Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

SWP expulsions and squabbles

Jean-Luc said:
The one good thing about the SWP was that it championed the state-capitalist analysis of the old USSR, etc within the Trotskyist movement while the rest of the movement promoted the absurd theory that these were somehow "Workers" States. The fact that it failed to apply this analysis consistently and ended up taking sides in inter-imperialist wars (as did the other Trotskyist groups) does not invalidate the theory itself. Some of the writings of Nigel Harris on this were good (I know he eventually fell out with the others, for applying it more consistently than them). Beware of throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
Click to expand...

Like ResistanceMP3 I'm not convinced that the IS/SWP actually did apply the State Cap theory inconsistently re. Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan. However I think, , like you, that even if Cliff nicked lots of his take on "State Capitalism" from the likes of Raya Dunayevskaya, and others, it's still a vast leap forward beyond the various orthodox Trot "deformed workers state" , "degenerated workers state", concessions to Stalinism's projected self image of its bureaucratic class regime as somehow "defending the socialised property gains of the 1917 revolution" .

For me the strange thing about the SWP and the state cap theory/analysis, is as a party that they never tried to really refine it, or move it forward in tune with the vast changes in the actual fortunes of the Stalinist bloc, ie the collapse of the USSR and Eastern bloc back into conventional Bourgeois Capitalism. What the contemporary conventional bourgeois capitalist nature of Russia and the eastern bloc states suggests is that , even though it took many decades, the bureaucratic Communist Party elite in Stalinist regimes have proved to be , historically, more of "a proxy bourgeois class stand-in" awaiting the opportunity for a complete bourgeois restoration -- rather than the completely "new class" that certainly seemed to be the case until the USSR collapsed. And China seems well on the road to the same end destination.

I get the distinct impression that in the SWP now, the "issue" of State Capitalism is seen as a historic hangover, with little relevance now the USSR is gone, and China, Cuba, etc, are well on the way to full bourgeois capitalist restoration. And this I think is a tragedy, because potentially the State Capitalist analysis has a lot of vital things to say about what a genuine revolutionery socialist workers state should be like, the dangers inherent from over-centralised supposedly revolutionery Socialist Party bureaucracies, and state bureaucracies masquerading as "workers states" on the basis of the nationalised property form. Maybe all a bit too challenging for a Party which has itself long ago collapsed into undemocratic bureaucratic rule ? Certainly lots of unsavoury neo Stalinists and very unreconstructed "deformed workers state" Trots are currently licking their lips in the hopes that the State Cap analysis will soon disappear from the scene - allowing them uncontested space on the radical Left to draw them into uncritical support for any murderous dictatorial regime which has a large state-owned sector and chooses to present itself as "anti imperialist".
 
ayatollah said:
Certainly lots of unsavoury neo Stalinists and very unreconstructed "deformed workers state" Trots are currently licking their lips in the hopes that the State Cap analysis will soon disappear from the scene - allowing them uncontested space on the radical Left to draw them into uncritical support for any murderous dictatorial regime which has a large state-owned sector and chooses to present itself as "anti imperialist".
Click to expand...

To be fair though, the 'very unreconstructed 'deformed workers state' trots (I presume by this you mean the SP) have been far less guilty of this than the 'correct state capitalist' SWP.
 
SpineyNorman said:
To be fair though, the 'very unreconstructed 'deformed workers state' trots (I presume by this you mean the SP) have been far less guilty of this than the 'correct state capitalist' SWP.
Click to expand...
:eek: You cheered up a dreary Monday for me there spiney. So Syria, Burma, Somalia, Ethiopia weren't all declared workers states by the Millies/SP? Nobody in your tradition wrote of Syria that the Ba'athists had created a workers state in the 60's:"‘Faced with an imperialist-backed military counter-revolution, the regime appealed to the masses for support. In their hundreds of thousands, peasants and workers were armed. Capitalism and landlordism were crushed, with 85% of the land and 95% of industry being nationalized by the Ba’ath regime." ?!?

In 1979 the Militant didn't that argue Khomeini might create a workers state?! "The situation in Iran is still fluid. In the crisis situation facing Iran and given the flight of the Iranian capitalist class and the weakness of imperialism to intervene, it is entirely possible that Khomeini’s Committee could, under pressure, carry out the expropriation of capitalism."

