Is Leninism dead?
Phil Gasper •Phil Gasper member of the editorial board of the International Socialist Review and is editor of The Communist Manifesto: A Road Map to History’s Most Important Political Document continues a discussion on Leninism, responding to a recent article from Ian Birchall.
What, if anything, do revolutionary socialists today have to learn from the experience and legacy of Vladimir Lenin and the Bolsheviks a century ago? In a recent thought-provoking article on this topic, Ian Birchall argues: “the term ‘Leninism’ may be a positive obstacle to developing the kind of political strategy and organisation we need for the coming decades.”
As Ian notes, the key question is not whether we should use the label ‘Leninism,’ but whether there is a coherent body of ideas in Lenin’s writings, and in the theory and practice of the Bolsheviks, that socialists can usefully draw on in the twenty-first century. But he seems to take the fact that “Lenin’s party varied enormously in form according to circumstances,” as a reason to conclude that with respect to questions of organisation, the answer should be in the negative.
It is undeniable that the Bolsheviks changed their organisation in response to specific historical circumstances. The way they operated before 1905, under conditions of extreme Tsarist repression, was very different from the revolutionary period of 1905-07. The years of reaction after 1907 were very different from the early years of the Russian Revolution, which were different again from the period after the Civil War.
In 1921, Lenin helped prepare theses on “The Organisational Structure of the Communist Parties, the Methods and Content of Their Work” for the Third Congress of the Communist International, which explicitly state: “There is no absolute form of organisation which is correct for the Communist Parties at all times… [E]ach Party must develop its own special forms of organisation to meet the historically determined conditions within the country.”
Nevertheless, while there is no cookie-cutter Leninist model of revolutionary organisation, good for all times and all places, there is what we might call a more general Leninist project that involves a commitment to build a disciplined, centralised revolutionary party based on the most militant, class conscious and politically advanced section of the working class.
That project stands in opposition to the “common sense” of many – probably most – on the activist left, who reject the need for a centralised party, or the role of the working class, or both.
There are two main reasons why we need a revolutionary party if we want to see a socialist revolution. The first is quite practical: without a coordinated, disciplined revolutionary organization, it’s impossible to take on and defeat the power of the capitalist state.
Although there is no discussion of revolutionary organisation in State and Revolution, which Ian praises as Lenin’s most important theoretical contribution, this is surely one of the implications of his analysis of the class character of the state and its role in maintaining the capitalist system and the rule of the capitalist class.
Like clockwork, capitalism provokes acts of resistance, large and small. But without coordination and leadership, the resistance can’t defeat the whole system. In Trotsky’s memorable metaphor: “Without a guiding organisation, the energy of the masses would dissipate like steam not enclosed in a piston-box.”
The second reason why a revolutionary party is necessary is because of the highly uneven development of class-consciousness in the working class. Revolutionary organisation is needed to combat ruling class ideology and to overcome divisions between workers.
As we’re all too well aware, for most of the time revolutionary socialists are a small minority in capitalist society. But if the most class conscious, militant and politically advanced elements of the working class can be united in a revolutionary organisation, they can play a leadership role that in times of political and social crisis can attract much greater numbers.
That means revolutionary organisations have to play two related roles. One is participating in and, whenever possible, initiating struggles, both large and small. The second is the role of educating and training more socialists, while developing socialist theory to understand and explain a rapidly changing world.
Socialists have to spend years patiently engaging in smaller struggles, both to learn how to lead as individuals in their own workplaces and communities, and to build a party with the capacity to lead a successful revolution in the future.
That’s the Leninist project.
It’s important to emphasise that this is a project. We don’t have a revolutionary party consisting of the most advanced elements of the working class in Britain or the United States, and we’re unlikely to have one in the near future.
The main reason for this is that our side has suffered over 30 years of defeats. Moreover, the structure of capitalism and the composition of the working class have been transformed during that time. Whole industries have been wiped out or totally restructured. Unionised jobs have been replaced by low-wage service sector employment and contingent labour. And for 30 years there has been a right-wing ideological offensive that has disoriented and weakened most of the left.
The Leninist project involves bringing together the ideas of revolutionary socialism with the most advanced sections of the working class. When the socialist movement and the larger working class movement are both weak, that’s hard to do.
One of the biggest mistakes that relatively small groups of revolutionaries can make is to believe that they already constitute a revolutionary party, or that they will inevitably grow to become such a party. In his 1971 essay “Towards a Revolutionary Socialist Party,” Duncan Hallas, with his customary insight, put it this way:
“The relevance of a party is, firstly, that it can give … the more advanced and conscious minority of workers and not the sects or self-proclaimed leaders, the confidence and the cohesion necessary to carry the mass with them. It follows that there can be no talk of a party that does not include this minority as one of its major components.”
If you imagine that you have already created such a party, or that your political clarity and understanding means that you are preordained to become the leadership of the international working class in the future, it can rapidly lead to delusions of grandeur that may undermine the democratic culture that is an essential part of living revolutionary organisation.
Hallas again:
“unless, in its internal life, vigorous controversy is the rule and various tendencies and shades of opinion are represented, a socialist party cannot rise above the level of a sect. Internal democracy is not an optional extra. It is fundamental to the relationship between party members and those amongst whom they work.”
Here, Hallas is echoing ideas that Lenin articulated at the beginning of the twentieth century: “there must be wide and free discussion of Party questions, free comradely criticism and assessment of events in Party life.” To that end the Bolsheviks explicitly defended the right of a minority “to advocate its views and to carry on an ideological struggle, so long as the disputes and differences do not lead to disorganisation.”
But while it is a serious error for any group of revolutionaries simply to declare themselves the leadership of the working class, the opposite mistake is to put off the task of building a revolutionary party into the indefinite future. Education is vital, but revolutionary socialists need to create more than just study groups. Activism is equally vital, but movements by themselves are not enough.
So how does a group of a few hundred people attempt to build a revolutionary party that will eventually need hundreds of thousands of members? It’s unlikely that we are going to grow ourselves there by recruiting a few members at a time. Most likely, the path will involve merging with other forces that are part of the working-class movement and the left, broadly conceived, but the specifics will vary greatly depending on the concrete situation that exists in different places and countries.
Ian Birchall is right that socialists today still have much to learn from Lenin’s writings. But to change the world, we also need to remain committed to the Leninist project of building a revolutionary party. In that sense we should say yes both to Lenin and to Leninism.
163 comments
I think there are many old revolutionaries that going to make a come back. Leninism might be one of them.
Leslie
Phhil Gasper, can you honestly think of any reason at all why anyone inside the SWP, anyone who is an ex-member or anyone who has been sympathetic to the SWP who might possibly for any general or specific reason find that the SWP has not managed to live up to the idea that:
“there must be wide and free discussion of Party questions, free comradely criticism and assessment of events in Party life.” (as you quote it)
If not, then fine. All’s well
If you can think of any situation in which there hasn’t been ‘wide and free discussion, comradely criticism and assessment of events in Party life’, do you have an analysis for why or how this could have happened? If you do have an analysis, is it one that you can share with us?
With a low level of class struggle over a period of many years, enormous pressure is put on a revolutionary organisation. In the SWP many of its best militants were victimised by the bosses (sometimes with the help of the trade union bureaucracy).
With confidence low, the temptation for the leadership, is to substitute both for the class and Party members.
But doing this stifles debate and free comradely criticism.
For a genuine revolutionary Party there must always be an attempt to create a Party of leaders, not an irreplaceable leadership.
A failure to listen to the class, has sadly created a top down sect which is likely to continue to decline.
We’ve had projects rather then parties since the 1930s (if one takes a dim view as I do of Stalinism). There are wider questions about what such a project might look like today and whether it ought to be described as Leninist which the above approach simply rules out of discussion. That’s the real problem with it. Ian Birchall’s sensible but actually pretty moderate document ought to have been a signal for a further discussion of these issues as opposed to being treated as a kind of terrifying pandora’s box which ought to be shut. If there is to be any future for the post-68 far left at all.
Bloody hell, what a conservative load of old hackery.
Absolutely nothing on the failure to build parties out of tiny sects of the last 60 years.
Absolutely nothing on the penetrating criticisms of the Leninism model by Castoriadis, Brinton, Debord et al.
Absolutely nothing worth reading.
If you have a body on the table, I hope before burying it with articles questioning whether or not it’s alive, you check to see whether or not it’s breathing.
The other interesting thing about these dogmatic defences called forth by Ian’s article is that there is an endless deferral going on. Our politics is ultimately not to be linked to our practice. The times are not right for Leninism (there have been defeats, the working class is on the defensive, there is no clearly identifiable vanguard), we are not the finished product-BUT-at some undefined point in the future the time will be right etc: But what about now? What form of organisation is suitable for now? How can you have a politics based entirely around a loyalty to an organisational project that is for the moment utopian. And which has apparently been utopian ever since 1923? Its becoming more and more incoherent.
Ian’s version of deferral is at least coherent in that he, quite properly, leaves to the future the tasks of the future, and tries to talk about our tasks today (ie rebuilding a revolutionary left). This task is not helped at all by this kind of talismatic obsession with Leninism-it is no longer the case-and has not been for a very long time-that you can tell much about someone’s politics by whether or not they call themselves Leninists. It is an artificial way to make judgements about peoples politics and a barrier not only towards possible unity but also theoretical clarity.
In the 1940s the Trotskyist movement went into deep crisis and the best sections of it recognised that the ‘Bolshevik-Leninist era’ was over. It was only out of a discussion of the changed conditions of production, of imperialism and above all of capitalism that a sensible orientation could be constructed. This in reality the origins of our own (and not a few other) revolutionary traditions (with more or less disengenuous theological discussions of the old 1920s tagged on).
We’re in the same situation today. And need to once again confront new realities, new movements and new organisational tasks. Its an enourmous and daunting task and we are in many ways greatly weakened: mainly by the length of time it took us to wake up to it. But its a hell of a lot better then incantations and continued sleep.
Final bite at the apple: What’s disapointing is that Ahmed Shawki did in fact recognise some of this problem in a talk he gave a few years back (I remember it made me think quite hard at the time). Briefly summarising how I took his remarks: The internegum has in fact not been an internegum but is now a longer historical period then the long boom or indeed the inter-war period. 1968 is today coming up to being as long ago for us as the 1920s were for them (sobering thought huh?).
Its why I’ve been much taken with the idea that we should stop waiting for times that will justify our theory and start working a bit harder on theories that fit our times.
Perhaps others will dispute my memories but I think the notion of those of us in IS/SWP defining ourselves mainly as Leninist crept up on us, along with the idea that we should adopt democratic centralism. I don’t mean we found no value in Lenin’s writings, but I remember most people being more than happy with the idea that say, State and Revolution had a lot to offer, but What is to be Done was far more problematic and Imperialism the Highest Stage was largely wrong. There was simply no dogmatic attachment to Lenin or Leninist forms of organisation in my early years in IS. Asked to describe ourselves, we would say, revolutionary socialists, or revolutionary socialist internationalists. I think that ‘Neither Washington nor Moscow but international socialism’ and ‘the emancipation of the working class is the act of the working class itself’ would have been the most resonant defining characteristics of our politics. They remain so today for me, even if Moscow has changed a bit – for me those two things are two sides of the same, anti-substitutionist, self-activity coin of the politics we stood for – no-one else, no party, no elite, no regime somewhere else in the world, is going to achieve socialism on behalf of the working class. But equally, we certainly did not resist enough the later imposition of ‘Leninism’, especially the model of the Leninist party, and I suppose it was because we hadn’t formulated a clear alternative. I’m aware that using ‘we’ here is a bit problematic – I mean the people I saw as comrades with the same politics as me, embodying the organisation I thought I’d joined. (Quite possibly lots of other people will say, I don’t recognise that, I always thought I was a member of a rock hard Leninist party). So in a way, back to the drawing board, since although things have changed a great deal in the long years of defeats, I don’t actually think the Leninist party fitted 1972 much better than it fits 2014.
At the risk of being like those poor old folks who repeat over and over again the same story, here is my summary of the ‘Minority Report’ and its critique of the CPGB in 1957
(authors, Christopher Hill, Peter Cadogan and Malcolm McEwen)
‘…the unity of the Party has rested too often on an uncritical acceptance of a “line” handed down from above. This is never likely to be the case again; [Oh really? M.R.] the Party has to find a new way to ensure unity in action.’ (p.47)
Further on ‘iron discipline’ the Minority suggests that it ‘might be possible in a small party of professional revolutionaries, but it is unobtainable in a mass party such as we hope to build, and it is unrealisable in practice in our conditions.’ (p.48)
‘We do not think that members of the Party should carry on a campaign against every decision with which they disagree.’ (p.48)
‘[Not] every member can be expected to fight for a policy to which he is deeply opposed on principle, such as the Executive Committee’s statements on the Twentieth Congress fo the CPSU or on the Soviet intervention in Hungary.’ (p.48)
‘How can it be suggested that Party members, who have publicly expressed their disagreement with the Party Policy on Hungary have a duty to support that policy in their trade union branch?’ (p.48)
‘One reason why Communists are suspected of being dishonest is because they sometimes appear to be putting over a “line” in which they have no sincere belief. And this is actually acclaimed as a virtue by the majority of the Commission, which fails to see the damaging blow that this strikes at the integrity and reputation of Communists and of the Communist Party, particularly when the “line” changes overnight, and Party members are expected to argue the reverse of what they were saying the day before. (p.49)
‘If the leadership of the Party is honest and true to principle, if it tells the members the whole truth, or all it knows, about the situation, if by its record it earns the respect, affection and loyalty of the Party membership, if it refrains from using its control of the Party machine and press to smack down those who are seeking for information or expressing honest criticism then in critical siutations where it has to take quick decisions and appeal for a quick response, the response will be given instantly, unanimously and enthusiastically – particularly of the leadership is always ready to look at the decisions again in the light of the results, and to lay bare any mistakes that have been made. But insistence on the duty automatically to accept and fight for policies in which there is no confidence, can only have bad results.’ (p.49)
On p. 50 they talk of the famous Pollitt and Campbell affair at the outbreak of the Second World War, when Pollitt and Campbell didn’t support the CPGB’s policy on not supporting the War.
‘Since the Twentieth Congress there have been many complaints about the handling of discussion in the ‘Daily Worker’, particularly of the refusal of the editor to publish correspondence on various subjects at different times, or correspondence from groups of readers on the ground that a number of signatures to a letter constitutes a “faction”.’ (p.52)
‘…when the Party extends its control to the entire press, all independent political publication comes to an end, and the press becomes in politics at least a gramophone sounding the official Party policy.’ (p.53)
‘We cannot expect the Party to win a mass membership of workers or intellectuals, on the basis of a proscribed list of forbidden literature, with freedom of expression limited to an occasional contribution to the Party press.’ (p.53)
Under the section ‘Methods of Election’, (p.54-58) the Minority proposed an end to the ‘panel’ system, citing examples of lack of information about the candidates on the panel who members were voting for.
In this section, there is a critique of the ‘Political Committee’: one of the members of the Minority tried and failed to get info on how the Political Committee of the Party arrived at picking the panel up for election. The Political Committee, they say, ‘consists of the full-time Party leadership, and this appears to have the biggest voice in the selection…we gathered the impression that in the course of the preparation of the Political Committee’s list there are confidential discussions between the General Secretary of the Party and individual members of the retiring Executive Committee on whether they should, or should not, stand again.” (pp54-55)
There follow recommendations about altering the composition of the Executive in terms of full-timers, representatives of the districts who would ‘be known to those who elect them’. (p.57)
Then, under ‘Pre-Congress Discussion’ (pp.58-60):
‘The major conflict [in the Party], as it is disclosed by the correspondence in the Party press and the discussion at aggregate meetings, concerns the relations between the British Communist Party and the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. A growing minority believe that the uncritical support given by the Executive Committee to Soviet policy divides, discredits and isolates the Part, identifies Communism in the minds of British people with the denial of personal freedom and with certain indefensible policies, and renders ineffective the Party’s efforts to combat anti-Soviet tendencies.’ (pp58-59)
Also on p.59 is an account of Malcolm McEwen (one of the Minority) being forbidden to speak ‘outside his own branch’. On p. 60, there is the recommendation that the policy of preventing members from speaking to other branches should be discontinued, the ‘Party press’ should open its columns to controversy and allow it to be circulated.
I assume that we stand in the tradition of the October revolution – for example, its mass involvement and democracy, its important attacks on racism and women’s oppression. And I assume we acknowledge that the Bolsheviks, led by Lenin and Trotsky, played a key role. So the question is, what can we learn from their complex historical experience that is useful today? Nobody has successfully built a mass revolutionary current in Britain in the last forty years, so no one can say dogmatically that their position is right: it’s an open question. Which bits of Lenin are still valid and useful, which bits are out of date after a hundred years and in a very different country?
On the one hand, we have to reject some current versions of “democratic centralism” as currently practised. The SWP used a bureaucratic version of it in a very destructive way during the faction fight. Part of the issue, as Sue Sparks mentioned, is that the SWP hasn’t always been like this. Members have told me that in the early 70s lots of people joined who had led strikes at work: they were confident to disagree with the leadership. Now an older and demoralised membership looks more for reassurance. It’s about the decline in struggle as much as the internal regime.
On the other hand, it seems clear that we need coordination. The referendum in Scotland showed clearly that the ruling class coordinate their side, so we need to coordinate ours, and have structures so that we can democratically decide what to prioritise. And those decisions have to be based on a clear understanding that we are revolutionaries. I take a different approach from some groups, such as Socialist Resistance, which say that questions like revolution or reform can be put off to another day. It seems to me that you can only start to build a political current if you agree on some things – not everything – and the “actuality of the revolution” is one of those. So some key aspects of Lenin remain important.
