The Socialist Party

[glenquagmire]

Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, John McDonnell -- all as bad as each other in my opinion.

Then you obviously don't know anything about them.

And sorry, but by being a member of that party and (I assume) trying to make sure their candidates are elected etc, you are complicit in the PFI, the piecemeal privatisation of the health service and all the rest of it.

Complete political illiteracy. Aside from anything else, I have never campaigned for a candidate who favours PFI, Foundation Hospitals and the like. If I lived in one's consituency, I'd probably just stay at home. But even so, the point is that the Labour Party is a coalition of leftish forces and so dissenting opinions must be tolerated. That is why it has won a few general elections whereas no other left of centre party has.

 

[nino_savatte]

the point is that the Labour Party is a coalition of leftish forces and so dissenting opinions must be tolerated

Ah, but dissent is not tolerated, quite the contrary: it is rewarded with demotion and marginalisation. After all, what are the whips there to do? Whip people into line.

 

[Sue]

Then you obviously don't know anything about them.

Complete political illiteracy. Aside from anything else, I have never campaigned for a candidate who favours PFI, Foundation Hospitals and the like. If I lived in one's consituency, I'd probably just stay at home. But even so, the point is that the Labour Party is a coalition of leftish forces and so dissenting opinions must be tolerated. That is why it has won a few general elections whereas no other left of centre party has.

Sigh. By being a member of the Labour party and supporting candidates standing for such, you are endorsing Labour party policies. While you might like to pretend otherwise, that's how it is.

 

[JimPage]

to give them their dues, they are strong in certain unions like the PCS, and are not scared to get involved in electoral politics - fighting about 15 seats in May.

very much part of the solution, not part of the problem

 

[glenquagmire]

Sigh. By being a member of the Labour party and supporting candidates standing for such, you are endorsing Labour party policies. While you might like to pretend otherwise, that's how it is.

I thought most people ceased to believe that saying something makes it true by the time they left school.

I don't endorse most of New Labour's policies.

Using your logic, I would have to join, leave, and rejoin if a leader I agreed with was elected. And leave again if policy changes. And join again if it changes back. Problem with that is that, if I leave, there's one person less to vote for a decent party leadership. I can certainly see the logic behind not belonging to any political party but I personally can't see the point in belonging to any left party apart from Labour. They will never gain any power.

 

[belboid]

To clarify: I was not suggesting that single issue campaigns and union activity are ineffective. But neither are they and membership of the Party mutually exclusive. I fail to see why socialists ought not to fight against New Labour policies in the workplace/on the street, and simultaneously fight against them (against overwhelming opposition from the top) within the Party. What I meant is that any left party aside from Labour is doomed to more-or-less irrelevance and there is more chance, slim though it is, of reclaiming the Labour Party than of winning power for the left by means of any other party.

that is pretty different to what you said before, and importantly so. However, although being in the LP doesnt stop you from opposing certain aspects of Labour policy, it does tend to weaken that opposition. For example, in the recent (and ongoing) campaign against cuts to ESOL, there was a labour councillor on the platform, who spoke well about why continuing ESOL for asylum seekers was important, and how he'd support the campaign, but immediately went on to say how Labour had alredy offered lots of really great concessions and the campaign was all but won. Such a position will be the norm even amongst left labour types, they will be won over by comparatively small concessions as the party is more ijmportant than the issue.

As regards your second point - exactly the same argument was used by people who thought Labour shouldn't challenge the liberals 100 years ago, and where the feck would we be if people had listened to the argument then?

 

[Sue]

I thought most people ceased to believe that saying something makes it true by the time they left school.

I don't endorse most of New Labour's policies.

Using your logic, I would have to join, leave, and rejoin if a leader I agreed with was elected. And leave again if policy changes. And join again if it changes back. Problem with that is that, if I leave, there's one person less to vote for a decent party leadership. I can certainly see the logic behind not belonging to any political party but I personally can't see the point in belonging to any left party apart from Labour. They will never gain any power.

Glen, Glen, such horrible defensiveness. Think i've sussed your fundamental problem though -- second last sentence.

 

[glenquagmire]

that is pretty different to what you said before, and importantly so. However, although being in the LP doesnt stop you from opposing certain aspects of Labour policy, it does tend to weaken that opposition. For example, in the recent (and ongoing) campaign against cuts to ESOL, there was a labour councillor on the platform, who spoke well about why continuing ESOL for asylum seekers was important, and how he'd support the campaign, but immediately went on to say how Labour had alredy offered lots of really great concessions and the campaign was all but won. Such a position will be the norm even amongst left labour types, they will be won over by comparatively small concessions as the party is more ijmportant than the issue.