Yeah that's right the SWP has loads to learn from the CWI on that score. Ooodles.
 
Seymour has cleared up the confusion that arose over a single line in part 4 of his account, mentioning that two groups had left the IST. One lot were the Serbs. It now transpires that the other lot were the Croats, presumably also a very small group.
 
Nigel Irritable said:
Seymour has cleared up the confusion that arose over a single line in part 4 of his account, mentioning that two groups had left the IST. One lot were the Serbs. It now transpires that the other lot were the Croats, presumably also a very small group.
Click to expand...
Pheww, Ill sleep again tonight. :)
 
bolshiebhoy said:
:eek: You cheered up a dreary Monday for me there spiney. So Syria, Burma, Somalia, Ethiopia weren't all declared workers states by the Millies/SP? Nobody in your tradition wrote of Syria that the Ba'athists had created a workers state in the 60's:"‘Faced with an imperialist-backed military counter-revolution, the regime appealed to the masses for support. In their hundreds of thousands, peasants and workers were armed. Capitalism and landlordism were crushed, with 85% of the land and 95% of industry being nationalized by the Ba’ath regime." ?!?

In 1979 the Militant didn't that argue Khomeini might create a workers state?! "The situation in Iran is still fluid. In the crisis situation facing Iran and given the flight of the Iranian capitalist class and the weakness of imperialism to intervene, it is entirely possible that Khomeini’s Committee could, under pressure, carry out the expropriation of capitalism."

Yeah that's right the SWP has loads to learn from the CWI on that score. Ooodles.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's right - instead we could have just flip-flopped between uncritical support and ultra-leftism on all anti-imperialist movements. Go Hamas! Let's face it, none of the trot/leninist groups have a clean record on this stuff.
 
bolshiebhoy said:
:eek: You cheered up a dreary Monday for me there spiney.
Click to expand...

I'm sure you'd love to turn this into an exchange of set-piece taunts about different critiques of Stalinism. You can harp on about some Militant article from the 70s having a bizarre analysis of Syria (one which, incidentally, was soon abandoned).

In return people would point out the arbitrary and self-serving nature of the SWP's dating of the counter-revolution in Russia, which had the effect of dating capitalism to the political victory of Stalin rather than to any social transformation just as Maoists place the creation of "capitalism" in Russia at the moment of Khrushchev's victory, and in China at the moment of Deng's. Before going on to poke fun at an analysis of "capitalism" which involves no law of value, no bourgeoisie, no inheritance and no private ownership of the means of production.

Then you can come back with some instrumental arguments about the political errors which a state capitalist analysis allegedly helps us to avoid and probably imply that other Trotskyists are soft on Stalinism. Then you'll get responses pointing out that you are slandering Trotsky while claiming to stand in his tradition and probably some jibes about a "step sideways" which somehow led to male life expectancy in Russia dropping below that of Bangladesh.

We both know how that song goes. If you want to sing it, and can find someone to do the call and response parts with you, I suggest that you fuck off to a more appropriate thread rather than trying to hijack this one for some Orthodox Cliffite rhetoric of a sort you no doubt find comforting.
 
Time for some predictions to get the thread back on topic I think.

What do we reckon the ISN will turn into? Will it be restricted to a few students and Seymour lovers and then slowly die in utter irrelevance? Will it become the broad based 21st century progressive platform Seymour wants (lol)? Or will it join Workers Powers new anticapitalist initiative or something?

What will become of the rump SWP? I reckon it's probably just about dead in student politics, they've got no chance of recruiting on campus now - and I suspect they'll struggle elsewhere too. Will the people who remain stay in there or will they all fuck off when they realise it's not going to 'grow' anymore?

Will it, as some on here have already predicted, turn into a WRP style cult, avoided by anyone who's even on nodding terms with sanity?

The enquiring minds of urban demand that their thirst for knowledge on the future of the SWP is quenched! :mad:
 
Nigel Irritable said:
I'm sure you'd love to turn this into an exchange of set-piece taunts about different critiques of Stalinism. You can harp on about some Militant article from the 70s having a bizarre analysis of Syria (one which, incidentally, was soon abandoned).