There’s a bigger problem here than the recent crises in the SWP. Let’s assume for the moment – although I think this is actually true – that the IS/SWP interpretation of ‘Leninism’ corresponds most accurately to Lenin’s thought (or at least his thought at certain periods in his career). Why then have groups in this tradition failed to build revolutionary parties of any size across a range of different countries, in quite different conditions? Let’s further assume – and again, I think this is true – that it would have been impossible during the Great Boom. But why not in the period 1968-1975, when there was a global revolutionary upheaval? Well, lets say that the groups were too small at the beginning of the period to grow sufficiently before the period was brought to an end by a series of defeats, and the dominance of Stalinism and Social Democracy is obviously an important factor in this outcome. I think there’s a good deal of truth in this explanation also, although parties – not least the Bolshevik party in 1917 – have been known to grow rapidly in revolutionary situations. But since then we’ve had two great economic crises, the collapse of Stalinism, the abandonment of the most basic reformist aspirations by Social Democracy, levels of inequality unknown in the West since the mid-19th century – and the revolutionary left still has not only not grown, but is more fragmented, more weak than at any time since the early 1960s. If revolutionaries can’t grow in these conditions, then three possible explanations suggest themselves. One might be that revolutionaries haven’t been working hard enough or selling enough papers, but I’m not even going to treat this as worthy of comment. A second might be that revolutionary socialism is a utopian fantasy: Marx’s claims were a hypothesis which has now been falsified. I think this is a much more serious argument than comrades are usually prepared to admit (although Trotsky was prepared to countenance it),but I nevertheless don’t agree with it. Third…maybe the organisation forms (‘Leninism’), and the strategies that tend to be associated with them, are simply inappropriate, inadequate to our time, whatever might have been the case in the 1920s, and have to be thought anew. This does not mean abandoning all positions associated with Lenin (the need to destroy the bourgeois state, the contradictory nature of working class consciousness, etc) – its simply to accept that the answers cannot all be found in what was done or written 100 years ago. Otherwise, what is the explanation for the failure of revolutionary politics qua revolutionary politics (i.e. not as revolutionaries being ‘the best reformists’)? It can’t simply be ‘bad objective conditions’ – because if these aren’t ‘good objective conditions’, then what would be?
The difficulty Colin is that whilst no-one would dispute that we need co-ordination in the class struggle. this rather begs the question of what kind of co-ordination? (it is after all hardly the case that Leninism is the only form of co-ordination that has ever existed-without getting into the in’s and out’s of what it actually meant and when). It’s also true that what being a revolutionary means today might be profitably discussed, given the number of movements and currents that have existed since the Russian revolutionary tradition made its impact on the rest of the world in the 1920s. Is it the case that, for example, anyone who doesn’t see themselves as standing in the Bolshevik tradition can’t logically be a revolutionary? Surely not-even in the early comintern people didn’t believe this. Its also true that the problem of putting off questions of revolution and reform can cut both ways-an endless deferral of what forms of organisation we need today for a form appropriate in the (how?) distant future not only divides our theory from our practice (in ways not unfamiliar to students of the second international) but ignores most of the very pertinent points Ian actually made in his interesting article. As Sue Sparks pointed out the idea of Leninism as a key shibboleth is not one which was charecteristic of the IS tradition until (relatively) recently: it does seem to me to be increasingly associated with a kind of totemism rather then that most Leninist of things concrete analyses of concrete situations and the tasks that flow out of them.
It’s downright mind-boggling that a member of the International Socialist Organization — an organization that is virtually devoid of internal democracy — would have the audacity to appropriate the following quote from Duncan Hallas:
“[U]nless, in its internal life, vigorous controversy is the rule and various tendencies and shades of opinion are represented, a socialist party cannot rise above the level of a sect. Internal democracy is not an optional extra. It is fundamental to the relationship between party members and those amongst whom they work.”
Is it well documented and minuted what Cliff et al said in order to metamorphose IS into SWP? Has anyone gone through this with a fine-tooth comb in order to critique it? Did anyone at that time refer to anything other than Lenin? Did anyone refer to other parties that had tried democratic centralism and in so doing suggest why and how this brand new version was going to be different? Did anyone refer to previous critiques of post-Lenin experiments with democratic centralism e.g. the Minority Report of 1957 – or any others. After all, let’s not get too bloody fancy about all this. All we’re talking about is bunches of people trying to figure out the best ways to move from towards and achieve socialism. No one is a god. No one is permanently, essentially, incontrovertibly right. Indeed anyone who takes up that attitude to someone else is probably tying themselves into a knot of wrongness anyway.
“Phhil Gasper, can you honestly think of any reason at all why anyone inside the SWP, anyone who is an ex-member or anyone who has been sympathetic to the SWP who might possibly for any general or specific reason find that the SWP has not managed to live up to the idea that:
“there must be wide and free discussion of Party questions, free comradely criticism and assessment of events in Party life.” (as you quote it)”
The ISO, the US version of the SWP until 1999, has not lived up to it either. Look at the vile and disgusting way that they treated the Renewal Faction. Look at the numerous sexual assaults that Ahmed Shawki knew about and kept from membership. When North Star reported on this in the early summer, ISO members did not even try to find out what Ahmed knew because they take everything that leadership says at face value.
Goodbye Lenin!
I don’t see where the dogmatics is in the article. It doesn’t argue that we should build a micro-party now, only that we can learn something from history about what it will take eventually to make a revolution. The discussion in the comments about appropriate organizational forms in the present and what we can learn from the history of non-revolutionary times is good and important, but I’m not sure it’s fair to demand all these questions be taken up at once.
I suspect Michael that much of this was ad hocary (and some of it was well intentioned ad hocary). But I also think for anyone serious reading through your summation of the 1956 debate there are some really serious questions that are inevitably raised. First of all whilst Trots would have supported the minority against the executive many would not have had significant differences with the executives definition of democratic centralism. In fact it was the IS who would have originally picked up those who did (they didn’t pick up many which is one of the tragedies at the time: people will tend to go with what is closest to which they’re familiar: in this case very unfortunately Gerry Healy’s organisation).
Now one ‘orthodox’ response to this is that the CP managed in later years to combine a relatively more liberal take on Democratic Centralism with wholly more rotten politics. I wholly accept this. But comrades. The fact that today forty years later with all of the water under the bridge, that some comrades are still defending a version of democratic centralism *indistinguishable* from that associated wth the CP of 1956: this is a horror. A real horror. Especially for anyone familiar with the contours of contemporary movements. Its simply indefensible. And comrades are better then this (I still believe they are). They need to think very seriously about the implications of what they’re saying.
There is a massive (and global) crisis of the post-68 Leninist left. What matters is not the fact that there is a crisis but how we approach it. Simply regurgitating old ad hoc arguments from the 1970s (when to be honest we got some of it wrong: check Sue Sparks contribution) is not good enough. Be a bit braver. Be a bit bolder. Please. We’re in a bad enough mess that the responses have to be a bit more serious then they are at present.
Seems a bit strong to blame Lenin for the break up of the International Socialist Tendency!
Throwing the baby out with the bathwater is definitely a bad idea.
The covering up of sexual crimes goes together with a top down secretive organisation, with an abandonment of the aim of a Party of leaders.
I can remember when I joined back in 1984 debate in the SWP was welcome. At the time I was not a very confident member and did not read very much. But still I was pushed to be a speaker at meetings. In discussion with other RS21 members I was reminded in years gone by, oppression of women was taken far more seriously. Any male who was believed to use violence against women was asked to leave.
Of course it was not a perfect Socialist Island in a sea of Capitalism, but the degeneration of the organisation has been a gradual process.
It has been an extremely difficult period for Socialists for decades, but that did not stop the IS/SWP growing from nothing to 10,000 members. (They did this while the rest of the left shrunk in the aftermath of the collapse of Stalinism). The few good years of 1968 and after I am too young to remember personally. It was not pre-ordained that the organisation would suddenly go into terminal crisis.
As Cliff wrote about Lenin, at sharp turning points he relied on the lower strata of the Party machine against the higher, or the rank and file against the machine as a whole. A conservatism always arises amongst the “committee men”. Leading members become set in there ways, become used to operating in certain ways. When the major political mistakes were made, there was not a Lenin to correct them, nobody to be the voice of the revolutionary class.
When the leadership of the SWP hid the political differences/disagreements in the movements, hid the arguments on the central committee and abandoned Tony Cliff’s analysis of the trade union bureaucracy in a Capitalist crisis they dug a grave for the organisation.
Lenin showed the importance of the revolutionary party – with Capitalism in crisis, with have to build a new one.
Did the SWP really grow to 10,000 members? (I was a member during this period and I have my doubts). In any case the post-68 Leninist left does appear to have confronted a glass ceiling: it could get so big and no bigger. By the early noughties I have serious doubts whether any senior party members really believed in a mass Leninist party anymore. How much any of this has to do with universal laws about the conservatism of committee men and Lenin’s struggle to use the middle levels against the upper levels..again I have my doubts. All this seems to be a kind of ready made theology which could be used at any time and in any place about almost anything. Do we really believe anymore that younger comrades are going to buy into any of this? The post-68 left played a real function: it grouped together militants to the left of Labour (and the left of the CP). In that sense it was a living current with a real if tenuous relationship with a section of the class. This is no longer true. Hence the degeneration. There are many problems with the left but to understand them we have to understand more then the left. We have to understand the changes in the nature of the system and society we inhabit. Too often all this talk about Leninism is a substitute for this.
Interesting to note that apart from parliamentarianism, not mentioning the Holocaust and wearing suits the far Right has barely modified any of its organisational forms and is growing rapidly in Europe even where adopting the overt tactics and aesthetics of the Nazis. The racist popularism of UKIP seems not to be hindered by their very traditional parliamentary form of organisation. Could this be because 30 years of neoliberalism and the subsequent ‘War on Terror’ has exponentially increased the space for rule and divide politics among the general population and to some extent, workers, leading to the scapegoating of minorities rather than the failure of Leninism?
As for the undemocratic nature of the SWP when did this happen? When it became the SWP as IS claim, when we initially took the wrong position on the miners strike and poll tax campaign, during the SA or Respect period, when Cliff died or recently and even if this had an impact on the left in the UK why has the left across Europe failed to grow apart from in Greece? Could this have anything to do with the betrayal of the social democratic parties rather than Leninsim?
The radical populist movements like Occupy appear spontaneously and last a year if they are lucky. I was involved with the Bank of Ideas and it was very easy for the Tories to shut this down. They even went to the extent of bulldozing the school it moved to after being kicked out of Finsbury Sq. If the autonomous model is the way forward then how can it be sustained and move toward a revolutionary direction? There is no meaningful strategy among the left being devised to sustain these movements. The referendum in Scotland shows the power of radical popularism but the real divide among the left in the UK, left reformism, reared its head there when socialists campaigned alongside Labour and the Tories. While these significant political divisions exist within the left and until we can find some way to work together it makes little difference whether revolutionaries denounce Lenin, wear party hats or dance around the may pole.
Ray I think Lenin himself would not have enjoyed a defence like that: I keep coming back in my mind to passage in that much misused passage in “what is to be done?” where Lenin talks about how real worker militants aren’t concerned with labels. The notion that reality has failed Leninism is much more unLeninist then the notion that just perhaps the revolutionary tradition needs to concieve of itself as a bit wider then Leninism. Which in reality most of those indulging in what strike me as ludicrously defensive and conservative arguments actually do anyway: Rosa Luxemberg would never at any point have described herself as a Leninist. Those who do describe themselves as Leninists but arn’t labouring under Stalinist delusions would never describe Luxemberg as anything but a revolutionary. For whatever reason many in this debate are really doing a disservice to themselves. Which is something that saddens me more then anything else.
Conceiving of revolutionary organisation on a wider basis is fine. That isn’t new or novel and had been happening before the concept of Leninism even existed. But there is a difference between that debate and one that dismisses democratic centralism out of hand – often because it conflicts with the agenda of other political currents such as reformism.
The revolutionary tradition would have been dealt a blow if Trotsky hadn’t endeavoured to carry it on even at midnight in the century. Despite having Stalinists pitted against him and hostility from the West he campaigned against the revolutionary tradition being appropriated by Stalinism while at the same time defending it from reactionaries who wanted to discredit it. We owe him a debt which is why I think it’s important that alternative forms of organisation are tested in practice.
The evidence in the last couple of decades is that autonomous movements do not have the capacity to sustain themselves or develop a revolutionary strategy. Without the influence of a revolutionary organisation I seriously doubt they will ever offer a serious challenge to capitalism.
On a scale of one to ten, Ray, how successful have the ‘revolutionary organisations’ been in ‘offering a serious challenge to capitalism’?
On my way through London this morning, the phrase ‘false dichotomy’ keeps surfacing. I can’t be the only one to think that ‘autonomous movements’ and ‘democratic centralism as practised by the organisation beloved of Ray B’ are the only alternatives available to worldwide humanity. Do these two forms represent the only ones?
Lenin has a head start on alternative revolutionary theories because he led a successful revolution, albeit he recognised that a genuine Socialist society could only be formed if it spread to the more advanced countries like Germany.
When an organisation like the SWP abandons it’s belief in the Centrality of the working class, it is the responsibility of the intellectual leadership of that organisation. Lenin cannot be blamed for the mistakes of the CC.
I’d say the Russian Revolution was 10/10 but as Sparky points out it failed to spread because there wasn’t an established revolutionary organisation in Germany at the opportune moment. This led to isolation for the Bolsheviks which facilitated the rise of Stalinism. But as Walter Benjamin expresses in his Concept of History, Stalinism was just one outcome in a range of potentialities. Revolutionary organisation does not automatically equate to undemocratic practice just as autonomist movements are not automatically democratic.
Reformism, on the other hand, has failed miserably, to such an extent that social democratic parties now don’t even dare to propose it and parrot market canards. Workers are now poorer than they were in the 70’s and the gap between rich and poor is even greater. 18 of those years since the 70’s had Labour governments!
If there are alternatives to revolution or reformism (of which autonomism is a variant) I’d like to know what they are because, rather than offering any new theoretical or concrete alternatives the autonomists and left reformists, who hope to co-opt them, are offering reheated ideas from the past. Nothing wrong in that when it works in practice but let’s not make a virtue out of the new when past experience shows that it doesn’t work. When revolutionaries refer to the past they’re accused of being anachronistic but when autonomists or left reformists do it it’s called blue sky thinking. The only reason for this is because they don’t or won’t acknowledge the precedents for their ideas and they don’t like being reminded by revolutionaries that they owe a debt to those who developed the foundations of their ideas and practice.
I like this article. I completely agree with Duncan Hallas, and Phil Gasper, editorial board member of the International Socialist Review, that “Internal democracy is not an optional extra.” And it is with great irony and frustration that I enjoy reading all the comments here, and contributing to them, while realizing that the International Socialist Review itself (and Socialist Worker) refuses to put comments sections beneath its articles- which is something almost every news site of every political persuasion has figured out how to do.
You get more horizontal communication between rank and file socialists on the privacy-invading, megacorporation Facebook than you do in most of the existing “socialist” groups today. That needs to change, if we really want our “tribunes of the oppressed” to be sites of serious intellectual engagement.
It was there I thought of the following comment, which I will paste in here as my $0.02 as someone who spent a lot of time thinking about and working through the issue raised by this article:
I think the basic idea of Leninism is that there is an objective social fact called ‘the vanguard’, which waxes and wanes in size, confidence, and political engagement, and is made up of the most militant, angry, creative, curious, compassionate, and able leaders of working people. The idea is you get them in a party, talking to each other, reading books, studying the world, and coordinating the best ways they figure out to do things. When objective situations get a lot of people angry and interested in changing the world, the influence of this leadership network is of decisive significance.
I suspect that this idea only works if you have a high level of internal democracy and transparency. The strength of the idea, in my understanding of it, comes from the ability of the organization to draw on the thoughts and opinions, knowledge and experience of a diffuse network of leaders, who have a grass roots perspective on the reality and possibilities of working class struggle. If you don’t have that level of rank and file control and democracy, you get leaders becoming out of touch, dreaming up task they send followers to do which don’t connect with the audience and wind up leaving them demoralized.
My understanding of the problems of Leninism is that instead of the above scenario happening, you frequently get incumbent leaders forming who train grassroots activists to always look to ‘the center’ for the right way to do things. People joining the group learn that new ideas aren’t welcome, and the only way to be a revolutionary is to do whatever a small group of self proclaimed leaders who have run the same organization for decades think is a good idea.
Of course people who are self sacrificing dreamers and fighters for a more empowered humanity get naturally repelled at that way of doing things, and soon leave.
Either that is what is good and problematic about applied Leninism (and I look forward to being a part of doing it right!), or after being in the ISO for 8 years and reading shelves of Cliff, Lenin, and Trotsky I still have no idea what Leninism is. In the latter case I suspect Leninism must indeed be so complex and mysterious a philosophy that decades of study must be necessary to grasp it.
Christian writes:
“And it is with great irony and frustration that I enjoy reading all the comments here, and contributing to them, while realizing that the International Socialist Review itself (and Socialist Worker) refuses to put comments sections beneath its articles- which is something almost every news site of every political persuasion has figured out how to do.”
The Minority Report on the CPGB from 1957 wrote:
“‘Since the Twentieth Congress there have been many complaints about the handling of discussion in the ‘Daily Worker’, particularly of the refusal of the editor to publish correspondence on various subjects at different times, or correspondence from groups of readers on the ground that a number of signatures to a letter constitutes a “faction”.’ (p.52)
‘We cannot expect the Party to win a mass membership of workers or intellectuals, on the basis of a proscribed list of forbidden literature, with freedom of expression limited to an occasional contribution to the Party press.’ (p.53)
Ray, you used the phrase ” past experience shows that it doesn’t work.” applied to left reformism and autonomism. Can you tell us how that phrase does or does not apply to democratic centralism since 1917?
The principles of democratic centralism as a way of organising are used in many organisations such as TU’s so a judgement as to whether they’re democratic depends on the specific circumstances of their application. It’s always a political question rather than simply organisational. As far as revolutionary organisations as opposed to reactionary Stalinist ones are concerned (which are bureaucratic reformist in nature) I think revolutionary organisations have a good record in terms of championing the oppressed and organising among the rank and file. A much better record than reformist organisations which often have democratic centralist forms of organisation but are anything but democratic.
A critique of autonomist movements has to go hand in hand with a critique of the ideology that’s used to promote these so-called “new” forms of organisation. The origin of current horizontal theories of organisation owes a great deal to Foucault’s “biopolitics” and Deleuzian “nomadism” which in practice are anything but democratic. These ideas were influenced by pseudo-sciences such as systems theory and cybernetics which have been utterly discredited when applied to social organisation. But when revolutionaries point out the contradictions in these theories and the long history of anarchism that underpins them a convenient amnesia appears to manifest among those who promote them.
While Facebook, a multinational corporation for profit that shares information with the secret services of many states, may offer a space for revolutionaries to discuss ideas, it doesn’t replace face to face contact. Despite the US and Chinese governments being given access to user information, many SWP members are on Facebook and use Twitter so the argument that there is a blanket rejection of social media is nonsense. I wonder how many members of a revolutionary organisation would be happy to have their details held in that organisations Facebook account for example? A reliance on social media to conduct debate is very one sided and ultimately undemocratic not only because it requires access to online resources that not everyone posesses but because it’s very easy to exclude people from these debates and regulate any discussion that doesn’t fit a particular political remit. It’s important to acknowledge that almost 90% of individual traffic to news sites on the internet is to a small number of huge commercial news conglomerates. Independent news on the internet is shrinking not growing despite claims of a twitter revolution.