As regards your second point - exactly the same argument was used by people who thought Labour shouldn't challenge the liberals 100 years ago, and where the feck would we be if people had listened to the argument then?

Well I can't speak for anyone else but I'm not satisfied with the concessions on ESOL funding.

I've heard the second argument before but the liberals never had the trade unions inside their party and that was what led to their downfall.

Sue - I'm sorry you see that sentence as a problem but it appears to be a self-evident reality to me.

 

[Sue]

Glen, you're such a tease, pulling my leg with the
'left party apart from Labour' bit...

 

[glenquagmire]

It all depends on where you're standing.

Delete the words "apart from Labour" if it makes you feel happier. It's still true.

 

[Sue]

I would ask you what you thought the point of politics was but enough weasel words and self-delusion for one day...

 

[glenquagmire]

To improve people's lives.

I'm quite happy to discuss anything without any weasel words (I love the immediate descent into terms of abuse among some - not all - on the left).

 

[Roadkill]

The Socialist Party of GB: anti-Leninist loons who have been denouncing everyone since 1904 and you have to pass a test to be a member. One of the more amusing tiny far-left sects.

I miss nomoney, our resident SPeeGeeBee ranter. Quality entertainment, at times...

 

[Sue]

To improve people's lives.

I'm quite happy to discuss anything without any weasel words (I love the immediate descent into terms of abuse among some - not all - on the left).

Dammit, my political illiteracy is showing... BTW, I'm not an SP type.

 

[glenquagmire]

I didn't think for a minute that you were. dennisr the SPer has managed to disagree with me on this thread without being remotely insulting.

 

[Sue]

...implying that I have been...? You've really hurt my feelings now. (Or is this some bizarre form of flirtation...?)

 

[glenquagmire]

Perhaps the reference to 'weasel words' was aimed at someone else. In which case, please accept my apologies.

 

[Sue]

Fuck me -- what do you do when you meet any normal voters if you think that's insulting?

Anyway, sorry you're upset. Maybe you should look on it as character building in a skin-thickening kind of way?

 

[glenquagmire]

I'm not upset in the slightest: as you suggest, I wouldn't last long in any area of politics if that was enough to get to me. I was just using it as something to distinguish you from dennisr and any other contributors civil enough to have a decent argument with me.

 

[Sue]

Oh dear, I was trying to have a decent argument. I didn't realise you thought you were trying to have one too...

Anyway, I've been told off for mocking the afflicted so maybe best to leave it there. Until the next time...

 

[glenquagmire]

Sounds good to me. It's sunny, I'm going home.

 

[nightbreed]

Sigh. By being a member of the Labour party and supporting candidates standing for such, you are endorsing Labour party policies. While you might like to pretend otherwise, that's how it is.

Thats like saying by supporting the SWP you are supporting islamic fundamentalism and the feudal mullahs in Iran!! Another sigh perhaps?

 

[Fisher_Gate]

And this is the crux FG - this is all you have to offer. If Respect offered a structure in which different trends could have a genuine dialogue - a genuine united front - i would agree with you. As it is, I am closer to the poster above. I am afraid that no organisation worth its salt is going to simply 'join' regardless of very basic differences in approach and act as a cheerleader simply because it wants the development of an independent voice for working people. There has got to be some principled, open, honest, democratic agreement before one can put all of ones eggs in that basket - and that is not what is on offer. It might be the superficially 'easy' option for the desperate but the SP is not that desperate. Like all genuine lefts we hoped for (and still hold open the small possibility of... - but further tainted by the reports of quite a serious battle brewing between the SWP and its erstwhile 'allies' for 'control' in Tower Hamlets) a genuine development of Respect - until that time we simply have to get on with the hard task of re-building that independent voice through the genuine openings available as opposed to the fantasy ones.

err... so why did you join Solidarity in Scotland?

Is it one of "the genuine openings available as opposed to the fantasy ones" or did you "simply 'join' regardless of very basic differences in approach and act as a cheerleader"?

You are taking the piss aren't you?

 

[dennisr]

err... so why did you join Solidarity in Scotland?

Is it one of "the genuine openings available as opposed to the fantasy ones" or did you "simply 'join' regardless of very basic differences in approach and act as a cheerleader"?

You are taking the piss aren't you?

No - you are - it's about all you do mate.

