Socialist Party: good attempts at bridge building...

[Nigel]

What a disgusting picture!



I knew you'd appreciate that viewpoint

As it goes the SP don't disagree with the united front bit, you just think the CNWP is a valid tactic as well. Not something that in any way gets in the way with me working alongside SP members and if you turn out to be right and I'm wrong then all the better!

Perhaps a different style of politics, instead of cyclically re-hashing the past?

 

[dennisr]

Perhaps a different style of politics, instead of cyclically re-hashing the past?

We await your 'insight' at the open discussion.... *counter-rolleyes*

 

[imposs1904]

(Saying that I think the SPGB probably have about 2000 members as well, 1800 of which are dead!!)

The other 200 wished they were dead after reading that lame joke.

FWIW, the SPGB had about 325 members at the last count.

 

[Nigel]

We await your 'insight' at the open discussion.... *counter-rolleyes*

Quite like a lot of stuff groups like Hackney Independent are doing.
Grass root political activity in your local community/area, making links with others doing the same.

 

[Macullam]

I understand the SP argument of putting a marker in the sand but I just don't think it will work. I think the left is better off building united fronts at the moment.[/QUOTE]

Would that be united fronts of a special kind ?

 

[dennisr]

Grass root political activity in your local community/area, making links with others doing the same.

Oh, that does sound quite refreshing and so original

 

[dennisr]

Would that be united fronts of a special kind ?

a very, very special kind? (the problem is CR - you will not build the thing but once it has happened you and your mates will among those who - without any sense of irony - will join to be the first to offer us your 'advice'... )

 

[Jean-Luc]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jean-Luc
They don't want to form a "new workers party" but to re-form the ancient trade union-based "Labour" party of yore again and repeat that fiasco. I suspect too that the real reason they want a bigger party is so they can infiltrate it and keep up the tricks they did when they were the Militant Tendency.

Originally posted by dennisr
oh ys, thats us exposed.... its the level of in-depth understanding of 'reality' that faws me to the posters on these boards

Are you saying that your so-called "socialist party" is no longer the Bolshevik-Leninist organisation it claims to be on your site at http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/WhatIsMarxFrame.htm ?
Are you saying that the members of your party who joined the new "Workers Party" would not form a "faction" within it dedicated to spreading Bolshevisk-Leninist ideas and practices amongst the other members, ie be a party within a party just as they were when you were the Militant Tendency?
Do you really believe that this "new" "Workers" Party would end up doing anything different if elected to power from the old "Labour" Party on which it is to be modelled? Or are you just trying to string workers along in accordance with Trotsky's "transitional demands" strategy where Trotskyists take the lead in making some demand on capitalism knowing full well it can't be achieved in the hope that, when this is proved by experience, the workers will turn against capitalism and help the vanguard Bolshevik-Leninist party seize power (and repeat what happened in Russia all over again)?

 

[cockneyrebel]

a very, very special kind? (the problem is CR - you will not build the thing but once it has happened you and your mates will among those who - without any sense of irony - will join to be the first to offer us your 'advice'... )

I think Macullam is confusing me with the SWP. I don't agree with the logic of "united front of a special kind" at all.

Why are you being so hostile? All I'm saying is that I disagree with the tactic of the CNWP, we can just agree to disagree. Obviously if we turned out to be wrong and a new workers party came about we'd be idiots if we didn't turn around and say "we were wrong" and then get involved.

As for not building united fronts? Sorry but that's not true. Firstly in our union branch we do very good united front work. Indeed after the last public meeting we are now going to build a "save our services" (or something similar) campaign with other unions and community and tenants groups and elect a committee at the next meeting in June where Mark Serwotka in speaking along with others. Along with other people in the branch me and another PR member have being doing our best to build this. I doubt there are that many other union branches around the country doing that kinda thing to be honest, but hopefully there will be soon. Hopefully what Lambeth UNISON is doing can be used as a good example of what can be done if the campaign is a success.