I see little point in opening blogs or Facebook pages when they invariably either receive little participation like this one (unless it’s attacking the SWP or questioning revolutionary socialism) or they become targets for reactionaries and sectarians which I assume would be the case with UAF or the SWP. When there are few resources spread over a range of interventions I think it’s false economy to employ full time moderators to maintain a forum that becomes a target for those who are intent on disruption rather than debate. But never say never, eh?
I have re-printed Ray’s previous with comments in caps throughout that post:
The principles of democratic centralism as a way of organising are used in many organisations such as TU’s so a judgement as to whether they’re democratic depends on the specific circumstances of their application.
THIS IS PRECISELY WHAT PEOPLE HAVE BEEN DOING FOR THE LAST 50 YEARS AND IT’S PRECISELY WHY PEOPLE KEEP FINDING ITS SPECIFICS UNSATISFACTORY. SO FOR EXAMPLE WHERE HILL ET AL FOUND THE ‘PANEL’ A METHOD THAT DISCOURAGED DEMOCRACY IN THE CPGB, WE FIND THE SWP CONTINUING IT WITH THE ‘SLATE’.
It’s always a political question rather than simply organisational. As far as revolutionary organisations as opposed to reactionary Stalinist ones are concerned (which are bureaucratic reformist in nature) I think revolutionary organisations have a good record in terms of championing the oppressed and organising among the rank and file.
WELL, SO IT WOULD HAVE SEEMED UP UNTIL THE ORGANISATION ITSELF WAS BEING ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT HOW TO HANDLE AN EXAMPLE OF ALLEGED OPPRESSION WITHIN ITS OWN ORGANISATION. APPEALING TO A REAL OR MYTHIC ‘PAST RECORD’ IS NEITHER HERE NOR THERE.
A much better record than reformist organisations which often have democratic centralist forms of organisation but are anything but democratic.
SO WHAT? THE ISSUE IS WHETHER THE SWP LIVED UP TO ITS OWN STANDARDS.
A critique of autonomist movements has to go hand in hand with a critique of the ideology that’s used to promote these so-called “new” forms of organisation. The origin of current horizontal theories of organisation owes a great deal to Foucault’s “biopolitics” and Deleuzian “nomadism” which in practice are anything but democratic. These ideas were influenced by pseudo-sciences such as systems theory and cybernetics which have been utterly discredited when applied to social organisation. But when revolutionaries point out the contradictions in these theories and the long history of anarchism that underpins them a convenient amnesia appears to manifest among those who promote them.
NOT SURE WHY LENGTHY AND ELABORATE REFUTATIONS OF THE THEORY ACTUALLY OR SUPPOSEDLY UNDERPINNING AUTONOMISM LEAVES THE FIELD OPEN TO SAYING THE DC IS THE ONLY ALTERNATIVE. THAT’S A NON-SEQUITUR.
While Facebook, a multinational corporation for profit that shares information with the secret services of many states, may offer a space for revolutionaries to discuss ideas, it doesn’t replace face to face contact.
NOT BUT IT DOES ACTUALLY DO WHAT YOU JUST SAID IT DID…IE PROVIDE A SPACE FOR DISCUSSION OF IDEAS! CLEARLY SOMETHING THAT IS NOT ALLOWED OVER AT ISJ AND SW. MODERATION IS THE SIMPLEST WAY TO WEED OUT THE NUTTERS AND RACISTS.
Despite the US and Chinese governments being given access to user information, many SWP members are on Facebook and use Twitter so the argument that there is a blanket rejection of social media is nonsense.
NO ONE SAID IT WAS ‘BLANKET REJECTION’ . CHRISTIAN SAID IT WAS CONTRADICTORY WITH SW MEMBERS ARGUING ALL OVER THE INTERNET BUT NOT ALLOWED TO ON ITS OWN WEBSITE. EITHER YOU KNOW THAT OR YOU’RE JUST TRYING TO PUT UP A SMOKESCREEN. (DO YOU EVER WONDER WHY YOU ARE SO UNCONVINCING?0
I wonder how many members of a revolutionary organisation would be happy to have their details held in that organisations Facebook account for example?
TOO LATE. EVERYTHING IS KNOWN EVERYWHERE.
A reliance on social media to conduct debate is very one sided and ultimately undemocratic not only because it requires access to online resources that not everyone posesses but because it’s very easy to exclude people from these debates and regulate any discussion that doesn’t fit a particular political remit.
THEN WHY ARE YOU HERE ARGUING ABOUT IT ALL?
It’s important to acknowledge that almost 90% of individual traffic to news sites on the internet is to a small number of huge commercial news conglomerates. Independent news on the internet is shrinking not growing despite claims of a twitter revolution.
THANKS FOR THE INFORMATION.
I see little point in opening blogs or Facebook pages when they invariably either receive little participation like this one (unless it’s attacking the SWP or questioning revolutionary socialism) or they become targets for reactionaries and sectarians which I assume would be the case with UAF or the SWP. When there are few resources spread over a range of interventions I think it’s false economy to employ full time moderators to maintain a forum that becomes a target for those who are intent on disruption rather than debate. But never say never, eh?
WELL, I DON’T SUPPOSE THE DECISION TO BAN COMMENTS OVER AT SW IS DOWN TO YOU, IS IT? SO YOU’RE JUST BEING THE SHEEPDOG HERE, JUSTIFYING WHAT THE LEADERSHIP HAS DONE, WHILST COMING AND HERE AND USING THE INTERNET AND COMMENTS COLUMNS THAT ARE ‘ALLOWED’.
Democratic centralism and the slate system can be democratic despite what you claim. This debate has been had many times in SWP publications with those who disagree with Lenin and the Bolsheviks for what ever reason. These journals are edited and are not open access just like virtually all other left publications including those of Left Unity of which you are a member? No doubt Left Unity’s website is edited and not open access either. Just because you don’t agree with DC or can find examples of where it hasn’t worked for obvious political reasons, such as Stalinism, doesn’t make it automatically undemocratic. This is a political issue not simply one about forms of organisation as you would have it.
Sadly, you can never resist resorting to silly, spiteful slurs like calling people “sheepdogs” when they disagree with your very particular concept of democratic organisation. Your denunciatory method of debate has more in common with the period you use as testimony for DC’s failings then the democratic way you claim we should all uphold. Your concern about democratic forms of organisation seems really disingenuous when you have nothing critical to say about the ones you like. In all the posts you’ve made about this subject on this forum, not once have you questioned other forms of organisation which will clearly need to replace DC if it is, as you claim, untenable. So it does follow that to have a critical political debate about forms of organisation we need to contrast and compare them.
Yes I use social media. I also text and still send letters. In what way does that discredit any of my criticisms about it? I also don’t share your cavalier attitude to personal information.
I’m not a ‘member’ of Left Unity. I gave support when it was set up as it seemed like a possible umbrella organisation for the left. That’s the first and last thing I did for them or with them. The ‘you’re a member of that lot’ way of arguing is interesting. The last person who did that to me was Michael Gove. Rock on.
I stand corrected but my question was an attempt to find out where you stand instead of reacting to your tactic of escalating confrontation by using absurd denunciations like the Michael Gove comparison. Usually a debate about most things, including political forms of organisation, occurs when one person puts forward their strategy and someone with a different strategy responds. This invariably involves supporting arguments for each strategy and a critique of other strategies including the opposing one being put forward in the debate.
Of course, you are entitled to argue how you like but without putting forward an alternative to DC it’s very difficult to have a meaningful debate. I think this highlights one of the weaknesses of social media where the atomised, non-realtime and often politically anonymous nature of engagement makes it very easy to slip into ad hominem retorts rather than a much fuller discussion that might occur at a meeting or in a journal where the contributors are able to set out their argument more fully and are accountable for what they write.
I don’t think it’s impossible to have fraternal debates on social media but judging by the way individuals have conducted themselves on various left blogs (including myself at times) that rarely happens. These social media debates often escalate until someone is compared to Hitler and then it’s game over. So I’ll content myself that you’ve only compared me to a dogmatic philistine like Gove and await your response.
This may seem incredible to you, Ray, but it’s not for me as an individual to come up with some alternative form of organisation. That’s for people acting together to figure that out. In the meantime, you’ll have noticed I’m sure that you always refuse to answer any questions that I put to you in reference to whatever it is you’ve claimed. So, going back over your posts, you’ll see that you’ve talked about e.g. success and failure of different forms of organisation. I therefore put to you a direct and concrete question about what you thought of this relative success and failure in reference to the organisation you seem to support. No answer forthcoming.
Try your latest: you describe the weaknesses of the social media method of discussion, even though you clearly love it yourself. You seem to have an ideal in mind which you express as ‘a time or place where arguments can be expressed ‘more fully and are accountable for what they write’. First of all, I’m the non-anonymous one here. You’re the anonymous one. So I guess we don’t need lectures from you about accountability. Then, one of the criticisms levelled at democratic centralist organisations and the SWP of recent years is precisely that people have on occasions felt that they could NOT express what they thought, they said they were ‘bullied’ by full-time organisers (who, as with the CPGB in 1957) were (are?) heavily represented at the centre of the organisation, and that accountability is a serious issue in the organisation largely because to date, everything has been apologised for but no one is accountable for what was apologised for! Will you be answering that one?
Yes, I did compare you to Gove for using the same silly method as he used which I’ve been yawning over since 1968. This is where in argument or discussion, the arguer (in this case you) takes time out to make what is thought to be a meaningful allusion to the organisation that one (in this case me) belongs to. In nine times out of ten occasions, this method is used, I don’t actually belong to the organisation being cited. Excuse me for yawning. Excuse me for finding parallels.
It is true that in recent years there has been a lot of banging on about “Leninism”in the SWP. Alex Callinicos argues that this is because Lenin is coming under attack from those that want to bury socialist ideas. To a certain extent this is true, but I think there is another reason why the Party intellectuals push a distorted version of Lenin’s politics, to attempt to cover up their political mistakes and retreats.
When a few years ago Martin Smith talked about how is was good mates with Mark Serwotka, but he was mistaken to call off strike action he was departing from the political tradition under Tony Cliff. Cliff recognised that when Capitalism is in crisis there is little difference between the left and right of the trade union bureaucracy. He showed how in the 1926 General Strike, the “lefts” of Purcell, Hicks, Swales (and to a lesser extent AJ Cook) all supported the right wing of the TUC in selling out the workers. The key is pressure from below, the building of the rank and file, not acting as a ginger group to trade union left leaders. Of course this does not mean we just denounce all trade union leaders as the enemy, but it does mean at the appropriate times we explain to workers that these union leaders do not want an active rank and file that can challenge their authority.
Lenin had very little to say about the trade union bureaucracy, because he had little experience of it. Under the Czar reformism was not permitted. So the slogan in the Petrograd soviet in 1905 was not “a fair days wage for a fair days work* but instead was “8 hours and a gun!”.
So the repositioning of the SWP politics in a centrist direction is helped by arguing that Lenin is always the guide. Trotsky and Cliff had a lot to say about the bureaucracy in the unions in Britain, so they have to be labelled “out of date”.
If you disagree with the Central Committee of the SWP you would be called “not a Leninist”. If you are critical of the trade union leaders you are “ultra-left”. The line that you have to accept what the “committee men” say, was completely alien to Lenin.
No, Ray. From your base in anonymity, it’s not simply questions about the SWP you repeatedly fail to answer. It’s also your sneers about any alternative or supposed lack of alternative to the SWP. You do this through repeatedly using success as the criterion. So down through the years, I and others have challenged you to explain or delineate the relative success of your (or other Leninist organisations). As I’ve asked you to do this several times, presumably you don’t want to answer that one. Sorted.
As for simply telling me that the comparison is ‘specious’ between the ‘Minority Report’ of 1957 and what people have said about the SWP and other Leninist organisations – and indeed in terms of how the CPGB leadership behaved and how the SWP leadership behaved – this is just another old dodge. Label it, drop it. It enables you to ignore the textual similarities and hide behind the dogma you peddled about the comparison being ‘ahistorical’. Sorted.
Then you typify me as ‘browbeating’. I guess you mean that I argue with you. I know this is distasteful for you. So be it. Sorted.
Meanwhile, you’ve even got some cock and bull about why it’s OK to come here and talk (anonymously) about whatever you want to but why this should not be permitted on your organisation’s sites. Do you seriously think that anyone outside of your mates that anyone is convinced by this?
Michael, I have answered your questions about democratic centralism, why the left hasn’t grown and sundry other ones in previous threads about Leninism on this blog. As have others. I had hoped this thread would turn into a debate about different forms of political organisation but you seem intent on turning any thread about Leninism into a rehash of mistakes made by the SWP. The crisis on the left (and among the movements) is so much more than that particular example. Your analogy between the CPGB and the SWP is specious as I’ve pointed out in the past. So you don’t get to set the agenda of this debate based on a false analogy even when you attempt to browbeat people who disagree with you.
Do you really think that by continually misrepresenting people you are “arguing” with that this encourages debate? You demand answers and when they’re not to your liking or they don’t cover every minute detail of your denunciations which are often utter fabrications posed for the umpteenth time you revert to all or nothing mode with more moralistic condemnations about cover ups and evasion. You know full well that these debates have been covered in great depth in SWP publications over the party’s history that are freely available on the internet and in bulletins that have been distributed to all members before every conference. Not to mention the various factions over the years who have had their own extensive offline (and more recently) online debates about these issues.
Yet you, on the other hand, offer no comparative debate about alternatives to Leninism. If it has failed so badly, according to you, then surely the point is, in any debate about how to rebuild the left, you have to offer alternatives? You don’t appear to have any critical analysis of any of them. I doubt anyone is going to be any the wiser about the pros and cons of Leninism if all you do is run down the SWP. All the jibes about anonymity and whether the SWP (or other Left organisations) should have forums doesn’t address this.
“You know full well that these debates have been covered in great depth…”
Yes I do. I also know – as do many people outside of your circles – that what is lacking is a full explanation for why and how what happened, happened. If you think you have at hand a full explanation of what happened could you please either state it or provide a link? Yes, other people have provided explanations. I’ve read some of those. In case you’re wondering, I thought Alex’s articles on the matter were not explanations. They were surveys of the contemporary radical left scene.
I have explained why the matter of coming up with alternative structures is not down to me, nor should it be. It can only be worked out by groups of people in action.
The matter of anonymity is serious. If you don’t think it is, you should say so. The matter of you participating in an open forum here but not being able to over at SW is also serious. I can see that you don’t think it is. So be it.
There are different articles that address different things. In the ISJ and the bulletins there were explanations from different groups about the way the allegations were handled. There were also articles in the ISJ and contributions in the bulletins about the relevance of Leninism in relation to other forms of political organisation.
The debate about Leninism has been going on in various forms in the SWP since it was formed and long before in the IS and other left organisations. Apart from the bulletins, almost all this information is available online or in book form.
There is also a tradition of debate about Leninism in SWP branch meetings and the meetings of other left organisations, debates at Marxism and other left events nationally and internationally. There is also Historical Materialism Journal and its yearly event to name but one academic arena of debate.
The various faction meetings, websites, Facebook and twitter pages channelled a huge amount of debate about the allegations and about the relevance of Leninism. Various allegations were even published in the Daily Mail and the CPGB website.
Regardless of whether I agree with some of the versions of events and allegations written about and discussed I don’t accept that this issue has been suppressed either in the SWP or generally. Even though I struggled to read every single contribution to the bulletins some of which had a large number of very long contributions about these issues I made the effort to get as many sides of the story as possible. Likewise, even though I agree with Callinicos on the relevance of Leninism I’ve spent a lot of time learning about alternative forms of political organisation.
I don’t agree that debating forms of political organisation is up to others. Even those who claim not to have a standpoint on these issues actually do and in any debate it’s much more helpful to understand the roots of those ideas and the implications of applying them. Even if you don’t have an opinion others will and, as the debate over political organisation is ultimately a hegemonic struggle, those who sound convincing even when their strategy is full of contradictions, will take positions of influence. I saw this happen, for example, in a limited way while involved in the Occupy movement and Bank of Ideas, also during the Poll Tax campaign and numerous other struggles. Abstaining from taking a position, especially at decisive moments, is handing over control to others.
Several points occur reading Phil Gasper’s piece and the discussion below. I will address just a few.
I think ‘Leninism’ is superannuated – that post-war social developments completed the work of the violent break of fascism and Stalinism in the 1930s. When I say superannuated I mean in a quite specific way. I don’t mean all the problems ‘Leninism’ was supposed to address are no longer operative in the universe of late capitalism simply that some of its answers are anachronistic, some are partial and some are not relevant. But most of all there is a problem with the idea of ‘Leninism’ and the whole model as it was understood by the broad Trotskyist tradition that I will return to below.
“There are many problems with the left but to understand them we have to understand more then the left. We have to understand the changes in the nature of the system and society we inhabit. Too often all this talk about Leninism is a substitute for this.”
I could not agree more with johng’s sentiment here. I think it should be our touchstone. I think the ‘moment of Leninism’ rested on a profound working class challenge to the bourgeois order in Western, Central and Southern Europe during several years of acute crisis after 1917 that saw mass or near mass based Communist parties emerge. In other words, transcending capital’s horizons as a practical collective project was a real historical possibility. But the whole universe of the Third International (and the Second International) is long gone, entirely obliterated.
Evidently this is not our situation. That is why we can’t proceed from “the actuality of the revolution” (Lukacs) as Colin W proposes in determining the sort of organisation socialists should be laying the foundations for in our present. We have been hurled back and regressed years. At one level our situation is more like the First International or even before though social and historical development never simply rolls back along the path it moved along. Ironically Lukacs coined the term “the actuality of the revolution” in 1924 shortly after Lenin’s death as an example of the Bolshevik leaders genius. Bear in mind that Lukacs sincere tribute to Lenin was part of the codification of ‘Leninism’ in the campaign to ‘Bolshevise’ the Communist parties and marginalise Trotsky and his supporters in the Russian party.
In contrast to Lukacs’s quite abstract notion of “the actuality of the revolution”, Lenin had quite concrete conception of the nature of the epoch that underpinned the politics and strategic orientation of the Third International. This orientation sprang from Lenin’s attempts to understand the origins of the First World War and the Second International’s betrayal of proletarian internationalism in 1914. The war signalled the end of the epoch of the “organic growth” of capitalism. This period roughly 1870-1914 had also seen the relatively pacific growth of the labour movement when imperialist super profits had allowed labour bureaucracies to entrench themselves in the workers movement. Inter-imperialist slaughter meant the arrival of the epoch of wars, national liberation struggles and social revolution. Though proletarian victory was not inevitable, capitalism was in decline. The national accumulations that provided the “crumbs” for sustaining a privileged layer of workers would be progressively eroded thus undermining the possibility of reforms.
