you used to argue? You've got no frigging sails left. Now times that by under a thousand.

If you can do it outside then why do you need to be inside? What do you gain - except networking opps, jobs and positions?

 

[frogwoman]

did Militant think that the Labour party could be taken over - en bloc - to be a revolutionary vehicle (as opposed to being a useful area to try to recruit and organise in for the here-and-now?)

So why is it that it's ok to be prescriptive (if not inevitablisit!) about the Labour party?

For me it's a tactical judgement - given that millions will vote Labour even if solely as a means to kick out the other cunts, isn't it at least as productive to work inside (without triming sails to support the leadership and its programme) - linking up with anti-cuts activists outside - as to tilt at windmills?

[/quote]

You could equally use that arguement to support the Tory party because millions will vote Tory to kick out the other cunts.

 

[articul8]

Without trimming sails? Have you heard the shit you've come out with over the last few years? Have you compared it to what you used to argue? You've got no frigging sails left. Now times that by under a thousand.

What? Other than AV which I (like McDonnell and Serwotka) argued was a tactical step forward in a straight choice with FPTP - where am I supposed to have shifted to the right? You are making "shit" up.

If you can do it outside then why do you need to be inside? What do you gain - except networking opps, jobs and positions?

I'm not saying everyone needs to be inside - I'm saying that in a period where a significant no. of anti-coalition votes fall into Labour's lap. on what grounds is it wrong and self-defeating for socialists to organise within the party and link up with forces outside?

 

[articul8]

You could equally use that arguement to support the Tory party because millions will vote Tory to kick out the other cunts.[/quote]

err the Tories are in power? If it wasn't possible to launch a viable mass workers party when Blair was waging war in Iraq, what has changed to make it viable when Labour seems relatively attractive if only when compared to the other two?

 

[butchersapron]

This argument that you're trotting out now for starters, Well done, you're a trot in the 30s arguing you need to be where the workers are. Let's have 80 more years of these...tactics.

Why do you need to be in it to do it at all? People who vote for labour are not going to be pro-cuts because you're outside of labour are they? What's the advantage to you being in labour? I know the personal benefits but i cannot see a single political one.Clearer example of your rightward regression could not be found. That you've convinced yourself that you're doing something different (tactics) is as self-serving as your AV guff, and just as wrong.

 

[frogwoman]

Huh? the sp were calling for a workers' party when tony blair and co were in power, and set up things like No2EU etc then too. I'm not saying that they were a success and I'm not saying that it will definitely be a success this time, but its untrue to say that SP only started putting fwd the idea of the workers' party once labour were out of power no?

 

[Random]

in a period where a significant no. of anti-coalition votes fall into Labour's lap. on what grounds is it wrong and self-defeating for socialists to organise within the party and link up with forces outside?

Because it means becoming a Labour Party member. For fuck's sake.

 

[butchersapron]

err the Tories are in power? If it wasn't possible to launch a viable mass workers party when Blair was waging war in Iraq, what has changed to make it viable when Labour seems relatively attractive if only when compared to the other two?

And here we get to the key - it's vote labour. It's use the outside forces to construct a broad pro-labour coalition whilst telling yourself you're using labour to build a broad extra-parliamentary left to destroy labour. Self-serving cant - and you don't believe it for a second. I can at least respect people like glenaquamire who used to argue that the labour party is the only way, there is no other way, you think the same but want to keep your 'radical' credentials so argue these false bollocks.

 

[frogwoman]

err the Tories are in power? If it wasn't possible to launch a viable mass workers party when Blair was waging war in Iraq, what has changed to make it viable when Labour seems relatively attractive if only when compared to the other two?

OK then why not the BNP? People vote for them too, against the "establishment" parties.

 

[articul8]

Still think AV was right option - don't see any evidence of the coalition splitting at the seams at a NO vote. But the continued existence of FPTP will continue to retard the progress of smaller parties.

Let's not trade historical examples as though that meant anything - William Morris was arguing in the 1880's much the same as you argue now. And with similarly meagre results.

I'm not saying that everything stands or falls with joining Labour - but I don't see how an orientation to a party that will pick up greater support over the coming period and arguing for it to take a stronger anti-cuts line can be damaging to the overall movement. You think that McDonnell is just someone benefiting from a position and networking opportunities?

 

[articul8]

OK then why not the BNP? People vote for them too, against the "establishment" parties.

because the BNP has never set itself the objective of representing the interests of the working class in Britain qua class?

 

[frogwoman]

because the BNP has never set itself the objective of representing the interests of the working class in Britain qua class?

Yes they have and do. as do the tories (publically, that is)