I can also think of the stuff urbanrevolt has done in building genuine united fronts around the "Save the Sukulas" campaign and now around the strikes:

http://www.permanentrevolution.net/?view=entry&entry=2099

You can say that we're a tiny organisation and criticise on political levels, but to say we don't build united fronts simply isn't true, nearly all our members get stuck into united front work, and with SP members in many instances (like in Lambeth and Lewisham).

 

[dennisr]

Are you saying that your so-called "socialist party" is no longer the Bolshevik-Leninist organisation it claims to be on your site at http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/WhatIsMarxFrame.htm ?
Are you saying that the members of your party who joined the new "Workers Party" would not form a "faction" within it dedicated to spreading Bolshevisk-Leninist ideas and practices amongst the other members, ie be a party within a party just as they were when you were the Militant Tendency?
Do you really believe that this "new" "Workers" Party would end up doing anything different if elected to power from the old "Labour" Party on which it is to be modelled? Or are you just trying to string workers along in accordance with Trotsky's "transitional demands" strategy where Trotskyists take the lead in making some demand on capitalism knowing full well it can't be achieved in the hope that, when this is proved by experience, the workers will turn against capitalism and help the vanguard Bolshevik-Leninist party seize power (and repeat what happened in Russia all over again)?

you really are 'mr. insight' ain't you just - my god there was me labouring under a delusion. thanks so much for helping the scales fall from my eyes

your leaps of a somewhat fevered imagination use exactly the tendatious leaps of ideological faith over practice that idiots like you would be the first to accuse us [evil label here] of - still does not help in explain the why and how of things happening in the real world, I am afraid. Sorry, if I show a lack of respect for your somewhat unoriginal book-read ramblings.

if anyone is still labouring under the other illusion that some sort of pretend unity with many of the internet experts here - all of whom would claim to be 'on the left' - will take the working class one step nearer self-control should look at this thread

I'd stick to guiding the starship enterprise if i was you jean-Luc

 

[dennisr]

Why are you being so hostile? .

I am not I am taking the piss - its all you leave me room to do.

I think you should go back and look at the united front tactic - the circumstances in which it was raised. i think you will find it was raised as a tactic in response to the practical question of how to interviene in mass parties and movements of the working class in the 1930s - not piddling practical 'unities' of left groups in 2008 . i think that is the point Macullam was making.

The way you raise it here is mearly empty phrasology - a 'trotskyist gloss' - whereas the SP is raising a practical 'real world' task - one of how to build a new independent workers movement without which your call for 'united front' tactics is somewhat meaningless. But, hey, thanks for the 'advice' i just don't know were I would be without it

 

[cockneyrebel]

I am not I am taking the piss - its all you leave me room to do.

I think you should go back and look at the united front tactic - the circumstances in which it was raised. i think you will find it was raised as a tactic in response to the practical question of how to interviene in mass parties and movements of the working class in the 1930s - not piddling practical 'unities' of left groups in 2008 . i think that is the point Macullam was making.

The way you raise it here is mearly empty phrasology - a 'trotskyist gloss' - whereas the SP is raising a practical task - one of how to build a new independent workers movement without which your call for 'united front' tactics is somewhat meaningless

Given how narky these boards are it's sometimes easy to miss humour!

I know about the united tactic and I think you're misunderstanding what I'm trying to say. I'm not talking about "far left united fronts", althought I think there is a place for a "socialist caucus" in my branch. The campaign in my union branch and what is going on in Bolton will hopefully and have involved real forces. Obviously not on the scale of the 1930s but that's not gonna happen given the balance of class forces.

Another example of a united front would be the STWC. Or currently a need to build a united front against fascism. Sadly there seem to be two simultaneous campaigns at the moment, one led by the SP, the other by the SWP. Haven't got a clue why that is, but it needs to be sorted out.