Essentially this picture shaped the strategic conceptions of the early years of the Third International. Temporary stabilisations were possible as Trotsky argued, for example, pointing to the ebb tide of the spontaneous revolutionary offensive in 1921 at the Third International’s 3rd Congress when pressing the case for the United Front. But the dominant belief was that despite the complications of the split between Social Democracy and Communism the revolutionary offensive would soon be renewed. This basic idea of capitalism’s decadence was a red thread that could be traced from Lenin’s imperialism writings after 1914 to Trotsky’s 1938 Transitional programme. It represented a specific periodisation of capitalism.
What Michael Kidron described as the IS’s “insights” in 1977 when he bid adieu to the tradition, represented responses to the novel post-war realities that orthodox Trotskyism refused to face. These were also a specific attempt to periodise capitalism anew – to face changed social and historical realities. We may argue how successful these “insights” were in explaining the post-war world of late capitalism but they did allow the IS a modest implantation in a militant working class with some sort of road map for breaking the grip of reformism based on shop floor rank and file struggle.
Clearly neo-liberalism, globalisation, working class retreat and the collapse of ‘actually existing socialism’ has created a new terrain, new realities. Again we have to periodise capitalism and attempt to grasp the social world around us – a task that the IS/SWP signally failed to do for a variety of reasons.
In this context I am tempted to argue that dichotomous arguments about reform or revolution are not very helpful or enlightening in helping us grasp our present situation. But that is because we need to refuse the sort of useless hobby horse fundamentalism or orthodoxy that is simply not serious about reconstructing a viable, serious revolutionary socialist politics.
On the question of ‘Leninism’ – I think it was to a large degree a fable embraced by the second wave of Trotskyists in the early years of the Left Opposition that also called into existence something called ‘Trotskyism’ (originally a slander aimed at Trotsky and his supporters. As Al Richardson notes in ‘Trotsky and the Origins of Trotskyism’ “fake ‘Leninism’ and ‘Bolshevism'” was constructed by Zinoviev, Kamenev and Bukharin in the course of the inner party struggle that broke out shortly before Lenin’s death in January 1924. Lukacs’s Lenin brochure was an innocent part of that campaign. Richardson notes there were two waves of ‘Trotskyists’ in the 1920s. The first was a modest cohort, relatively shortlived like Max Eastman (US) and Arthur Reade (Britain) who were Trotsky’s early defenders but quickly fell away. The second wave were more proletarian and more rooted in their local Communist parties. This second wave became oppositionists during the period of the Joint Opposition (Trotsky, Zinoviev, Kamenev) but had earlier been shaped by Zinoviev’s ‘Bolshevisation’ of the Communist parties in the mid 1920s as well as playing a part in excluding the first wave of ‘Trotskyists.’ This second wave would subsequently provide the backbone of ‘Trotskyism’ like James Cannon (an admirer of Zinoviev) and uncritically accepted Zinoviev’s codification of ‘Leninism’ during the years of the ‘Bolshevisation’ of the Communist parties that aroused the opposition of leaders like Paul Levi in the German KPD.
The early Left Opposition defended this new ‘orthodoxy’ of ‘Leninism’ and in doing so lost sight of the fact that there had been a wider European socialist, Social Democratic tradition in which many different currents had swam but which more importantly had embraced the overwhelming majority of the politically awakened working class.
Ray, I wasn’t referring to the various oppositions’ explanations, I was referring to an official worked out final explanation. And of course the oppositions’ explanations and views were heard. They escaped. As you are acknowledging by coming to this site, one of the places they escaped to was here. Nice, isn’t it? It’s actually a ‘form of organisation’, being created by people talking to each other…not by a ‘me’ or a ‘you’. Perhaps, when you feel like it you’ll also apply the same criterion of ‘success’ that you applied to everyone else to post-1917 Leninism.
As I stated, all sides engaged in numerous debates and presented written documents explaining their point of view and how to resolve the issue, including the CC.
I don’t agree with the argument that the strategy and form of political organisation that became known as “Leninism” was an exception that suited the period and is now an anachronism. The difference between the Bolshevik party and it’s strategy pre and post Stalin has been discussed and debated extensively so simply equating the two is untenable. If the basis for legitimisation of a political strategy and form of organisation is its prevalence and success at any given period then social democracy would also be under scrutiny but it isn’t because it doesn’t advocate getting rid of capitalism and proposes a gradualist strategy of reform. The nub of the issue is not “Leninism” or something else – it’s reform or revolution. That’s as relevant today as it was in Lenin and Marx’s time.
Concerning the truism that capitalism has changed, without an analysis of those changes and developing an appropriate practice and theory to address them, simply stating that truism isn’t very helpful in working out successful ways of organising politically.
The most important thing for you Ray is for you to think that it’s all been settled and put back in the box. And you’ve proved that that’s what’s happened.
Meanwhile, ‘out there’ people are experimenting with different forms: Stop the War, Counterfire, rs21, and so on. I didn’t think I needed to spell that out when deliberately ducking coming up with ideas of my own.
“The principles of democratic centralism as a way of organising are used in many organisations such as TU’s”
This is a simply incredible claim.
Incidentally that I’m not saying anything new is something I take for granted. Its those who write articles like the above and responses like Colin’s who are saying something new.
And understanding why that is strikes me as important. Michael Rosen’s questions are as usual deeply pertinent and largely unanswered.
My apologies when I said Colin I meant Ray.
What is “incredible” about pointing out that organisations other than revolutionary socialist ones use the principles of democratic centralism to organise democratically? They may or may not use the slate system but they elect local, regional and national representatives in some form. Those who are elected to lead the organisation make decisions about strategy that is supposed to be but not always informed by that organisations members. The important point about political organisation are the politics that inform it.
To carry on a theme, if ,as has been suggested, the concept of reform and revolution are anachronistic during this period then we might as well ignore Marx and start again. If the point is the get rid of capitalism then if reform is going to work there needs to be evidence for this but all the evidence shows that ultimately reform, especially during this period, is the real anachronism as austerity in the West claws back (and much more) any gains made in the past. What are the autonomous movements arguing for? While the rhetoric may sound revolutionary the demands ultimately are for reforming the system.
As revolutionaries how do we bridge that gap between demands for reform from a system that is viciously clawing them back and our ultimate goal of getting rid of capitalism? Of course we have to work with others who have reformist illusions but we also have a responsibility to continue the task of Marx, Luxemburg and Lenin in building a revolutionary current. Without a revolutionary organisation of some kind embedded in the class then what other way is there to influence struggle so that, at decisive moments like 1917, it transcends the limited demands of reformism?
During the 90’s there was a lot of “end of history” rhetoric which now looks ridiculous in the context of the recent revolutions in the Middle East. Rather than this being a period in which reform and revolution are anachronistic the argument that they no longer apply is completely out of step with the volatile nature of capitalism at this conjuncture. Everything capitalism represents is a testimony of its barbarism as well as its progressive achievements. The one is part of a dialectical relationship with the other as Benjamin argues. We need to question whether reforming capitalism (if that’s even possible at this moment) will end or reduce this barbarism or whether it will allow it to continue.
I have no faith in reform that’s why we need a revolutionary alternative while at the same time trying to build unity among the left. So far I have not heard or read any convincing alternative to a revolutionary party to keep revolutionary politics alive but I’ve read and heard plenty of reformist strategies that pose as new and novel but really perpetuate the illusions that Benjamin (among others) contested.
What is ‘incredible’, Ray, is you coming here, repeating over and over again that what there is is great, nothing is better, nothing needs to change and everything else is illusory or deluded. (Shades of Alex saying that there is nothing new in the known universe). Meanwhile, beneath and above the radar, many people with decades of commitment are doing some great open thinking, speculation and reflection on other possible ways of going on. It is of course necessary for you to remind us all of the dangers of ‘reformism’ as if reformism is something we had never thought about before. Perhaps you hadn’t noticed that the radical/revolutionary left has been battling with this problem, every waking minute, from (at least) since William Morris’s interventions. I make that about 130 years. The idea that you need to come here and deliver a little sermon on the matter is indeed ‘incredible’. I’ve no idea who you are, but if you are anywhere near me on any occasion, could you have a badge to hand, with the words on it ‘Ray B., lectures on reformism to order’ so that you can quickly affix it to yourself and I can escape through the back door.
When Jules Alford talks about Capitalism’s decadence, with the rich getting richer and poor getting poorer, the military capability of world destruction, environmental destruction – the system is even worse than when there was the big revolutionary wave that he talked about. The need for a revolutionary party is greater than ever. What Lenin taught us was the need for a rooted revolutionary party. It was the lack of such parties with the experience of the Bolsheviks which led to the defeat of this wave.
He has learnt the wrong lesson from the abandonment of the teachings of the revolutionary greats by the SWP. The answer is not to abandon Lenin, but to rediscover the politics that has been thrown away.
Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky, Luxemburg and Cliff all made mistakes, that is not the problem, you learn from them. To see what is happening beyond the crowd, we have to stand on the shoulders of giants.
Although the SWP now argues that much of the politics of Trotsky, Luxemburg and Cliff are “out of date”, as they take the organisation in a centrist direction and an alliance with the trade union bureaucracy, they sometimes still show the relevance of revolutionary politics.
The best example of this is the results from hanging on to Trotsky’s theory of the united front. The fascists have been beaten back and prevented from becoming a “respectable” electoral force.
If you refuse to learn from the class, the most revolutionary element, then you just end up telling lies and going into terminal decline. This sadly, is what has happened with the SWP. So whilst rejecting the politics of Cliff, they still claim to stand in his tradition. Whilst admitting they make mistakes, the biggest mistake they see is “autonomist” student members who do not just go along with the “experts” on the central committee.
We are now back in an age of revolutions, look at Egypt and the revolt in Greece. With capitalism in crisis, we need a revolutionary party, there is no reformist road.
My pleasure Michael! Once again it’s up to others to do all the work while you dodge the question and carp from the sidelines. For someone who claims to be aware of, “great open thinking, speculation and reflection on other possible ways of going on”, you offer none of this – not even an overview of it. If you had done perhaps that could’ve been debated?
I asked the question in my last post, “Without a revolutionary organisation of some kind embedded in the class then what other way is there to influence struggle so that, at decisive moments like 1917, it transcends the limited demands of reformism?” Unless there’s a convincing and credible alternative to “Leninism” rather than a rehash of old reformist strategies dressed up in new clothes, it doesn’t matter how many decades or experience or fresh faced iconoclasm someone claims gives them authority and their ideas legitimacy, these ideas are still subject to critical analysis.
Ray, one person’s ‘sidelines’ is another person’s ‘centre’ and one person’s ‘centre’ is another person’s ‘sidelines’. This is part of the problem of belonging to certain political organisations. You spend your time thinking that your ‘line’ is the only, true way and then extrapolate from that that all other ways are not true, and are peripheral i.e. on the ‘sidelines’ or in the ‘swamp’ – I’m sure you can fill in other terms yourself. So let’s deal with ‘centre’ and ‘sidelines’ vis a vis the SWP, first.
Have you never heard the complaint that the SWP have on occasions joined organisations or even created organisations only for then to it appear that they did that in order to break them? Or that because those organisations didn’t do what the SWP wanted them to do, they broke them? Have you ever heard of complaints that the SWP have turned up to campaigns or meetings purely in order to sell newspapers? etc etc. I have heard these complaints many, many times down through the years. Mostly I’ve ignored them and put them down to envy, misunderstanding and the like. What do you think? Do you think it’s possible that there is a problem for Leninist organisations acting within movements and alliances that others start to feel that their presence is purely in order to recruit? And that committee meetings for campaigns and alliances start to feel that recruitment comes before all else? Have you ever heard of such problems? Do you think the matter can be simply resolved by you endlessly repeating that you’ve solved everything and everyone else is on the ‘sidelines’
Now, the matter of whether I’m on the ‘sidelines’. I’ll take this as an insult, if I may. That’s to say that what I’ve done or am doing as regards the ‘radical left’ is ‘sideline’ stuff. Well, I know that I devote a good deal of my time working within education and with ideas and ideology to do with childhood. I know that the word ‘child’ or ‘childhood’ immediately places a person on the ‘sidelines’ when it comes to most ‘radical left’ organisations because, quite obviously, children are a waste of time. They stop people from attending meetings and until they’re old enough to go on strike, they just get in the way. The fact that the matter of ‘reproduction of capitalism’ depends in part on the ideological and physical formation of children and young people is of course beside the point. It is, as you say, the ‘sidelines’.
As for the ideas circulating: oh dear, I didn’t think that I needed either to repeat them: Stop the War, Counterfire, rs21 – as just three that I know of – nor did I think I would need to mention the fact that to my knowledge, other people who’ve left the SWP have been beavering away thinking and acting in ways that they think might help the ‘radical left’. I’ve heard, for example, of someone with many decades of experience in the SWP and IS before that, who has responded to the absurd editorial in SW which called for unity without a)dealing with widespread lack of trust many on the radical left have for the SWP and b) any concrete proposal for how that unity might be achieved.
I have pointed out to you several times why it’s not appropriate for me to randomly come up with proposals for what might be best or better. I suspect that you and I believe in theory-in-practice and practice-in-theory. In which case, you and I know that me sitting typing is of very little value alongside people within organisations doing things, checking to see if such things work, or don’t work. As i say, people are experimenting with this even as we write. This is not on the ‘sidelines’. It’s doing it. So, to take one example, it took a great deal of organisation to put together the big demonstrations for Gaza. I wasn’t in the committee meetings that did that. I was called on (from the ‘sidelines’ of course) to perform at several of those and smaller meetings. I was able to do it once and provide poems for free circulation which since then have been turned into everything from videos to raffle prizes and fund-raisers. I suspect that those who were on the committee learned a massive amount about what’s possible and not possible in the present context. I’m not arrogant enough to think that I have that kind of knowledge in my head. You seem to think that I should. Or that if I don’t have it, it’s not happening and the only place where anything is happening is….in the SWP. How bizarre.
In the meantime, from the ‘sidelines’, I’ve written a book about education which seeks to challenge the basis of neo-liberal ideas about education. Because this is a matter that affects hundreds of thousands of people – possibly millions; and because the structuring of education is a very abstract matter for most people; and because the site for the ‘reproduction’ of capitalism is not only school but also home, it’s directed towards parents and children. This is a fraught area for the ‘radical left’ view of ‘what’s to be done’ as the ‘family’ is seen purely and simply as a site for oppression and reproduction (of both kinds). However, many radical left people also happen to be parents who, like my parents, do their best at resisting the prevailing ideology even in the process of living with children i.e. me! I’ve even met many of them at Marxisms, or at Bookmarks Bookshop when I’ve been doing one of my events. I would love to hear whether they think that’s all ‘sidelines’ stuff too.
Part of this is about how we envisage the future through our acts in the present. But that’s another matter, perhaps.
ps – of course you don’t enable any of us to know whether you are on the ‘sidelines’ or at the ‘centre’ or indeed anywhere. That’s because you are aloof from us in the land of anonymity. What an irony, anonymous poster calls named person to account! For all we know, you are a hedge fund manager from UKIP just coming here and having a laugh. You could even write ‘And I’m not a hedge fund manager from UKIP having a laugh’ and you could still be a ‘hedge fund manager from UKIP coming here and having a laugh’. Yes, internet forums have their failings and you’re one of them.
Of course you’re going to have a clash of ideas when groups with different political agendas unite over a single or range of issues. This is the experience of revolutionary socialists going back before Lenin. Even William Morris had the same problem! Some of these united fronts work out well, other don’t. There are plenty of critical analysis’s online and offline about this. When activists criticise revolutionaries for selling papers at meetings I wonder what do they make of their own particular political current promoting their own agenda at these events?
Posting a list of organisations that supposedly represent different political strategies doesn’t encourage a debate about political organisation. What is it about them that’s offers advantages over “Leninism”? In this debate about the relevance of Leninism, just saying that it’s shit without setting out a credible alternative IS carping from the sidelines. What have all your achievements got to do with this specific debate about the relevance of Leninism?
Anonymous Ray says, ‘Posting a list of organisations that supposedly represent different political strategies doesn’t encourage a debate about political organisation’. One of the methods of debate and argument is to present examples and compare and contrast them. This has been going on for about 3000 years. As someone who inherited this tradition, Marx was especially keen on it. Anonymous Ray isn’t.
Perhaps you couldn’t be arsed to read the bit of my previous post about what ex-members of the SWP are doing. I think you’ll find there that the phrase ‘just saying it’s shit’ is the very opposite of my point there. I’m beginning to think, Anonymous Ray, that you don’t really read what people are saying to you, so my conclusion is that you are a hoax. I suspect that every time you post, someone else leaves the SWP and those who remain flinch with embarrassment at the what you write in their name. I suspect therefore, you are indeed a hedge fund manager from UKIP and to tell the truth, I don’t think I should be discussing radical left politics with a hedge fund manager from UKIP anymore.
Another over the top denunciation which is best forgotten! Let’s go down through your list. Take Counterfire for example, what is it you think they’ve got right in comparison to “Leninist” organisations? As I pointed out many posts ago debate only works when you actually do the comparing and contrasting instead of posting favourite lists.
OK Ray – let’s go through the problems with your method of argumentation.
1. You make the assumption that everyone who has left the SWP has done so in order to embrace either ‘reformism’ or ‘autonomism’ – although since you also seem to regard the latter as a form of the former its not clear what the distinction is. But this is wrong. The majority of comrades who have left still regard themselves as revolutionaries, they simply no longer believe that the SWP is ‘the’ revolutionary party, or has the capacity to become it. You may disagree – you clearly do – but no member of RS21 (or indeed Mike Rosen) is making a reformist argument, that’s not why we left. (Indeed, my own position on the Labour Party is actually harder than the SWP leadership’s since I doubt that the former can even be described any longer as a Social Democratic organisation – although I accept this may an ultra-left deviation :)).
2. You apply a double standard in assessing reformist parties and the SWP. The former you condemn, quite rightly, because they have failed to bring about socialism through parliament. But the SWP and other Leninist parties (and it’s not clear whether you think there are any Leninist parties outside the IST) are not condemned for failing to achieve the revolution. At one level, of course, it would be unfair to do so, since revolutions are not initiated by revolutionary parties but by the working class and the oppressed. So let’s set the bar lower: why is the SWP so still so small, and shrinking, after being in existence in one form or another for 65 years? Perhaps comrades haven’t sold enough papers? Could it be our old pal ‘unfavourable objective circumstances’? But the circumstances have varied enormously during that time and at several points – not just 1968-1975 – they have been very favourable indeed. In any case, its not much of an argument for the ‘success’ of a party if you endlessly claim that you haven’t grown because conditions weren’t right – surely the point of an effective organisation is to overcome these difficulties, but the SWP has blown every opportunity for consistent growth its been presented with – and I say this as someone who is quite convinced of the epochal significance of the ANL and – to a lesser extent – of StW.