In return people would point out the arbitrary and self-serving nature of the SWP's dating of the counter-revolution in Russia, which had the effect of dating capitalism to the political victory of Stalin rather than to any social transformation just as Maoists place the creation of "capitalism" in Russia at the moment of Khrushchev's victory, and in China at the moment of Deng's. Before going on to poke fun at an analysis of "capitalism" which involves no law of value, no bourgeoisie, no inheritance and no private ownership of the means of production.

Then you can come back with some instrumental arguments about the political errors which a state capitalist analysis allegedly helps us to avoid and probably imply that other Trotskyists are soft on Stalinism. Then you'll get responses pointing out that you are slandering Trotsky while claiming to stand in his tradition and probably some jibes about a "step sideways" which somehow led to male life expectancy in Russia dropping below that of Bangladesh.

We both know how that song goes. If you want to sing it, and can find someone to do the call and response parts with you, I suggest that you fuck off to a more appropriate thread rather than trying to hijack this one for some Orthodox Cliffite rhetoric of a sort you no doubt find comforting.
Click to expand...
By definition of course only the person defending the swp's state cap line is derailing the thread. The people before him rubishing it or accusing the swp of dumping it were iluminating the thread. Yeah right.

Actually, to answer ayatollah if anybody is in danger of diluting the state cap position it's the ISN lot not the cc. After all the Choonara-Davidson debate in the isj was at least partly about how distinct a political vs social revolution can be which is precisely the core of the 'deformed workers state' position on the need for a political (but not social) revolution in the 'post-capitalist' societies. How long before the ISN is echoing some of Counterfire's shall we say softer line on the Ba'athists than that held by the cc?
 
bolshiebhoy said:
Be definition of course only the person defending the swp's state cap line is derailing the thread. The people before him rubishing it or accusing the swp of dumping it were iluminating the thread. Yeah right.

Actually, to answer ayatollah if anybody is in danger of diluting the state cap position it's the ISN lot not the cc. After all the Choonara-Davidson debate in the isj was at least partly about how distinct a political vs social revolution can be which is precisely the core of the 'deformed workers state' position on the need for a political (but not social) revolution in the 'post-capitalist' societies. How long before the ISN is echoing some of Counterfire's shall we say softer line on the Ba'athists than that held by the cc?
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone on here is attempting to defend the ISN line or thinks it's accurate though (do they even have a line?) why is that even relevant?

How's about having a go at those predictions? I'm genuinely interested to hear what you think.
 
bolshiebhoy said:
By definition of course only the person defending the swp's state cap line is derailing the thread. The people before him rubishing it or accusing the swp of dumping it were iluminating the thread.
Click to expand...

Neither ayatollah (who raised the Cliff variant of state capitalism in a positive light) nor Spineynorman (who dismissed one of ayatollah's claims) were looking to turn the thread into that kind of set piece row. You, on the other hand, were rather obvious in taking the opportunity to do some kind of tribute act to your 1980s self. It fits with your general desire to fit the whole row into a "defending our tradition" versus the apostates mould.

bolshiebhoy said:
How long before the ISN is echoing some of Counterfire's shall we say softer line on the Ba'athists than that held by the cc?
Click to expand...

From where I'm sitting, both the SWP and Counterfire appear to be very soft on various bourgeois "anti-imperialist" forces when it suits, although Counterfire have been more consistent about it. There is no chance that the ISN are going to declare Syria to be something other than a capitalist state however, and if you could stop being so tendentious for half a minute and so determined to detect incipient apostasy you'd realise that making this kind of suggestion just makes you look a bit silly.
 
Bit of an odd one this morning....

.....I turn up at work to find an SWP paper sale outside the office. Two sellers, one of them works there and is a long time member who I knew vaguely when I was still in the SWP (there's another two members of a similar length of time in the party on the same floor of the office - all three of them are stewards, so have been with the council for some years). Anyway, a bit odd because there's no specific issue or workplace action that they could have justified a sale around. First time I've seen a sale there - even when there was industrial action (by the contracted out parking/traffic wardens) in the Summer last year, the SWPers were collecting for the strikers and not selling papers.

Wonder if we're now going to see a bit of a head-banger turn by the loyalists?
 