I have to go with the views of my scottish group - I don't think they are particularly happy with either side and feel this split is one of the results of the mistakes made previously by both 'sides' of the now two 'leaderships'. You, your in Respect... (but don't bother answering the points made - I gave up expecting you to long ago). Don't you ever take a long hard look at the reasoning for your approach to dealing with those you disagree with FG??

 

[Fisher_Gate]

No - you are - it's about all you do mate.

I have to go with the views of my scottish group - I don't think they are particularly happy with either side and feel this split is one of the results of the mistakes made previously by both 'sides' of the now two 'leaderships'. You, your in Respect... (but don't bother answering the points made - I gave up expecting you to long ago). Don't you ever take a long hard look at the reasoning for your approach to dealing with those you disagree with FG??

I don't understand. You argue you can't possibly join an organisation you disagree with because it is led by the SWP, and that doesn't represent anything (ie Respect). I then point out that that's exactly what your comrades in Scotland have done (ie joined Solidarity). You then say that you "have to go along with the views of my scottish group" even if they are not particularly happy with it ... it's a contradiction you have to live with not me.

I'm in Respect, despite the fact that I disagree with the leadership, because I believe it is necessary to unite the left as much as possible and Respect is the best show in town, inadequate though it may be (though actually that's a bit unfair - some things about it are pretty good; I saw Ken Loach yesterday and he was excellent, kept out of the spotlight too long in my view).

But your organisation is hardly in a position to lecture others about democracy when it doesn't inform members one of its leading electoral interventions (Stoke) has gone badly wrong, or let them say what they think about the strategy of a linked but independent organisation (Scotland). It is especially ironic given that the "principle" on which you (wrongly) left the SA was the right to stand your candidates, when on other occasions you drop doing so without a moment's thought by your members.

Nevertheless I do think it would be better for the whole left if both the SP and SWP could co-exist inside a limited electoral alliance at least.

And if you go back over the posts you will see that "2000" was the answer I gave to your question on the Labour Party.

 

[chilango]

Nevertheless I do think it would be better for the whole left if both the SP and SWP could co-exist inside a limited electoral alliance at least.

Can anyone here actually see that happenning?

 

[Fisher_Gate]

Can anyone here actually see that happenning?

Lol. It is in Scotland, but that's for completely opportunistic reasons. They were in the SSP together for a few years before Sheridan's ego got the better of them. Neither organisation is keen on being in anything they do not control (not being used to it), but one has to live in hope that they can change or circumstances force them together.

The SWP's fellow travellers exist as a small minority inside the French LCR, occasionally taking pot shots from the sidelines in a way that if anyone inside the SWP ever tried to do, they would get shown the door double quick. The more successful multi-tendency left wing parties in Europe bring together a more disparate bunch of views - Red-Green Alliance in Denmark, Left Bloc in Portugal and Socialist Party in Holland. One has to hope we can learn from them one day.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

I don't understand. You argue you can't possibly join an organisation you disagree with because it is led by the SWP, and that doesn't represent anything (ie Respect). I then point out that that's exactly what your comrades in Scotland have done (ie joined Solidarity).

The main differences between Respect and Solidarity - Scotland's Socialist Movement are:

1) SSSM is openly socialist in it's politics, while Respect think that abandoning any concept of socialism will help it win votes. It's wider politics are still developing but are mostly based on those of the pre-split SSP. Such politics are certainly flawed but they are a long way better than those of Respect. It also clearly aims to base itself on the working class, rather than seeing the working class as one possible support group amongst many.

2) SSSM has, so far at least, been democratic in its internal operations. You talk about it being led by the SWP, but there is little evidence of that. They are in a minority and do have some influence (more than in the old SSP but nothing like the total dominance they enjoy in Respect).

Even though SSSM is better than Respect in politics, class orientation and internal democracy getting involved in it would not be an automatic decision. We don't look for unity for the sake of unity but instead judge wider collaboration on whether or not it can play a positive role in advancing working class representation and organisation. SSSM, I think, represents the only chance of salvaging something from the gains (and there were gains, as well as losses) of the old SSP.

 

[audiotech]

I remember an open letter to Militant from the SWP when they were being witch-hunted out of the Labour party. In good faith, as SWP members we went around to Labour party constituency meetings arguing against the witch-hunt. I even put posters up around where I live saying 'No to the Witch-hunt of Socialists in the Labour Party'. The response from Militant was the usual hostility and just being plain stupid to be honest.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

Neither organisation is keen on being in anything they do not control (not being used to it)

In fact our organisation in Scotland has been involved in a wider formation of some kind, the Labour Party, the Scottish Socialist Alliance, the Scottish Socialist Party and now Solidarity - SSM, for all but a few years of its existence.