3. You keep talking about ‘Leninism’ as if we all know what that is; but the fact that we don’t is precisely (one of) the points at issue. As several contributors to this thread have already pointed out, ‘Leninism’ is construct which followed VIL’s death – a product of the so-called ‘Bolshevisation’ of the Comintern from 1924. Unfortunately, this is the model (monolithic leadership, etc.) which was adopted by most Trotskyist organisations – except the International Socialists. Cliff’s books on Lenin are highly tendentious accounts (‘Lenin volume 1’ should actually be called ‘Cliff volume 1’) designed to justify the model he wanted (and succeeded) in having adopted in 1976. Unless you simply mean that ‘Leninism’ is ‘whatever the SWP leadership says it is’ you can’t keep throwing the term around without explaining what you mean by it.
4. Democratic centralism perhaps? Fine – but if that just means, ‘first we discuss, then we decide, then we act – together’, you’ll forgive me for not being bowled over by theory’s wisdom. I am in favour of what I’ve just summarised, but it does rather leave certain issues unresolved. Who decides – the whole membership or delegates? How often do decisions get made? In what circumstances can they be overturned? Do groups of members have equal rights with the leadership to promote alternative positions or do the latter use the apparatus to enforce their views? What level of decision making can be devolved to regions or sub-nations where conditions might be different from London? Is there a balance in the leadership between full-timers and workers/students? And so on. The formula of ‘democratic centralism’ is meaningless and can involve all sorts of totally undemocratic practices unless these very concrete questions – and others – are answered.
5. Finally, the problem with both the tone and content of your many contributions to this site is their quasi-religious tone: the Truth has been Revealed, the questions have all been answered, in fact, there are no new questions because the world has apparently remained the same since…well, when exactly did time stop? 1985? 1973? 1917? Do you really think that the working class and its forms of consciousness are the same today as they were in (say) 1979, and if they are not, how could the same forms of organisation be appropriate? I have no doubt that some conclusions that Marxists have reached over the years are and will remain true – the need to overthrow the state, the contradictory nature of working-class consciousness, and the necessity for rank and file trade unionism among others- but these are starting points for us: the point is, how can we most effectively be revolutionaries, Leninists if you like, in our time, nor Lenin’s or Cliff’s.
As I pointed out, there is no evidence that you are a member of any organisation anywhere. It’s quite possible that you are a computer generated text producing mash-ups taken from old articles. The more you post, the less likely it is that you exist.
So why reply then? There’s no evidence that you’re the real Michael Rosen and perhaps a Baudrillardian simulation which he would argue is the real nature of online presence. You don’t seem to have a problem with online anonymity if is agrees with your perspective but when it doesn’t, instead of actually having a debate, you resort to accusations of bad faith. Perhaps the next time you’re at a meeting maybe you should take names, full bio’s and demand name tags as you have here before you have a debate?
Hi Neil, great response!
1. I’ve never argued that you’ve all become reformists or autonomists. I’ve responded to a debate about the relevance of so-called, “Leninism”, which I’m very much aware is a post-Lenin concept that has been used to legitimise a variety of political strategies. I’m arguing for the relevance of a revolutionary party as conceived by Lenin in contemporary circumstances. I’ve never heard anyone on the CC argue that the SWP is ‘the’ revolutionary party so I’m not sure how that’s relevant. Perhaps you know Michael well, I’ve never moved in the upper circles of the British far left or published a book, but his position on alternative forms of organisaqtion, based on forum posts, is about as clear as mud. I think the analogy he makes between the CPGB in 1957 and the current CC is specious.
2. If I understand your second point correctly then I’m not allowed to criticise reformism because the SWP hasn’t led a revolution? Surely that would mean we should ignore Luxemburg and other socialists who didn’t overthrow capitalism but were critical of reformism? Benjamin was very critical of reformism but failed to lead a revolution. So I’m in good company then!
Concerning the size of the SWP, well it did grow at certain points, around the same time Benn narrowly lost the deputy leadership election but what happened to the Labour left since then? Pretty much what happened to all left groups in the UK. They shrunk! This is not down to just “unfavourable objective circumstances” but subjective factors so why is it that the revolutionary party is an anachronism but not other parts of the left? The fortunes of the international left has changed over the last 65 years and are at a pretty low ebb in the UK right now so perhaps we should just give up based on that truism?
3. Leaving aside your highly tendentious account of Cliff. The recent articles on “Leninism” in the ISJ clearly set out a conception of it that I agree with. You may not agree with that model of organisation any longer and support a different one but it’s there set out in 1 & 0’s and print. These articles critique other left strategies in relation to that model. Now you may claim that they distort Lenin’s ideas, need updating somehow or are a misrepresentation of other forms of organisation but if so what are your alternatives?
4. This question is about proposing all the things you list and then putting them to the vote. Those who left the SWP lost that vote and chose to leave. What is the point of democratic centralism if a minority refuses to accept a majority decision? You have every right to be critical of that decision and presumably still are but once again, what are your alternatives and why weren’t they convincing? Claiming that this was because SWP members are mindless drones who’ll believe anything the CC feeds them, as some on the sectarian left do, is another convenient but unconvincing argument which, sadly, pops up in some of the posts in this and other threads about “Leninism” on this forum.
5. On the one hand you complain that I blame the state of the left on objective factors while on the other you ask me whether I think the consciousness of workers has changed. It’s pretty clear from my posts that I think the two are related but I don’t agree with the analysis that the working class has changed so significantly that a revolutionary party is now an anachronism.
Regarding the “truth” as you call it, your claim that I’m not open to different forms of organisation or alternative political strategies to the ones the SWP proposes is really a version of the “drone” canard. It doesn’t follow that having a standpoint on something prohibits a change of thinking. I’m open to new ideas, if they’re credible. If you want to convince people that you have discovered a new “truth” tailor made for the new millennium then what is it and how effective is it in practice? The argument that we’re in transition so we can’t even conceive of it yet or that we need to run focus groups with workers and the rest of the left until they come up with a solution, that is sometimes used in these debates, is pretty convenient but not very convincing.
Having been involved with the Occupy movement in the UK, as I’m sure some in RS21 were, it was evident to me that they weren’t waiting for revolutionaries to come up with a plan (with or without consultation) because those leading these movements had already formed a strategy. We want to work with others on the left and those activists who hate capitalism (but don’t even identify themselves as of the left) but there’s a hegemonic struggle over ideas happening at the moment and the risk of underplaying revolutionary ideas to appease conservative elements of these movements is always a temptation. I think Counterfire has made this mistake. I hope RS21 don’t go down that road.
Hello Neil (real person)
Below I’m responding to your points in the order you put them
1. You are of course quite right to address the mind-set of ‘there is no alternative’. However, this is complicated by the fact that there is a group of people who say, ‘we are not saying “there is no alternative” who then go on to act precisely along the lines of “there is no alternative”! Whether this is a cunning dodge or a lack of self-awareness, we may never know. Either way, the result is the same: no real discussion or argument on the matter is possible. So, yes, in practice, there are people, the Anonymous Ray being an example, who sound as if they are eclectic but in reality, their whole politics is tied into ‘there is no alternative’. The origins of this can be found – and I guess we all have to face up to this – in the rhetorical style of Marx and Lenin when dealing with those who they thought were getting it wrong. This style is very absolutist, claiming (as we know) to be ‘scientific’ and often involves ‘eliminating’ other arguments and the like. How many times have you heard people saying e.g. ‘we were really “hard” on him over that one” or “I went in hard on that” or “I flattened him on that one”. I was stunned to read in one of the transcripts how Alex tried to publicly humiliate Ian Birchall with some kind of joke about what Cliff had said about him. In the transcripts of the discussions at the time of Hungary and the Minority Report in the CPGB, it’s grimly ironic to read people speaking in this tone of voice, being ‘hard’ on others in order to defend the tanks going in to Hungary or indeed anything and everything to do with the CP..
2. If you look back at this thread or indeed any discussion which tries to address the inability of the SWP (or indeed any Leninist or democratic centralist parties) to achieve what they want to achieve, you will hardly ever find any analysis which looks at any possibility that the notion of ‘the Party’ or indeed of the current leadership of ‘the Party’ can be at fault. You will read screeds (and I have) of analyses explaining why this or that other movement fails, misleads, goes nowhere. But if you ever dare say, that by the same criteria (i.e. failure/success) , can’t this be levelled at your party, your group, your organisation???, you will get hands over the ears and la la la. There is an inbuilt system of thinking which says, ‘we have the right organisation because everyone else is getting it wrong’. So, quite obviously when, in this case, the SWP got it wrong, there is bafflement and obfuscation. Anonymous Ray can only keep alluding to the idea that the matter has been dealt with.
3. If you keep challenging the sacred cow of ‘Leninism’ – or even worse – start getting post-structuralist about it, Anonymous Ray and others will get very nasty with you. The glossary of quasi-marxist terms of abuse will be thrown at you, as if that will settle matters. Sadly, the stereotypes about us all on the radical left being quasi-religious and how we use texts in much the same way as Christian exegesis does, has some truth in it. We treat these as ‘authorities’, we cite them in order to ‘flatten’ others. Ultimately, as you suggest, the proof is in the pudding. Or the pudding is in the proof. What is really bizarre to read throughout our history is that the fundamentalist certainties go hand in hand with so many abject failures, inability to grow, missed opportunities, and, ultimately, a real inability to succeed even in the one thing of being able to circulate socialist and marxist ideas – let alone increase activism. Just think, the TUC produced an excellent document which shows how, since Thatcher, there has been a major shift in wealth between capital and labour. This is pure class war stuff – absolute meat and potatoes for the socialist movement. Collectively, the radical left has been unable to raise the stakes on this. At the heart of this, sits an avatar like Anonymous Ray talking as if all’s well on the good ship Marxist Leninist Democratic Centralist SWP – an organisation, let’s remember, that couldn’t even deal with an allegation of sexual harassment or rape allegedly committed by one of its leading members – and then can’t analyse why or how that could have come about. It cannot and will not analyse the question of ‘power’ and ‘authority’ in its own organisation because that is non-marxist or even ‘foucauldian’. When challenged, Anonymous Ray et al will say that there is no issue of ‘power’, everyone is elected, it all goes to a vote etc etc. But as you and others have pointed out, the power is ossified through methods such as the ‘slate’ (see CPGB the ‘panel’) and the unaccountable presence and behaviour of full-timers (see CPGB for the same problem). Of course the matter of ‘power’ and ‘authority’ is always denied – another version of ‘We never say ‘there is no alternative’ but there is de facto no alternative’!) – even as someone like avatar Anonymous Ray talks of ‘upper circles of the British far left’! There is no issue of ‘power’ but little me, the avatar, is not like the ‘big’ ‘upper’ people. What a give-away of how authoritarian mind-sets (derived from capitalist ideology) are reproduced within hierarchical organisations – whether they be football clubs, industry, churches, or marxist, leninist, democratic centralist parties! The problem with Galloway or John Rees is not what the SWP said they were, ‘power-mad’ or ‘egotistical’ and the like. It was that, at that particular moment, they weren’t ‘our’ ‘power-made egotists’
4. Neil, you’re making a terrible mistake to challenge avatar Anonymous Ray by citing alternative examples of how democracy might work. You are breaking the the avatar’s rule: ‘We are not saying “there is no alternative” but there is no alternative’. Remember, there is rump trump. The rump trump is ‘we won the vote’. If ever for a moment this causes you to waver, remember that the CPGB exec (stuffed with full-timers) in 1957 said exactly the same about Hungary and the Minority Report. “We won the vote, therefore we are right. We are right therefore we won the vote.” End of.
5. There is some dangerous and frightening stuff in what you’re saying in this section. You’re talking about ‘change’ and also suggesting that some new tools might be necessary to tackle it…I would highlight a) the success of capitalism to sell itself…we know now that capitalism can sell itself as extremely desirable even as it prevents millions from having the very things that make it desirable. It wins allegiance to itself both through the products it sells and the huff and puff that is used to sell them (the ad and promotion business). We had thought in the 1960s that a lack of being able to buy what I want would create anger, dissidence and revolt. More often than not, it hasn’t. Somehow the suggestion that one day you might have what you desire is sufficient to keep people’s allegiance. b) the effect of personal debt – whether through loans or mortgages is massive. People are easily frightened by this. Livelihoods and living standards depend on personal debts, so that we are perpetually in a submissive position to those who lend. They have power over us. This ties us into the system extremely powerfully. It is finance capital’s equivalent of the landlord at your door. I have very rarely seen an analysis of how this operates on us to guarantee our submission. The purely workerist view fails to see that many workers are now in debt (where in Marx’s time, say, they weren’t). Even a straight forward matter of ‘will you or won’t you strike? will also be a question ‘will you or won’t you risk jeopardising your payments to e.g. the mortgage company, the loan company). With ideology upping the stakes on what ‘your home’ and ‘your car’ means in terms of your identity, this makes collective action a matter of will I won’t I jeopardise my identity! c) Education has a powerful role to play in creating passivity. I have argued for some years now that there are two key spheres of education – a) cultural transmission through ‘knowledge’ and b) behaviour management through punishment systems, authority systems and examinations. These all teach passivity through the very fact that most of it happens in an unquestioned and unquestionable way – it all appears to be ‘natural’. What’s worse, the hierarchies appear not to be created by the system but by you the participant! If I fail or I am ‘naughty’ that is ‘my’ fault. The fact that these systems draw up the thresholds for which there must be people below, who are failing, is displaced on to the individual. I think that millions of people take this passivity into life.
None of this is to preach despair. It is rather to say that all this requires a) analysis and b) discussion of how can it be opposed. Turning out a newspaper which doesn’t address it on the grounds that it is only through action in the workplace which will equip people with the means to know that they can oppose…etc etc is not enough. It may be a necessary condition but it’s clearly not a sufficient one – unless you subscribe to the avatar Anonymous Ray’s view that it’s all going as well as can be expected.
One of the answers – and it is only one – is a cultural matter. The radical left at times finds it hard to see itself as ‘cultural’. Newspapers, meetings, conferences are artefacts. The process of making them is not that much different from making anything that we regard as cultural like a piece of theatre or a poem. So, consider a 25 year old making her way through the world choosing bits of culture, having culture presented to her, often but not always in the context of stuff produced with billions of pounds of investment. Alternatively, she goes to, let’s say, Glastonbury, or a local pub cabaret or buys some music online. How does the meeting, newspaper or conference look alongside these things? Or indeed, the Party? What will it offer that will be equally interesting? How will it reach that person?
One problem is that the more ‘political’ the cultural artefacts of political organisations are, the less they feel like the cultural stuff that people choose. And yet, we say, that it’s the political stuff that will make them ‘political’. Meanwhile, over and over again, we read or hear of people who were themselves turned on to politics because of (as Pat Stack always used to say) Bob Dylan or the Arctic Monkeys or the Coen Brothers etc etc.
I have no answers here other than to observe the mismatches (and missed opportunities) going on here. Now, irony of ironies, Martin Smith clearly understood this. The reason why I was glad to support LMHR was precisely because of its cultural politics and its political culture. I don’t need to describe the mixture of disappointment and – I think I can use the word – betrayal, that followed events. And I hasten to say, that is NOT because I have automatically deemed anyone guilty. But entirely because of the way the allegations were handled, not handled and have now supposedly been put to bed, and ‘dealt with’.
The problem is there is no real debate in the SWP. There was no democratic debate on rejecting the politics of Tony Cliff, it was just decided to do this in private discussions of the leadership. A very good example of this is in the current edition of the ISJ (!44). The lead article is “The Case of the Disappearing Lenin” by Kevin Corr and Gareth Jenkins. The article puts a defence of Lenin against a Canadian Marxist scholar called Lars Lih.
Whilst I would agree with the general argument, it includes a ridiculous denial of the writings of Cliff on Lenin, (whilst at the same time managing to suggest that Cliff would agree with the authors).
Corr/Jenkins argue:
“The notion of “aggressive unoriginality” underlies Lih’s revisionist understanding of the significance of Lenin’s 1917 April Theses. In the activist interpretation, the Theses mark a sharp break from “old Bolshevism” and a rearming of the party that would make the October Revolution possible. It was a “bending of the stick” that faced even greater resistance than that put up by the committee-men in 1905.
(OK so far!)
(But now they start to loose it)
Lih rejects this, arguing that the *most famous of historical narratives” in which Lenin “arrives” in April, the Bolsheviks “are baffled with his new vision”, he “faces them down” and then, after a month’s debate, “everyone gets on board the new line” is simply wrong. Mutual misunderstandings and questions of timing apart, there was general agreement on the basic message, which was to “protect the revolution, respond to the national crisis, carry out the basic programme of the revolution.”
There was not “general agreement” on the basic message. Whilst you can criticise Lih on the tone he uses, his basic argument is correct.
In Lenin, Volume 2, Chapter 7, “Lenin Rearms the Party” Cliff explains what happened when Lenin arrived at the Finland Station.
Lenin said the Soviet manifesto bragged to Europe about the successes it had achieved. It spoke of the revolutionary force of democracy, of total political liberty. “But what kind of force was this, when the imperialist bourgeoise was at the head of the country? What kind of political liberty, when the secret diplomatic documents were not published and we couldn’t publish them? What kind of freedoms of speech, when all the printing facilities were in the hands of the bourgeoisie, and guarded by a bourgeois government! The revolutionary-defencist Soviet led by opportunists and social-patriots could only be an instrument of the bourgeois. We don’t need a parliamentary republic, we don’t need bourgeois democracy, we don’t need any government except the Soviet of Worker’s, Soldier’s and Farm-labourer’s Deputies.”
The next day at a joint meeting of Bolsheviks, Mensheviks and independents, the Menshevik Bogdanov called Lenin a raving madman. I.P. Goldenberg, a former member of the Bolshevik Central Committee and soon to join the Mensheviks, said Lenin was supporting Bakunin and anarchism. Only Kollontai (a recent Menshevik) supported him, which drew general mockery and laughter.
Four days later The Theses was published in Lenin’s name alone: not one Bolshevik organisation, or group, or even individual had joined him. And the editors of Pravda for their part thought it necessary to emphasise Lenin’s isolation and their independence of him. ‘As for Lenin’s general scheme,’ wrote Pravda, ‘it seems to us unacceptable in so far as it proceeds from the assumption that the bourgeois democratic revolution is finished and counts on the immediate conversion of that revolution into a socialist revolution.’
The Bolsheviks originally expected the Russian revolution to be a bourgeois democratic revolution led by the proletariat and peasantry.
Lenin did not change his opinion that the revolution would be to end Tsarism and Feudalism until after the revolution of February 1917.
Lenin argued:
“We have side by side, existing together, simultaneously, both the rule of the bourgeoisie (the government of Lvov and Guchkov) and a revolutionary-democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry which is voluntarily ceding power to the bourgeoise, voluntarily making itself an appendage of the bourgeois.