ResistanceMP3 said:
how did they fail to apply the analysis of state capitalism consistently? Just provide a link, if you don't want to explain it yourself. I'll have a read. :)

And expand on the "taking sides in inter-imperialist wars". Their position was, Korea, proxy war, support neither side. Vietnam, Vietnamese liberating themselves from US imperialism. Afghanistan, Afghans liberating them self from Russian imperialism. Again a link if you want. :)
Click to expand...
What i meant was that if you think that Russia and the Russian model was state-capitalist then, in any conflict between Russia and the Western capitalist bloc, you ought to support neither side, as "the IS tradition" did over the Korean war but not over the Vietnam war (siding with Russia and China) or over Afghanistan (siding with the West). What happened was that so-called "anti-imperialism" trumped the theory of state capitalism.

The orthodox Trotskyists at least had a coherent if completely mistaken theory as to why to support Russia -- that it was some sort of "Workers State" and therefore better than capitalism. It led to other, different aberrations to the IS tradition's ones such as the support of one group for Russian nuclear weapons as the "Workers Bomb" and of another group for the Russian invasion of Afghanistan. Ernst Mandel even invented a theory of non-capitalist development and offered himself as an adviser to the Cuban government just as, later, ex=Militant Alan Woods was to do in Venezuela.

But, to give credit where it is due, Mike Gonzalez's obituary of Chavez would seem to be in the old IS tradition.
 
Jean-Luc said:
It led to other, different aberrations to the IS tradition's ones such as the support of one group for Russian nuclear weapons as the "Workers Bomb"...
Click to expand...

Aberration? I always knew the squeebies were petty bourgeois deviationists - now we have the proof! :mad:

for-the-workers-bomb-2.jpg
 
Here's another of Tony Cliff's jokes. But since I got the timing wrong last time I'll let him express it in his own words:
The dominant theme of discussion in the YS was the nuclear bomb. There were three positions: the right wing, followers of leader of the Labour Party Hugh Gaitskell, who was in support of the Western powers’ bomb, and the followers of Gerry Healy, who argued that Russia should keep its bomb, as it was a workers’ bomb. The Socialist Review members denounced all bombs. We argued that we were not pacifists, and hence we did not oppose all weapons. However the H-bomb was inherently reactionary. A gun in the hands of British troops oppressing a colonial nation, is reactionary. A gun in the hands of colonial rebels is progressive. Alas, the H-bomb cannot differentiate between the two camps. It will annihilate all. I remember I used to recite a song of the Russian Red Air Force from the 1930s. The song went, ‘While we bomb your bosses, workers of the world, we distribute leaflets to you.’ I used to add, ‘The leaflet should be short, as you will have only four minutes to read it.’ You cannot have a progressive H-bomb any more than you can have progressive racism, as the bomb does not differentiate between capitalists and workers, rich and poor. Young Guard, our youth paper, carried a big headline: ‘No Bombs, No Bosses’. Another headline I remember was to an article supporting the Russian bomb. The editor, with a good sense of humour, gave it the heading ‘The Workers’ Bomb for You and Me’.
Click to expand...
 