 

[cockneyrebel]

But, hey, thanks for the 'advice' i just don't know were I would be without it

I dunno why that response is put up so many times on these boards. You could give that sarcastic response to any point anyone makes ever. Putting across a point of view doesn't mean saying "we're 100% right", or "you're talking rubbish", or "you're in the SP so must be wrong", it's just a point of view.

All I can say is thank fuck campaigns I work in aren't like this board and people don't react in the same way!!

 

[dennisr]

All I can say is thank fuck campaigns I work in aren't like this board and people don't react in the same way!!

aye, but they may well be thinking it...

 

[Das Uberdog]

btw - how many different organisations are there out there which exist solely to 'campaign' for a new leftist Party?

 

[dennisr]

You could give that sarcastic response to any point anyone makes ever.

I save my sarcastic responses for you mate - given that its the same old same old I get from you

 

[cockneyrebel]

aye, but they may well be thinking it...

I genuinely don't think people are in the two campaigns I'm involved with at the moment. There seems to be a real sense of solidarity and people respect each others differences.

I save my sarcastic responses for you mate - given that its the same old same old I get from you

btw - how many different organisations are there out there which exist solely to 'campaign' for a new leftist Party?

Hardly any. There are lots of organisations that have it as part of what they do - the SWP, SP, AWL, CPGB etc but that's quite different.

 

[dennisr]

I genuinely don't think people are in the two campaigns I'm involved with at the moment. There seems to be a real sense of solidarity and people respect each others differences.

I should hope so to mate. i don't imagine you come out with abstractions like you do here.

the real world is a different thing - urban p&p is just a playground while we wile away the hours avoiding work (plus the bonus therapy sessions - 'anger managment' for brassic and uberdog, and 'coping with reality' for posterXXX and KJ)

 

[cockneyrebel]

:d:d:d

 

[durruti02]

the real world is a different thing - urban p&p is just a playground while we wile away the hours avoiding work (plus the bonus therapy sessions - 'anger managment' for brassic and uberdog, and 'coping with reality' for posterXXX and KJ)

hi dennis .. while i obviously agree the real world and urban are far removed! i think you are way too cynical about urbans worth and potential .. there are many individuals here who are at the core of many of the various left @ projects in this country, together on one discussion forum .. there is NO other forum similar .. in fact to dismiss this on line opportunity for real serious debate would suggest that the OP is, as some suggest, cynical

 

[durruti02]

you really are 'mr. insight' ain't you just - my god there was me labouring under a delusion. thanks so much for helping the scales fall from my eyes

your leaps of a somewhat fevered imagination use exactly the tendatious leaps of ideological faith over practice that idiots like you would be the first to accuse us [evil label here] of - still does not help in explain the why and how of things happening in the real world, I am afraid. Sorry, if I show a lack of respect for your somewhat unoriginal book-read ramblings.

if anyone is still labouring under the other illusion that some sort of pretend unity with many of the internet experts here - all of whom would claim to be 'on the left' - will take the working class one step nearer self-control should look at this thread

I'd stick to guiding the starship enterprise if i was you jean-Luc

dennis but you didn't really answer his point .. which was, HAS the SP given up on the ideology it has held since its was formed ( kind of trotskyist) which included for several decades, entryism? I am not at all clear of the first part and while clearly you no longer are entryist into the Labour Party what jean luc asked was would you have a faction taht would seek to 'lead' the NWP?

it is NOT unfair for someone, in the cocntext of your calling for a New Workers Party to ask these questions

 

[dennisr]

it is NOT unfair for someone, in the cocntext of your calling for a New Workers Party to ask these questions

so supporting my organisations call for a new workers party constitutes a commitment to reply to every tedious do-nothing fuckwit making a tedious do-nothing, uninformed and ignorant, cynical comment on urban 75?

apparently i am meant to conform to their fantasies of 'political commitment' which consist of half-baked preconceptions repeated ad-infernitum on a bulletin board

Jean Luc never asked fuck all - he made a riduculous and ignorant snide remark and it was treated in the same way it was handed out. if Jean Luc of any of the other tedious fucks hanging around on this website wish to make sensible remarks or ask any reasonable questions I am more than happy to answer as and when real-worlds commitments permit. I am of course, more than happy to do this in real life as well (something I find the ejets i've pulled up in the past tend to back away from)

thats the context, durrutti...