The ‘Old Bolshevik’ formula was bankrupt with the existence of dual power. Kamenev tried to argue for the old theory, which in practice meant chaining the worker’s to the bourgeois government.
As Cliff states, “Lenin had repeatedly to learn from experience, to overcome his own ideas of yesterday; he had to learn from the masses.
Kamenev, Goloshchekin, Shliapnikov, Zinoviev and Stalin on the Central Committee all originally opposed the April Theses.
Again Cliff:
“The Proletarian mass often sensed sooner than the leaders the real objective situation and the needs of the class. It was part of Lenin’s greatness that he shared this sense, and found the courage to tell the truth, however unpopular: telling the truth is at the heart of revolutionary politics.”
Party members, chiefly from the Vyborg District, had argued for opposition to the war and for Soviet power. If the Bolshevik Party had been made up of docile rank-and-file members led by an omniscient leader, the whole rearming of the party in April could not have arisen.
Trotsky wrote:
“Had I not been present in 1917 in Petersburg, the October Revolution would still have taken place – on the condition that Lenin was present and in command. If neither Lenin nor I had been present in Petersburg, there would have been no October revolution: the leadership of the Bolshevik Party would have prevented it from occurring – of this I have not the slightest doubt!”
On a slightly different subject, it is not the case that changes to the make up of the class rule out revolutionary change, it is the role played by the trade union bureaucracy holding it back. The role of revolutionary socialists should be to express that desire for a fighback regularly shown by votes for strike action by worker’s which are then sold out by trade union leaders (as happened just last week). The problem is the lack of confidence generally of worker’s to take action independently of the union leadership. That independent action needs to be encouraged, not replaced by acting as a ginger group to the bureaucracy.
I hope that avatar Anonymous Ray can leap to the defence of why the SWP is suing some students for libel. Presumably the odious bourgeois justice system that couldn’t be trusted to investigate a rape allegation in the case of Comrade Delta CAN be trusted when it comes to suing some students. Here’s a link which is an attempt to analyse what’s going on. I, for one, would be interested to see what others think….
https://livesrunning.wordpress.com
Oh yes, and here’s another one for the avatar Anonymous Ray to consider:
http://grimanddim.org/political-writings/2014-letter-to-socialist-worker/
Now why wouldn’t it be published, I wonder….???
Taking into consideration that this is a thread on RS21 forum about Leninism I don’t think it’s appropriate to respond to unsubstantiated gossip about a completely different issue. Needless to say I don’t think the solution to resolving disputes on the left is to support the banning of left groups on campus.
1. Avatar Anonymous Ray, you have responded. 2. It’s not ‘completely different’, as it’s ‘Leninism’ in practice – of sorts. 3. Only the Edinburgh students seemed in favour of banning. Not David Renton.
I was not familiar with this case until Michael’s post. After a quick search on the internet, apparently, the FemSoc recently banned Kirsty Haigh, a former ESUA VPS, for violating “safe space” without explaining to her why or allowing her to challenge this decision. Haigh’s case was not the first incidence of this happening. I’ve no idea about her politics but what I gathered from my search was that Haigh was instrumental in the campaign to make ESUA the first SU to ban ‘Blurred Lines’ on campus and she’s supported student occupations and the lecturer’s strike. At the beginning of this year The Humanist Society lost a (well meaning?) motion to ban any form of segregation on UofE campus due to concerns that it might promote Islamophobia. The blog, ‘Students Rights’ (“tackling extremism on campuses”), is now trying to resurrect this issue in connection with the proposed SWP ban.
Now this information is based purely on what I’ve discovered while reading various online Edinburgh student newspapers. But, at the very least, it suggests that there’s more going on in University of Edinburgh campus politics than meets the eye.
The avatar Anonymous Ray spectacularly misses point: no one here is supporting the ban of the SWP. What is at issue – (hey, guess what, the avatar Anonymous Ray . ignores it?!) – is the libel threat from Charlie.
Meanwhile, Grim and Dim has published the letter he sent to Socialist Worker and, to date, has not been published. Here it is:
http://grimanddim.org/political-writings/2014-letter-to-socialist-worker/
And you’ve spectacularly missed my point that before making a judgement about something I want facts rather than hearsay. While I’m not sure atm whether accusations of libel were actually made against ESUA did the SWP not support Tommy Sheridan in his defamation case against NOTW? I assume Renton was still a member at this time?
http://socialistworker.co.uk/art/9223/Statement+on+Tommy+Sheridans+libel+victory
As for the tendentious letter that SW failed to publish – I’m not surprised! I don’t agree that IB’s status, having a book published like you, automatically commands publication.
Of course the avatar Anonymous Ray would think it inappropriate to publish Ian Birchall’s letter. If you think that either I or Ian would think that a letter from either of us should be published because we’ve published books, then once again, you reveal your own personal problems with ‘authority’. One moment, a few posts back, it was the phantasm to do with what you think are higher levels of the left and now you imagine that there are people who think that they are entitled to be heard because they have published books. Something murky going on in the avatar’s mind there about tugging of forelocks, cow towing, grovelling and the like. Next thing, you’ll be saying that the ‘slate’ (‘panel’ in CPGB of 1957) system is a great way to run a ‘radical left’ organisation.
Ian, of course, can speak for himself – but I suspect that he felt that decades of work for IS and then SWP meant that he had some perspectives that people would be interested to hear. But in the true tradition of the CPGB of 1957, a person who criticises (using their experience) must become a non-person. One moment a person is a ‘senior member’ and is cited with regularity, and asked to produce articles at the drop of a hat, and the next they are annulled and extirpated. The feebleness of this approach to intellectual life is staggering – it’s the ultimate in ad hominem approaches to the world of ideas.
As for this libel/not libel affair, I personally can’t think why either the Edinburgh students or Dave Renton would lie about it. The avatar Anonymous Ray can.
The Birchall letter was interesting in that he seemed to think that the key way to judge whether the SWP is willing to work with others etc is not by reference to say anti racism, anti fascism, Palestine solidarity, inside the unions etc but crucially whether the newspaper publishes a letter by himself which he had already posted as wide as possible. There is a slight sense of inflated ego and a wayward sense of what indicates an organisation will work with others. Birchall appears to think he is the acid test but unfortunately for him he isn’t.
On the Edinburgh stuff. The SWP has alongside many other opposed the use of no platform except in the case of fascists. This is very specific for reasons I am sure people agree with. When this is then used against a revolutionary left organisation it should raise significant alarm bells. Who will be next…The Islamic society? Pro Palestinian societies , etc etc this is ABC. One look at France and how the left got it so wrong in relation to Islamaphobia and how the far right are gaining strength should be a lesson to us all.
When those trying to ban the SWP are saying lies and there is no right to reply at all. What option does one have? It seems any accusation can be made and this is then peddled around the internet as fact.
No one opposed the SP taking unison to court when 4 of its members were accused of racism…oh by the way they won! And yes the union paid damages and court costs of no doubt a considerable amount. Now was it a perfect way, no, but I think they were right in that they had no other recourse open to them.
By all means don’t come to SWP meetings, you can build your own organisation etc. but to use the tactic of banning and threats of violence against a socialist organisation is frankly the politics of the ghetto. Going to court is a serious matter but it ain’t one of absolute principle.
So, let’s get this right: yet another anonymous person has come to rs21, this time to attack the named and known Ian Birchall. So, from highly esteemed veteran socialist, Birchall has descended to being some old twit with an inflated ego. Do you really, really think that Ian thinks that the sole reason why his letter is worth publishing because of who he thinks he is? He made at least two important points in his letter, neither of which, in your personal attack, have you thought to answer: i) the emptiness of the appeal for unity and ii) the ‘slate’ system (cf ‘panel’ system of the CPGB of 1950s) of perpetuating the status quo in the SWP.
Like the avatar Anonymous Ray, you’re still banging on about the SWP being banned. Yoiu’ll have noticed I’m sure that Dave Renton wasn’t defending this. Neither was I. So quite who anonymous James you think you’re talking to about this matter isn’t clear. There is only one issue at stake. Should the SWP use the threat of the libel courts?
As for your idea that the SWP hasn’t got any other means of replying, oh puhleeze! It has several journals at its disposal, could easily hold a press conference, could easily convene a meeting of fraternal organisations to draw up a kind of concordat about such matters. Yet again, an anonymous SWP-er tries the ‘there is no alternative’ boogy to end discussion. Maybe in works in anonny-land. It sure don’t work here.
Please have your identity cards ready at every meeting Michael attends! You at the back! Who the hell do you think you are contradicting him? Don’t you know he’s published a book?
Silly inconsequential nonsense isn’t it? So I don’t know what that kind of argument from Michael has got to do with challenging the no platforming of socialists or whether the SWP, which is already working with others on the left, needs to get rid of the the slate system to develop unity with others on the left. If the precondition for unity is to get rid of certain forms of political organisation that others don’t necessarily agree with then so long Labour! So long Slut Walks! So long anyone who doesn’t meet a check list of prescribed organisational forms.
The logic of Renton’s argument is that Sheridan, challenging NOTW lies in court, is the evil Goliath because NOTW was just engaging in sweet, innocent free speech that must not be suppressed. Why not the overblown outrage at broken principles when the SWP supported Sheridan at the time? As James points out, those SP comrades accused of racism by their union went to court over those lies. Unless I’m mistaken, there were no articles from Renton and Rosen expressing outrage at this decision.
In my opinion Michael is outraged that the SWP won’t take its lumps as he believes it should. That now appears to be his raison d’etre. No matter that the motion is full of lies to cultivate a pitch fork mentality towards the SWP. No matter that the organisation proposing this motion is thoroughly undemocratic in its treatment of its own members who hold different political views to the leadership. No matter that no platforming socialists opens the door to all kinds of vile racist, sexist, homophobic groups who will take advantage of this motion if successful. The means justifies the ends and to legitimise this disgraceful behaviour the issue is twisted by Renton into a condemnation of anyone on the left occasionally threatening legal action to challenge lies about themselves.
I didn’t mention Renton in my contribution, or Birchalls age for that matter. It seems impossible to make any point which disagrees with Michael Rosen without him going off the deep end. Can socialist organisations and individuals work together whilst at the same time disagreeing on a number of points? My answer is yes but Michael appears to be arguing only on the basis that you have an internal structure which he agrees with. Of course this means revolutionary organisations could never work with reformist ones at any level on any issue..think the lessons from history should tell us this approach is a terrible error.
The avatar Anonymous Ray finds that satire is not his strong point. He’ll know that people at lefty meetings are frequently asked by the chair to say who they are and where they come from. At organisations’ own meetings, everyone knows each other.
The ‘no platform’ question is not what’s being discussed here.
As for ‘anonymous James’ – oh yes, we need a lecture from him on ‘terrible errors’ ! ‘Terrible errors’…hmmm…..let me think….hmmm….ones that might result in an organisation losing members and credibility, say…hmmmm
Equating the mistakes of the swp with allowing hitler to come to power…really Michael, get a sense of perspective. Have a look around Europe and the rise of the far right!
James, the thing is you can oppose the ban on the SWP whilst thinking that the use of the law against a student newspaper publishing is a terrible abandonment of socialist principles.
And as for lies, well quite a lot of us happen to know that the allegations against Smith were true. The CC covered up what he did for two years, did nothing to those that bullied and harrassed the complainant, expelled those that tried to get justice for the complainant and lied and lied, engaged in distortion after distortion to save their pathetic hides. Its quite understandable that people don’t want them around – and quite frankly the SWP – packed as it is by Smith loyalists and an utter unprincipled leadership – is patently not a safe space and I would be very worried for people getting involved in the organisation without knowledge of whats happened.
Pat Stack founder member of rs21 said that in his view and he was on the disputes panel that even if all the allegations were true he was of the opinion it did not amount to rape. Of course this does not stop members of RS 21 putting round the rapist and rape apologist label because they know it is very damaging. You seem to have more information than Mr Stack because you claim to know the accusation of rape is true…perhaps you should discuss your great knowledge of the details of the case with Mr Stack who clearly thinks you are wrong. repeat..Mr Stack said at the conference in his view it did not amount to rape. Now, so no one goes off the deep end..the allegation is and was very serious and Stack also said he was of the view that t was conduct unbecoming of a leading member of the SWP. Now that is serious but it is not the same as Rape. It went to the procedure the SWP had at the time..that procedure was flawed hence the significant changes made..remember Stack and others voted for the changes at the last conference they were at and Stack did not if my recollection is accurate make any suggestions for additional changes..but may be wrong..none the less you seem to have more information than the then chair of the disputes cttee who sat through and heard the evidence etc. Stack did not argue for any changes to the procedure at the time of the investigation. So speak to him and tell him why he got it wrong with your certain knowledge of truth and fact. Of course Mr Stack may not be safe to be around and be banned with everyone else.
People who get up from the floor at Marxism, Historical Matrialism (and other forums), public meetings etc. etc. don’t always identify themselves and not everyone knows each other at these meetings especially as we’re not all part of a “published” elite. So I say three cheers for the “anonymous” masses and more power to your arms. We know who we are even if Michael doesn’t!
Anonymous James, for some of us the political issue is not whether someone was or was not guilty but the idiocy that a so-called revolutionary organisation thought that it could and should deliver a verdict on this matter. What Pat thinks or thought is again spectacularly beside the point. It’s the pumped up, self-elevated, arrogant view that a bunch of politicos could decide on this matter! With integrity, some of those who did at first think they could, now think they shouldn’t have.Others, like anonymous James, go on and on pumping themselves up on this shit.
re Marxism anonymous Ray. I can remember the chair on many occasions asking people to identify themselves. Don’t worry about it, you’re anonymous.
There were a number of different positions inside and outside the SWP on how to deal with the allegation of rape. Some comrades believed the disputes committee should not be involved, suggesting various ways of handling it such as referring cases like this to the police. Others believed that failures occurred because the disputes committee wasn’t robust enough to deal with it fairly for a variety of reasons. Others blamed the CC for a cover up. Others appeared to believe that any inquiry into such an allegation is prejudiced against the complainant.
There wasn’t a single position on this issue at the time and comrades on all sides spent a lot of time, effort and anguish over trying to work this out. Claiming that the solution to this issue simply required the approach Michael suggests disregards that whole process of debate regardless of how contentious it was. Many still don’t think it was resolved effectively while at the same time disagreeing with Michael’s conclusion. I don’t think it’s helpful using this debate as a vehicle for questioning the integrity of those involved.
er…the ban on SWP arose because of the way the SWP handled the allegation. That’s why it’s relevant. But though you can pass exclusions of topics as a motion in an organisation when you’re not anonymous in your own organisation you can do fuckall about it when it comes to the internet….which as we know is how the shit escaped in the first place. Yes, people disagree with how it was handled. Of course….er…that’s tautology. That’s why it resulted in disagreement and dispute….Jeez, Lenin you ain’t.
“Shit” did indeed get spread over the internet. Too bad the facts of the case didn’t get the same level of publicity. Whether no platforming socialists is based on “shit” or not that still doesn’t legitimise it.
wow – so not only did the SWP have revolutionary justice systems above and beyond bourgeois justice, anonymous Ray knows ‘the facts of the case’! Amazing! He knows the woman/women involved? He knows Delta? He was there? He knows the ‘facts’? Delusion heaped on delusion. On this basis I am looking forward to lengthy marxist analyses in SW of the various celebrity sex offences that hit the headlines…oh whoops, they’ve already come and gone without comment….now why would that be….? hmmmm
But doesn’t this apply to anonymous George then who claims above to know who was guilty etc…but you didn’t reply to that. There were some who left the SWP who thought the police should have been called ..this was despite the person not wanting to. Of course the person could still go to the police as she could have at any time, she chose not to as is her absolute right. There were some who said the accused was guilty because all accusations of rape are true which in effect would mean no disputes cttee was needed and straight expulsion, there were some who said the SWP should just not hear the allegation…now none of this is straight forward. But to pretend there was an easy answer is to ignore the different responses from those who left the organisation. The statement by tom walker that he thought it was likely that she was told not to go to the police has no basis what’s so ever…this of course has been confirmed by Stack who chaired the cttee and at no time during this period argued for the disputes cttee to be abandoned, he clearly thought that it should hear the accusation…but still it does the rounds as if it was fact when it blatantly isn’t .
The difference between anonymous George and the anonymouses Ray and James is that aG doesn’t appear to be speaking for anyone else other than himself. You two appear to be speaking for a whole organisation – another reason why your anonymity is so laughable.
Now to the substance: your ability to throw smokescreens and diffuse everything into unknown unknowns is masterful. Why you think I or anyone else should care about your smokescreen, I don’t know. My position from the start was that my trust in an organisation of which I was a willing sympathiser was shattered by a) its arrogance in thinking that it had the knowhow, personnel and right to ‘investigate’ this matter b) that it thought that it had the right procedures with which to deal with accuser and accused c) that it could not be open and honest with all-comers in giving an account of what happened nor give a marxist explanation of how it did happen d) that it thought that its ‘apology’ to all was a proper way of responding to the complainants.
Meanwhlie anonymous Ray walks about talking portentously of the ‘facts of the case’ as if he knows what they are! And anonymous James plays the ‘we did our best’ card when it’s quite clear to everyone on the outside that either the best wasn’t good enough, or that once it was clear that the best wasn’t good enough, the organisation didn’t have the will or the principle to explain how such an organisation could find that its best wasn’t good enough.
I think I should put the last more concretely: if the party thought that it was necessary to change the discipline procedures, why were they wrong in the first place? where is the analysis that explains how this could have come about?
The analysis is out there but you just don’t agree with it celebrity Michael. Perhaps it’s beyond your ken, but it’s pretty easy to distinguish between nonsense like, the SWP covered up 9 rapes and hacked email accounts and factual information. If you’re arguing that it’s all relative then that’s the kind of “shit” I think is irresponsible. For example, I make no apologies for disregarding the ultra sectarian CPGB account because their role is to intervene in any dispute on the left to exacerbate division. Meanwhile you pompously pose as judge and jury over anyone who disagrees with you but admit you don’t know all the facts. Eat a little humble pie why don’t you?
I am not speaking for the whole organisation. How do we know George is not a member of an organisation..your objection to anon postings was, it appeared in principle, so citing trade unions etc but it appears if you criticise the SWP then you are ok to do it anonymously.
Yes Michael, the procedures were not up to the kind of issue as this. Now, what if the procedures were changed without debate and conference agreeing them..and let’s say the outcome was the same..what would you be saying about that? You would be saying the SWP changed the procedures without debate and they are to be condemned. As I stated in my earlier posting Stack never once argued and I have not heard him argue since that the disputes cttee should not have heard the case. Is he arrogant? He is full of himself? Etc etc. Stack said that after the first complaint the person making the allegation left the SWP and then rejoined around 1 so the accusation peddled by Walker and some in rs21 that she was ordered not to go to the police is clearly complete bullshit.