Jean-Luc said:
What i meant was that if you think that Russia and the Russian model was state-capitalist then, in any conflict between Russia and the Western capitalist bloc, you ought to support neither side, as "the IS tradition" did over the Korean war but not over the Vietnam war (siding with Russia and China) or over Afghanistan (siding with the West). What happened was that so-called "anti-imperialism" trumped the theory of state capitalism.
The orthodox Trotskyists at least had a coherent if completely mistaken theory as to why to support Russia -- that it was some sort of "Workers State" and therefore better than capitalism. It led to other, different aberrations to the IS tradition's ones such as the support of one group for Russian nuclear weapons as the "Workers Bomb" and of another group for the Russian invasion of Afghanistan. Ernst Mandel even invented a theory of non-capitalist development and offered himself as an adviser to the Cuban government just as, later, ex=Militant Alan Woods was to do in Venezuela.
But, to give credit where it is due, Mike Gonzalez's obituary of Chavez would seem to be in the old IS tradition.
Click to expand...
thank you. A succinct and completely understandable explanation.
　
leyton96 said:
It really does underline that for all the talk about an "IS Tradition" from both camps the reality is that there is no such thing as an IS Tradition. For sure, there is acres of print down through the decades purporting to be IS theory but when you look at the various twists and turns the British SWP have taken during the same time you'd be hard pressed to find any sort of continuity.
So the IS Tradition is neutral in a conflict between "state capitalist" North Korea and American Imperialism, then it is pro "state capitalist" North Vietnam a decade later. Then in the '80's it backs reactionary Islamic jihadists against the "state capitalist" USSR.
During the early stages of the Socialist Alliance the SWP is "uncompromising" on the issue of open borders and migrant rights, then when it is in a position to actually put such a position on a national platform in Respect it suddenly has nothing to say on the matter.
It is a "at the heart" of the LGBT struggle one minute but then such things become 'shibboleths' in other circumstances
It refers to the IRA as the "cutting edge" of the struggle against imperialism in the 70's and 80's but by the late 90's it has a position largely indistinguishable from the "Queens Own Socialist Party"
Now, I make no comment about the rights and wrongs of those positions in themselves, that's for another thread(s). My point is that there is no way these multiple contradictory positions can be reconciled under a political and theoretical 'tradition' beyond the fact that a certain brand name called, "The IS Traditon" held them at one point or the other.
It reminds you on a much less grander scale of Lord Palmerston's comments that Britain has no permanent allies only permanent interests. The "IS Tradition" has no permanent ideas or practice only permanent interests, which is to be as visible as possible and recruit.
Groucho Marx probably sums it up better: "Those are my principles and if you don't like them.., well, I have others!"
Click to expand...
the reason I found the above incomprehensible, is one because it didn't express itself as clearly as you do, but far more importantly, I've never seen the IS couch their arguments for a position on any of them wars, in that fashion. If I had seen the IS couch in that fashion, I would agree with you it would seem incoherent. I would suggest to you that the issue of state capitalism, is a red herring, muddying the waters.
I seem to remember John Rees writing on imperialism describing the period after the war as bipolar, and the period before the war as multipolar. Before the war there were several 'free' market capitalists bloc's. All competing to subjugate the resources of lands beyond their borders to their own national interests. After the war, there is just two. The fact that they are two different styles of capitalism, makes no difference to your anti-imperialist stance. Why should it?
So the Korean war, could have taken place between two 'free' market capitalist, it would still be a proxy war, and you would still say a curse on both your houses. The fact that it is between a state capitalist, and a 'free' market capitalist is of no consequence to the IS, in defining which side they support.
On Vietnam and Afghanistan, I'm not going to argue with you. I think it was perfectly valid for ViolentPanda and chilango to say socialist worker was wrong, the evidence after the Vietnam war doesn't stack up to agree with the socialist worker position. (Though I disagree with them, it's a perfectly reasonable argument to make, because it just say socialist worker are wrong, it doesn't misrepresent what they've said.) Equally, I think you make a valid argument to suggest socialist worker position on Vietnam and Afghanistan was wrong, in saying that Afghanistan had Western support, and Vietnam had Russian and Chinese.
The point is though, they clearly disagree with you in that assessment. They believe there is a qualitative difference between the Korean War, and the Vietnam and Afghan wars. If you just accept this qualitative difference for the sake of argument, then the IS tradition becomes coherent and consistent.
　
It also exposes this for what it is,

butchersapron said:
Yep, Neither Washington nor Moscow (itself another example of the tradition not really existing, this coming from the Shachtmanite ISL) turned out to really just mean Not Washington.
Click to expand...
a barefaced lie.
IS opposed Moscow invasions i.e. Hungary, Afghanistan et cetera, just as much as it did Washington invasions. Their position was indeed "Neither Washington or Moscow".
　
　
PS. Didn't Lenin support Britain in the war against the Ottoman Empire? He supported one imperialist block, against another imperialist block, because at times the anti-imperialism debate can become more nuanced than a simple binary choice. (He supported it on the basis many historians have supported Napoleons imperialism, it smashed Up many feudal style regimes, and allowed capitalism to develop.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

ElizabethofYork
Men’s violence against women and girls is a national emergency
34 35 36 37 38
Replies
1K
Views
44K
The39thStep
The39thStep
Smokeandsteam
Facebook: Australia content ban, SWP removal and related news
2 3 4
Replies
115
Views
8K
NoXion
NoXion
S
Tory songs and bands
4 5 6 7 8
Replies
210
Views
10K
Wilf
Wilf
W
all these “So and so’s time is up” threads.
2 3
Replies
89
Views
4K
wow
W
J
To save the UK economy this is what Sunak and Hunt should be doing
Replies
18
Views
1K
bimble
bimble
Back
Top Bottom