 

[dennisr]

hi dennis .. while i obviously agree the real world and urban are far removed! i think you are way too cynical about urbans worth and potential .. there are many individuals here who are at the core of many of the various left @ projects in this country, together on one discussion forum .. there is NO other forum similar .. in fact to dismiss this on line opportunity for real serious debate would suggest that the OP is, as some suggest, cynical

i welcome the opportunity for 'real serious debate' - do point me in the direction of the core individuals and wake me up when it starts

 

[treelover]

Yes, remember this has been described as 'the naughty end of british politics'



'hi dennis .. while i obviously agree the real world and urban are far removed! i think you are way too cynical about urbans worth and potential .. there are many individuals here who are at the core of many of the various left @ projects in this country, together on one discussion forum .. there is NO other forum similar .. in fact to dismiss this on line opportunity for real serious debate would suggest that the OP is, as some suggest, cynical

 

[JimPage]

Unless they are prepared to try and engage with the SWP in this, this is dead in the water without the meeting taking place.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

Why would that be the case, Jim, given that the SWP have born primary responsibility for fucking up the last two major left unity initiatives in England? It isn't as if the SWP is some massive organisation with huge social weight that the rest of the left can't simply ignore.

There is, by the way, no policy of excluding the SWP or its "Left List" front. If they want to get involved, they can. But this initiative is not focused on them.

 

[cockneyrebel]

I think it shows the bubble mentality of some on the left that something can't be achieved without a tiny organisation of 1500 activists being involved.

Surely more to the point is that this initiative is fucked if it doesn't get the working class on board, primarily through the unions.

 

[dennisr]

Surely more to the point is that this initiative is fucked if it doesn't get the working class on board, primarily through the unions.

Yes, i would agree with that - so would the SP

 

[JHE]

Beware of Greeks bearing gifts and Trot sects calling for 'unity'!

I don't know what the Socialist Party are up to with this, beyond the perfectly reasonable objective of talking to people to see how far they might co-operate, but I reckon they're up to something...

Anyway, a few questions:

1. If the Socialist Party is willing to get together with al-Respeq (GG) and the Lost List (Social Workers), why on earth was the Socialist Party not willing to join al-Respeq when it was set up? At the time I thought they were (rightly) a bit sniffy about getting into bed with non-socialist groupings. Joining up with various Islamists and conservative Muslim businessmen was the sort of opportunism you might expect from the Social Workers (these days), but the good old Ortho-Trots of the SP knew better. Perhaps they don't really.

2. What excuse do the Social Workers have for not joining the latest 'unity offensive'? A year or two ago they could have insisted that al-Respeq (pre-split) was the only show in town and if the SP wanted unity they should join al-Respeq. That would have (slightly) strengthened the forces of Trottery in east London and Brum. Now all the Social Workers have electorally is the poor old Lost List - unless that has been ditched already.

3. If the Social Workers did get on board (which I doubt very much) would there be any chance of avoiding the fiasco of the Socialist Alliance after the Social Workers joined it last time (about nine years ago)?

 

[Jean-Luc]

As dennisr refuses to answer my question about whether in the proposed "New Workers Party" the ex-Militant Tendency would maintain itself as a party within a party, I will turn it into a rhetorical question. Of course they will. That's the nature of Trotskyism. So, a big dose of scepticism is needed about anything proposed by any Trot group, whether this be the SWP, ex-Militant or whatever Trot group it is that's no doubt plotting to take over Respect in place of the SWP. And any non-Trots trying to start a left-of-Labour party will need to find a way of keeping them out if it's going to get anywhere. Otherwise they'll just ruin it.