There are people in rs21 where you regularly post who think like you, that the SWP shouldn’t have heard the case. Let’s take this as what should have happened. The allegation is made, the person does not want to go to the police. The allegation is not heard so does the organisation..
1. Expel the person without any hearing or ability to answer what they are being accused of? Therefore having an allegation made is sufficient for expulsion, does this apply to other accusations?
2 not expel the person and say to the person making the allegation, we will not do anything so you need to go to the police and if you choose not to then there will be no response from the organisation. We all are aware that many people for good reason do not want the police involved in their life etc.
I would like to know what Michael would suggest. What would happen in his organisation left unity?
anonymous Ray is now getting so tied up with his own personal problems about status and authority, I’ll leave him to stew in his own shite. anonymous james, i fully understand your need to smokescreen your need to be anonymous. That’s your problem not mine.
re the SWP procedures. Hundreds of people sympathetic to the SWP said at the time that organisations like Trade Unions do things like a) suspend the accused and b) offer help and support to the accuser. c) then wait and see. d) Yes, if there is no further case to answer, the accused usually comes back.
We don’t actually know what might have happened if this elementary system of justice had taken place because it didn’t take place!
Instead, we do know that an utterly inappropriate investigation did take place.
If you know of a link which points to a marxist explanation for why a marxist organisation which had a special expertise in the oppression of women could end up with an oppressive system of investigating a rape allegation, please give it.
ps anonymous James I’m not in Left Unity. That’s twice I’ve pointed this out on this thread.
By the way Russell Brand’s ‘Revolution’ is at number 2 on amazon.
Well the point about suspending the accused is a correct point in my view and now one of the changes made. So that criticism of the procedures is accepted. Stack never argued for this at the time and he was chair of the disputes cttee. At the conference those highly critical of the Disputes cttee stated that Stack had offered support and was praised by those close to the person making the allegation. Stack of course was acting in that supportive manner as the chair of the disputes cttee, so the accusation of no support is a debatable one. Stack outlined the support offered and how that was responded to by the person making the allegation.
The more serious dilemma comes in points c and d.
You say in point c wait and see..but wait and see for what? To see if the person making the allegation goes to the police? Well the point I raised is what, as in this case, the person making the allegation does not for understandable reasons go to the police. It seems the procedure you would have, is to say well we have waited to see what happened and no police action therefore the person accused is therefore a member as any other. So in fact a very serious accusation would see the person accused retain membership of the organisation with any hearing of any sort. This seems to me highly unsatisfactory. How in that method do we know there is no case to answer. Michaels point was that the SWP was fundamentally wrong in convening its dispute cttee in the first place. My view is that there is no easy answer for any organisation when the accusation is so serious. Were the procedures which were in place adequate,clearly not, did it have major pitfalls, yes it did. Therefore a thorough going review took place where all members had ample time and opportunity to contribute. The apology for the shortcomings of the procedure is criticised by Michael but then he would no doubt be even more critical if the organisation didn’t make an apology.
There is an interesting point however in terms of the context in the colleges. The moves to ban the SWP will not simply stay with the SWP. It will lead to attacks on Muslim students, pro Palestinian students etc etc. so what ever the disagreements Michael has and they are clearly very deep etc. the idea that banning a revolutionary organisation which is central to the anti fascist and anti racist movement in today’s world is a dreadful error. Maybe Michael will say SWP member have no right for the rest of their lives to argue a strategy or tactic is a mistake on any issue because of the procedure of the disputes cttee. Lastly, take the point about left unity, genuine misunderstanding.
Concerning the Disputes Committee. After the Respect fall out in 2009 the SWP party conference arranged a Democracy Commission to review all its structures. One of these structures was the Disputes Committee. This was an opportunity for all the membership to recommend changes to the way these structures function. The Democracy Commission report stated that:
“The DC has undertaken a substantial survey of grassroots opinion in the party, receiving many written submissions from comrades and visiting every district (where possible with two of its members) to listen to members’ opinions.”
The changes to the Dispute Committee were part of a range of changes to party structures agreed at conference at the time. In hindsight, how to handle allegations of rape or abuse and how the disputes process against a leading member should be handled should have been discussed but unfortunately this didn’t happen.
I don’t believe anyone at that time could have envisaged an allegation of this kind against a leading member and on that basis this oversight occurred. I don’t believe this oversight occurred for malicious reasons nor was it a deliberate attempt to minimise or conceal such an allegation if it should occur.
When allegations were made against a leading member some comrades at the time argued that the CC should have introduced special measures for dealing with this case. But this would have meant arbitrarily changing the disputes process without consulting the membership. The whole purpose of having a Democracy Commission was to implement members recommendations and make the CC more accountable not allow them to act autonomously.
Subsequently, after a lot of debate involving all members, changes have now been made to the disputes process – many of them recommendations made by those highly critical of the CC and the way the case was handled. The Democracy Commission was meant to address the potential fallibilities of the CC but it’s also revealed that the membership aren’t infallible either.
If there’s one prediction I can make it’s that the SWP will make mistakes in the future just as it has done in the past. Whether this is related to strategy, internal structures or other issues that there’s no way of predicting right now. I think making mistakes is part of the “Leninist” tradition not an aberration as the Stalinists would have us believe.
Concerning the claim that SW hasn’t reported the Savile case or other cases of abuse, a search of SW shows that there are articles about Savile in 2012, 2013 and 2014. SW also reported about Stuart Hall and Cyril Smith. The Rotherham case has also been covered extensively in SW recently and there’s an article about it in this months Review. There’s been an extensive debate in the ISJ about women’s oppression and the way the allegations were handled. It’s one thing to argue that we need more debate about these issues but it’s wrong to claim these issues are avoided.
I don’t know why you keep quoting Pat Stack at me. A better point of reference – and much more relevant to this whole matter – is how, prior to the crisis – were trade unions, schools, hospitals, social work workplaces etc handling disputes like this? I say that, because why would or should a socialist organisation think that it could or should have had a procedure different from these? And – in my ongoing search for theory on the matter – why or how would a political party think that it should have had a procedure that is different? And, then, having got rid of that old (bad) procedure, why would it think, simply bringing in a new procedure that is the ‘explanation’ of what was wrong? why would I, or anyone else, trust an organisation purely on the basis that it had changed its procedures, without explaining why or how it got them wrong and why the needed changing…and not in some ‘procedural’ way, but with the same kind of approach it applies to other institutions in society.
re ‘wait and see’ – yes, indeed, if ultimately, a person doesn’t follow up the allegation – whether that be through the police, or through some kind of mediated counselling INDEPENDENT of the institution or organisation – then there is nothing that can or should be done. There is no allegation. Just because the complainant wants the organisation to investigate, it doesn’t follow that the organisation has to! So, if there is no case, the suspended person is reinstated. But you can only do that if the accuser is taken sufficiently seriously in the first place by suspending the accused. That didn’t happen. He went on working in the affiliated organisations like LMHR. What is mind-boggling, is that the party behaved as if it had never heard of ‘suspension’ in such cases! Why did it behave like that? As individuals, some of the people involved have worked in organisations where ‘suspension’ would be a matter of course. Something went on in their heads which led them to think that in this case, in this situation, in this organisation, ‘suspension’ wouldn’t be necessary. What ideological/political/structural forces led them to think that?
re structure of the party and whether this is part of the problem – I have seen no ‘official’ analysis that looks to see if there was even the possibility that a structure which perpetuates the top ranks of the party, and/or perpetuates the role of full-timers, was in any way part of why the organisation could not investigate itself or criticise one of its prominent members. In concrete terms that’s about the ‘slate’ system, and it’s about the percentages of full-timers in elected positions. (see Minority Report of CPGB 1957 for exactly these two questions.)
re the apology. The problem with the apology was that it was Dreyfus-like. I haven’t got the wording in front of me but the apologising was equalised to all parties concerned. But as the handling of the matter as regards the complainants was not good enough, and because, according to the organisation’s own account of how oppression works in society, equalising the matter is itself oppressive i.e. part of the problem not part of the solution.
re the coverage of Savile, Hall, Cyril Smith etc – I wasn’t clear. I didn’t mean to say that it wasn’t reported on. I meant that there hasn’t been the customary marxist analysis of how or why such things happen. These incidents involve individuals with a power and celebrity within institutions. (Rotherham is a different matter). There have been accounts of police cover-ups and institutional ‘looking the other way’ etc. but that’s not a structural ‘explanation’ that we would have seen in the past. I would suggest that a marxist analysis of power and celebrity in such matters would enable the party to throw some light on how it got itself into such a pickle itself on this very same matter.
re the no platforming – again, I have no idea why this keeps coming up in a conversation with me. I didn’t defend no platforming. Nor did Dave Renton in the original article. That was querying why Charlie Kimber had, it was alleged, threatened students with ‘libel’ action. We can ask then, is it appropriate for the left to threaten other parts of the left with legal action? See Dave’s article on that. If you want to start a thread here about the issue of ‘no platforming’ then why not offer it to rs21’s editors?
The issue of no platformi is raised not because I think you are in favour of it but this is what is being proposed and the current context. If you think it is an absolute principle that socialists never ever go to the courts in any circumstances then you should outline the reasons. I think I cited before SP members going to court re expulsion from UNISON and being called racists. Now that is a hard decision and should not be taken lightly and if it was such an outrageous breach of socialist principle perhaps you could give us your reasons in that case. When lies are told repeatedly about an organisation and the organisation telling those lies are going to use them to ban you what the hell do you do? Perhaps at least some of your fire should be against people banning a socialist organisation?
Onto the more substantive point. You say outside organisation could mediate. It would be useful if you are more concrete. Do you mean an outside organisation would make a judgement on guilt or innocence? Would any outside organisation get involved in a dispute over the internal matters of the SWP or any other political organisation for that matter? I know of none which would entertain such an idea. You mention counselling, how does this for an organisation get to a conclusion. My understanding of counselling is completely different to that envisaged by yourself. What counselling service would take this sort of work? Again I know of no counselling service that would in effect adjudequate on internal matters of theSWP.. Your view really amounts to if the person doesn’t go to the police then no action should be taken. Just imagine if theSWP had done that! Now, the issue about suspension is I would suggest accepted by the SWP as a mistake in the procedures, it was said the accused was suspended from paid work for the party but would agree with you it should have been from membership. If, god forbid, anything like this was to happen again the suspension from membership would be the course that would be taken. I am not saying the procedure were ok they were flawed. That however is very very different to saying there was a cover up etc. I mention Stack because he was the chair of the disputes cttee and has left the organisation and set up rs21 etc where some members call the SWP rape apologists etc and am just highlighting that he played a pivotal role in the procedure and was like everyone else I suspect struggling to get to grips with such a difficult situation. Stack did not argue for his suspension and therefore was like everybody else working with flawed procedures etc. it was a mistake and would not happen again.
I repeat, I am not going to get into the no platform debate on this thread. Start a new thread on that.
There really is no need to sound so incredulous about how the SWP could and should have behaved. Hundreds of institutions and organisations knew prior to the events in the SWP how to behave and to behave better than they did. I have heard of circumstances where independent mediation was helpful. Unlike the anonymous Ray, I don’t know the ‘facts’ of the cast’ (!). In some circumstances – GIVEN THAT THE ACCUSED WAS SUSPENDED – an outside mediation can sometimes…sometimes…sometimes resolve aspects of a case. I have no idea why you’re being so simplistic as to think this is about apportioning guilt and the rest. Surely I don’t need to spell out circumstances where two people can with safety and assurance resolve certain kinds of dispute so that both parties feel the matter is resolved???!!!! What strange sheltered life have you and your pals been living in where you cannot imagine or conceive of such a thing?! Why do you imagine that somehow the SWP is some kind of lone, pioneering organisation trying to figure this thing out? Thousands of people all over the world do this sort of thing better than you guys did it. I repeat, what you can’t and won’t address is the SWP chose not to do what other organisations have been doing for years. That’s the real politics.
If procedures worked out by people wiser than a tiny left organisation could muster had been followed, the organisation could have emerged with credit and trust. Instead your organisation was arrogant enough to think it could do better. Where’s the analysis on why it thought it could?
Instead, you pose alternatives (as always) as if they are the only alternatives. They weren’t then. And they aren’t now. Trying to pin me to the logic of your alternatives really is pointless. The alternatives were available to the SWP at the time. You need to figure out why they couldn’t and wouldn’t use them. The outcomes if those alternatives had been pursued can’t be predicted for the simple reason – as any analysis of oppression should tell you – because the accusers didn’t feel (in the jargon) ‘safe’ or ‘contained’ by the organisation. That’s because the accused was protected by the organisation by not suspending him. I suggest that rather than talking to me about it, coming up with hypotheticals, you could look at a book on the subject, written by people who’ve tried finding decent ways of handling these matters for years. Then you could try to figure out – given that this information has been around for decades – why it is that your organisation refused to use this expertise. You could even write an article on it as a service to your own organisation.
It really is staggering reading you and others floundering around in an area which has decades of professional experience, trying to second guess what could or would or should have happened. Face up to it: marxist leninists don’t know everything about everything. What’s more, when they get together in organisations – guess what – they behave like a lot of other people behave in organisations – particularly when it comes to protecting its senior members.
‘case’ not ‘cast’ re ‘facts of the case’ …apols
Concerning Savile, Rotherham etc. there has been a “marxist” analysis of why this occurred. Have you read any of the numerous articles about these issues?
Concerning the way the case was handled, instead of generalising about how other organisations deal with these allegations so much better give concrete examples. The whole point of getting this right in future is about learning from others so if you’re claiming that some kind of arbitration service involving counselling is necessary then what is this and how would it work in practice? I’ve never heard of any organisation using that method to handle allegations of rape against a member of staff, including the NHS. Rape Crisis is a counselling and support service that exists in England and Wales but is an independent organisation. Any organisation can refer to them and individuals can refer themselves.
In cases of suspected child abuse, domestic violence, self harm, allegations of rape, drug use among service users in the NHS there is a statutory responsibility to refer the case to other agencies such as social services and the police. In each case the decision is made by the team providing the care. These organisations are then supposed to work together to develop a joint care plan that is not only in the interests of the service user but also their partners and dependants who might be at risk.
That is a concrete example of how one organisation handles complex cases such as allegations of rape. This way of working is not used by all organisations including trade unions and political parties when handling allegations of rape. The point I’m making is that a disputes process can take many forms and unless there’s a clear idea about why certain procedures are being implemented rather than being based on the wild generalisations of one individual on a blog then the flaws in that process will just be perpetuated in a different form.
Am I missing something here? I’m telling you that there WERE alternatives to what the SWP did. Then you are telling me there WERE alternatives to what the SWP did. Then I am saying the point however is why NONE of those alternatives were used and what was used was WORSE.
could you put up a link for a marxist analysis of Savile, Hall or Smith. NOT Rotherham.
Michael, where have I said marxist leninists always get it right?
You have suggested mediation in relation to an allegation of rape. I have never known in all my years where this has happened in relation to an accusation of rape. If you can give one example from say the trade union movement then it would helpful to know. Mediation seems to me to be about finding a way opposing parties can move on. Well surely this is not applicable to accusations of rape. I have not heard the arguement to go to arbitration from any other person involved in the very long arguement which took place inside the SWP so maybe it’s not so obvious or as straight forward as you portray. It is acknowledged and recognised that suspension should have happened. The review of the complaints procedure was wide ranging and indeed did look into how trade unions deal with such matters. I am not aware of any trade union if a member of its staff were accused of rape would suggest mediation. If you could provide a link to a union that does that it would again be helpful. I have been involved in the labour movement for some time and do not lead a sheltered life etc so I am interested if it is common for unions to use mediation in relation to accusations of rape.
and on closer reading, having explained to me why mediation isn’t possible, you explain to us that it is. But you’ll remember that what actually took place was a) no suspension and b) interrogation of accuser. Fail, fail. And that from people who knew of alternatives but chose not to use them. Why? Where is the marxist analysis of why they chose not to use them? Link please. And why, if that was wrong, how come it was right once and then became wrong? Marxist analysis please. Link please.
In the meantime, could you explain to potential recruits (like me, in theory) how the slate system works, and what the regs are on full-timers being on committees. And the marxist explanation for these two rules.
Possible cenario, James…after the waiting time, and suspension…the accuser doesn’t go on with accusation. Organisation suggests under no obligation to either party supported INDEPENDENT mediation to help resolve the issue. OK?
‘scenario’ not ‘cenario’
….and if it was wrong not to have suspended the accused, why, even though this was a known and accepted procedure, wasn’t it used? (marxist analysis please).
(forget the mediation, if it’s causing you high blood pressure, and you want to sound terribly knowledgable – even though the knowledge doesn’t seem to have been used at the time…)
Michael
You presented what you said was a self evident course of action. I simply enquired what your response was to some queries. You stated that mediation and counselling should have been brought in to resolve the issue. I simply raised what I thought were real problems with such an approach. You have not responded to any of these points. So if you think mediation and counselling was such an obvious way to proceed and was commonly used in the labour movement asking for examples of the common practices should have been too difficult to respond to. Your only response is to say the person making the allegation may after time and suspension stop making the accusation and then the person who is the accused returns to party membership. So in this scenario no investigation has been undertaken. Also what if the person does not wish to remove the allegation of rape..what then?
I would suggest that the tone and content of your response is that you have no evidence that unions use such a procedure simply because it is untenable as a way to respond to this sort of accusation. So what started out as a very simply way to proceed appears to be anything but. It is easy for someone to say why did you not do this or that…but surely they must be prepared to seriously look at their suggestion and complexities of dealing with an allegation of rape.
You talk of why the SWP has a slate system of electing the CC. Well the short answer is that there has been much debate over this on I think at least 2 maybe 3 conferences of the SWP and debate on either side was had..the vote was to remain with that system of election. The arguement for this method is that when one elects a leadership of th party we are electing a collective leadership. Now, as has happened alternative slates which is effect remove single or impulsive members of the CC are open to people and indeed have been moved in recent years. Now my personal view is that it is certainly not as matter of principle and I wouldn’t be against moving to an individual method of voting and have voted for motions arguing for such a change. At present the majority of delegates to the SWP have voted to continue with the present method.
In terms of full time organisers and cttee it depends what cttee we are talking about.
Central cttee..elected at conference by delegates from branches..full timers do not have a vote at our conference
Disputes cttee.. Will be elected at conference. This will include members of the cc but think this is usually around 2 or 3 with around 8 pr 9 members of the party who are not full timers…elected by conference delegates.
National cttee..I think ipthis has 50 members..elected at conference by delegates..no full time workers for the party are members of the national cttee and if they attend they are not allowed to vote.
The issue of not suspending but removing from be a paid worker of the SWP in the case referred to was a mistake. This has been acknowledged.
To finish..Michaels suggestion of mediation is not used by any labour movement body and if the SWP had done this I have little doubt he would be typing furiously how we thought we should do this and didn’t we know no trade union would have behaved in such a way etc etc. the SWP is not infallible and yes mistakes were made.
Lastly, Michael says the person was interrogated.notice the word, not discussed with, not interviewed but interrogated…now that is an attack I would suggest on Pat Stack as he was the chair of the disputes cttee and if he allowed the person concerned to be interrogated then it is a serious matter and obviously one which would need to be investigated. Perhaps Michael should discuss this with Stack and enquire why he led an interrogation as chair of the disputes cttee and not an interview or discussion.
One thing first off – you’re lying. I didn’t say that the SWP should have used mediation in this process. I said that in these circumstances sometimes when (in the scenario that I mentioned where a) the accused is suspended and b) where the accuser withdraws the accusation) mediation can be of use – GIVEN THE SUSPENSION, GIVEN THAT THE ACCUSER WITHDRAW THE ACCUSATION WHICH AS I UNDERSTAND IT IS NOT WHAT TOOK PLACE THAT TIME. You or your anonymous colleague were the ones who mentioned possible counselling organisations, not me. I in no way stated or intended that mediation was a first stage process or a second stage process. Anyone reading what I wrote above would have to be malicious to state that I was demanding that this be a requisite part of discipline procedures where the accusation was what it was. I was simply lobbing it in as a possible process once all other avenues had been pursued and only if all parties chose to go down that alley. Only you know why you chose to misrepresent me this way.
When you’ve withdrawn your lie, I will be happy to carry on this discussion. If you don’t want to, we can stop now.
Not in reply to James, but as general consumption:
1. We know that the SWP has a given structure.
2. From within that structure when faced with an accusation conceding one of its senior members, it chose not to follow customary procedure of suspending the accused.
3. it chose not to follow customary procedure when it took it upon itself to interrogate the accuser.
4. The SWP has conceded that by not suspending the accused, it took a wrong step.
5. I’m not sure whether it has ever conceded that it was wrong to interrogate the accuser.
6. I personally have not read a marxist explanation from the SWP as to why it chose to not apply customary procedure re suspension and interrogation.
7. My suggestion re mediation was only ever intended as an afterthought about how organisations of any kind can or might possibly sometimes resolve issues once (and only once) suspension has taken place, once and only once the accuser has withdrawn the accusation and only if all parties concerned are agreed.
“concerning’ not “conceding”
“much more relevant to this whole matter – is how, prior to the crisis – were trade unions, schools, hospitals, social work workplaces etc handling disputes like this? I say that, because why would or should a socialist organisation think that it could or should have had a procedure different from these?”
In the NHS, if there is a concern that domestic violence, child abuse or rape has occured then with or without the service users consent NHS services have a statutory responsibility to involve the police and other appropriate agencies such as social services. State funded services have different responsibilities concerning how these cases are handled than trade unions and political parties. Unless there are concrete proposals rather than a list of services that are assumed to do things better then it’s not a serious proposal.
The problem is that there’s no simple, “One solution, resolution!” to these complex cases. Policies that are used in the NHS might not be suitable for other organisations. Even in the NHS different services have different policies depending on regional and local policies and changes developed through practice. Protecting vulnerable people has changed significantly in the NHS even over the last 15 years and is always undergoing review. For example, domestic violence is treated much more seriously now than it was 15 years ago. Mistakes are made and then reviewed and hopefully corrected. If a huge organisation with enormous resources and highly trained practitioners like the NHS sometimes gets it wrong and has to learn from these mistakes then is it any wonder that other organisations sometimes encounter the same problem?
“re ‘wait and see’ – yes, indeed, if ultimately, a person doesn’t follow up the allegation – whether that be through the police, or through some kind of mediated counselling INDEPENDENT of the institution or organisation – then there is nothing that can or should be done.”
Looking back over the thread the subject of counselling was first raised by Michael. Concerning the Savile and Rotherham cases there are many overlapping issues such as the failure of the state to intervene due to the class background of the victims, the continuing sexual objectification of young children and women in capitalism, police corruption etc. Many of these issues have been subject to a marxist analysis in various articles in SW, SR and, more thoroughly, the ISJ.
Yes of course I was the first to raise the matter of counselling! It was a conciliatory afterthought that I threw in for situations in which a) the accused had been suspended and b) the accuser had withdrawn the complaint. It was meant to be no more than a small post crisis suggestion. In actual fact, if I ask myself why I suggested it, it’s because several SWP members came to me and said ‘There was no rape.’ So, in my conciliatory mind I thought, well if that’s the case, and if the complainant did withdraw the complaint, how could an organisation like the SWP resolve the matter? Because it sure ain’t resolved at the moment in the movement as a whole…but I was running ahead of myself. As I say, it was an afterthought not a strategy and it’s a red herring to suggest that I thought it was.
Could you please provide the link for the marxist explanation as to why the SWP did not suspend the accused, given that that is customary procedure in the outside world?
Could you please provide the link for the marxist explanations for Savile, Hall and Smith? ( NOT ROTHERHAM as the situation is completely different. )
By the way when it comes to providing links, I mentioned how the SWP ‘apology’ for what happened. I said that it ‘equalised’ the apologies. Here’s the statement that I’m referring to from December 2013:
Start:
“Furthermore the central committee (CC) made a statement that many people have suffered real distress as a result of taking part in or giving evidence to the disputes committee, or due to slurs on the internet and we are sorry to all of them for that.
Specifically two women who brought very serious allegations suffered real distress.
We are sorry for the suffering caused to them by the structural flaws in our disputes procedures, the way in which the two cases became a subject of political conflict within the party and slurs on the internet.”
End
So, ‘many people’ suffered ‘real distress’ and ‘two women’ suffered ‘real distress’.
‘We’ are also ‘sorry’ that the two cases became ‘a subject of political conflict’!
So, in the end everyone is apologised to!
That’s one way in which oppression is carried on…
What difference are you alluding to between the Rotherham and Savile cases? Adult males using coercion and threats of violence in exchange for sex with minors. Multiple cases of abuse over decades involving a number of colluding perpetrators. The failure of the state to act on the concerns of local services and allegations made by victims of this abuse for decades.
The rape allegation in the SWP were not made by a minor in contrast to Rotherham and the Savile cases. The SWP took these allegations very seriously at the time they were made and tried to address them.
Michael, all in was saying was that there are all sorts of options but it is easier to chuck something in as a common sense way to proceed but when looked at it turns out to be not so straight forward. I don’t mind you suggesting xy or z but you should be accepting of discussing the strengths and weaknesses of your suggestions.
You have said the swp should have suspended the accused and this has been agreed by the review as something which should have happened. When you say marxist analysis is you seem to mean the SWP says we are wrong to have a democratic centralist organisation and we should abandon this way of organising.
You did argue that the person should be suspended, correctly, but then move to a counselling service and mediation etc..ok the straight forward question is what if the allegation stands..what do you do?
Could either of you please provide an SWP link here that offers an explanation for why ‘suspension’ of the accused was not used?
Could either of you please provide an SWP link here that offers an explanation for Savile, Hall, Smith, Harris? (Thanks, I’ve got the Rotherham one.)
http://socialistreview.org.uk/376/roots-child-abuse
Great – thanks for that one.
Could either of you please provide an SWP link here that offers an explanation for why ‘suspension’ of the accused was not used?
Could either of you please provide an SWP link here that offers an explanation for why ‘suspension’ of the accused was not used ?
By the way, don’t let me distract you from looking up that link but I so-o-o did NOT say this:
“…the person should be suspended, correctly, but then move to a counselling service and mediation…” I so-o-o- did NOT argue this.
I have said many times, including on my blog, 1) Suspension of the accused 2) help and support for the accuser 3) wait and see. (time limit to be agreed in the organisation’s regs) 4) if the accuser wants to take it further, point out that an organisation like a political party or a school etc can NOT and should NOT try to ascertain what happened through questioning the accuser or the accused. 5) if the accuser wants to take it to the police, that, as present constituted, is the only system available in society as we know it.. 6) if the accuser doesn’t want to take it further then it has to be assumed that the accused is innocent or ‘doesn’t have a case to answer’ and can be reinstated. If that’s a problem,, perhaps perhaps perhaps, some kind of mediation might, possibly, help. Possibly. Possibly not. If it can be done in a ‘safe’ way, so all parties are protected, it could in some rare circumstances work. Possibly.
In the case of the SWP, as justice wasn’t done vis a vis the accusers nor by the accused, do not assume that I’m suggesting jumping to number 6.
However, please, please, please could you be kind enough to NOT reply to this till you’ve dug up that link for the explanation for why suspension of the accused was not used?
Could either of you please provide an SWP link here that offers an explanation for why ‘suspension’ of the accused was not used ?
Or anyone else?
If there was no explanation ever given as to why suspension was not used, can anyone explain why no explanation has ever been given?
A marxist silence.
Michael, some questions are unanswerable.
I agree. But some are answerable. On this occasion, all the data is there. Many enquiring minds in place. People who claim to be able to analyse daily events in the light of theory. And vice versa. Simple problem: such people knew of suspension procedures. They chose not to put them in place. Why? What stopped them? What ideological or structural blockages were there, to prevent them?
And secondarily, what ideological or structural blockages are in place now for them to not make those explanations?
This was an issue you and James discussed. I have no idea about LMHR so you’ll need to contact them or perhaps one of the many musicians, bands and other individuals and groups who were involved with LMHR during that period. As far as I’m aware he was removed from any position in the SWP and UAF when the allegations were made.
“However, please, please, please could you be kind enough to NOT reply to this till you’ve dug up that link for the explanation for why suspension of the accused was not used?”
Dig it up yourself! I’ve already searched and linked to an article about Savile’s abuse that you wrongly claimed the SWP ignored. You could have quite easily found this yourself if you hadn’t been intent on trying to use these issues to falsely discredit anyone who disagrees with you. I am not on trial here so modify your imperious tone if you want to carry on a debate.
Michael – there was some pretty sharp analysis as events unfolded, just not from inside the SWP (e.g., http://sovietgoonboy.wordpress.com/2014/01/01/this-is-the-way-the-party-ends-not-with-a-bang-but-with-a-whimper/ and http://sovietgoonboy.wordpress.com/2013/03/03/once-tiberius-is-dead-i-sejanus-will-rule-as-emperor-in-rome/)
anonymous Ray, you’re getting rattled again. Delta was not suspended when the allegations were first made. I have looked and looked and not found an explanation from the SWP as to why they did not use the suspension procedure. All I’ve seen is the ludicrous and ultimately unsavoury ‘apology’ which ends up apologising for there having been a dispute in the party! This dissipates the apology to the complainant so that it is ultimately meaningless. That is a form of oppression. Calling me ‘imperious’ is yet another example of your bringing your personal hang-ups into the matter. The thing is, Ray, your party has called for unity. One of the bases for unity is trust. Everyone knows that your party fucked up. What’s bizarre is that as a party of theory it seems to be beyond them to use the very same tools that they use day in day out on all matters under the sun, political, economic, cultural but seem unwilling or unable to use them on themselves. That strikes me as an obstacle to unity. Anyone can apologise (or think they apologise. Anyone can say, oh yeah, we got it wrong. Much, much harder is to say, why or how this was possible. And the point is if you can’t figure it out, then why wouldn’t something similar or analogous – nothing to do with this particular kind of episode – happen again? The point is that the same structures and the same personnel – bar a few resignations – are still there! You haven’t even moved the deck chairs!
Thank you, Bill, yes, I’ve read goon boy’s stuff. And a lot of another analysis from outside the SWP. I was interested to see if either anonymous Ray or anonymous James could find a marxist analysis of why the party did not use the suspension procedure. Thanks to you, I will go back to them as a reminder of what the SWP could do if it wanted to.
Re-reading Soviet Goonboy there, I really should step aside and wait for anonymous James and anonymous Ray to try to answer SG’s points.
Micheal ..lets do it one more time…the accused was suspended from working for the party and not membership..this was a mistake, it is acknowledged as a mistake and it has been said to be a mistake…does this invalidate the whole history of the SWP and attempt to build a revolutionary party and use a democratic centralist method of organisation, in my view no it does not. Michael, you seem to not agree with that type of structure for an organisation, fine but don’t pretend that you have found some holy grail which proves the SWP wrong.
Now, you have refused to say what you would do if the person making an allegation does not rescind that allegation. It would appear , your view is that the organisation should do nothing and the person the allegation is against returns to membership. In effect a women making the allegation should either go to the police and if thaey choose not to, no investigation should be undertaken by the organisation.
Imagine if the SWP said to the person making the allegation, because you do not wish to go to the police we are going to do nothing…you would be jumping up and down crying foul..anarchists would be attacking SWP stalls, the right wing press would have hounded SWP members outside their homes..and yes I would suggest you would have carried on attacking the SWP as you do now.
This isn’t about suspending then reason from membership as well as paid employment..that is pretty transparent from your increasing obsession with the SWP. Have no idea what organisation you are in or have been I the past but I would suggest you perhaps start to aim your fire on the real enemy which is souring working class politics across Europe.
Think this thread has served its dubious purpose
I’ll stick with goon boy’s account, thanks.
This is not a reply to either anonymous Ray or anonymous James who’ve done more to consign themselves to the dustbin than I could. Fingers crossed that they don’t reply to this post. In fact, given that this isn’t an SWP site, it’s a bit bizarre that they’ve spent so much time and energy arguing with me here. I can only assume that they think they’re doing their organisation some favours by doing so!
“Is Leninism dead?” – consider this last period in which several marxist groups claim the Leninist heritage, while one of those capitalist crises that marxists have been talking about for the whole of my life. In terms of public noise i.e. who is heard in the media for critiquing this crisis – how well did these marxist groups do? I consider myself as part of this tradition. (incidentally, anonymous James seems incredulous that I should be ‘obsessed’ with the SWP. If he figured it out for a moment it’s because of my sense of betrayal. I thought that people I grew up with in my post-Stalinist background would safeguard this marxist tradition when in actual fact they let it ossify and ultimately become self-serving. See goon boy’s analysis as linked to by Bill, above).
As evidence of this ossification or the ‘bypass effect’ if you like, is the kind of noise made in the public space about this crisis. This, of all times in the whole of my life, would have been the perfect moment for when the arguments put forward by marxists would come to the fore. How interesting then, that what has happened is that the ones being heard are a mix of people thrown out or who resigned from the marxist groups – Seymour, Galloway – or who weren’t part of it – Brand, Lanchester, Picketty – or who displace it through comedy – Hardy, Steel, Revell….
I’m sure I’ve missed out people and phenomena here…
What on earth is meant by ‘Leninism’ in this discussion? Michael Rosen maintains a coherent position here (and retains his public dignity while his anonymous adversaries seem more intent on displacing their own uncertainties) but even he sometimes conflates Leninism with specific organisational forms and internal political cultures.
Lenin decisive leadership changed socialism from an ideal to a practical question of power. Wherever capitalist production relations have been displaced it has been with the decisive intervention of a leninism that bears no relationship to what passes for such in this discussion.
The essence of Leninism is not found in the bureaucratic parodies of it that pass for it in Britain’s rrrrrevolutionary left (or the libertarian reaction) but in the real struggle for power and in actually winning it.
Both the ‘heritage’ SWP and its schismatics appear to make the continuation of the ‘SWP tradition’ their principal objective. But failed models are only useful if we learn as much from their failures as from their successes
SWP distorts Lenin
Soviet Goon Boy described pretty well the degeneration of the SWP, but was much less clear on the reasons for it.
One of the issues he lists was an alliance with the left wing of the Trade Union Bureaucracy. It is here that the answer lies to the break up of the SWP.
Cliff (and Lenin) believed that you have to tell the truth to the class.
Billy Hayes (UCW) has been invited to the UtR conference. This is the man who sold out the postal workers in their fight against privatisation and then pushed a no strike agreement.
The line that the union leaders want to fight reminds me of the emperor with no clothes.
Sparky you are right..the swp leaflets and it’s paper and inside the union over post office privatisation argued not to fight and to go along with the leadership and not rock the boat..and in unitie it argues to wait for labour and Grangemouth was not worth fighting and the union leadership were correct, in unison it says it was right not to have a local govt strike and is absolutely not in the thick of building resistance to Prentis , the swp has done nothing to build solidarity with care uk, ritzy, Lambeth college or st mungo strikers, I have heard they occasionally go to picket lines and tell them to give up..indeed it supports the bombing of Iraq, Syria and anywhere else in the world I can think of..you are right Sparky the swp is in the pay of the CIA, FBI , Mossad and Putin and has the cheek to have an appeal …the only thing we need is Judge Renton..that’s right he openly admits he wants to be a high court judge in family cases!..Judge Renton is right we should ignore public sector workers because teachers have it easy and are not dockers…Sparky you are so right.
oh well James,
I suppose it will all be alright once you get to sit down with Billy Hayes (CWU) at the UtR conference.
You can talk about the wonderful things that can be done on a £100,000 salary.
I’m sure with your love of fantasy and such a strong imagination you can break the poor man’s lack of confidence.
The revolution is just around the corner!
That’s right sparky the SWP supports high salaries for trade union officials..I have seen it in their paper, union motions, leaflets and meetings…of course I agree being at the same meeting with a trade union official means you agree with everything they say. …we should absolutely avoid sharing a platform with any trade union official at all costs..it will show the world that if you sit in a hall with a trade union official you must be in agreement with them. ..but there is history to this…sharing platforms with labour mp’s over racism..when we know that the Labour Party goes along with racism and mp’s earn much more than the workers…drive the reformist running dogs of capitalism out should be our slogan..sparky you are right…why not picket a few of the Tony Benn film showings…lickspittle of the ruling class that he was by being a labour mp..sparky, I am sure you will agree Russell brand being a multi millionaire should not be allowed to have a platform with anyone…why not write an article for rs21 on why Brand is a rich bastard and sharing a platform with him in any circumstances is a complete disgrace..in fact Sparky you should be the only one to speak as you seem to have uncanny knack of spotting opportunism from 100 miles away..we will be in safe hands…where is the telephone box we are meeting in?
James,
The fact that you can show that not all superstars are all bad, and how much you like hanging around superstars – this doesn’t explain what benefit you obtain from hanging around Billy Hayes?
I’m sure he may be very pleasant and may well buy you a few beers, but this is not much consolation to the postal workers who have their jobs and conditions sold down the river, after they voted by a massive amount for strike action.
Perhaps you should reconsider whether your friend Martin Smith was correct when he argued the trade union leaders want to fight, but just lack confidence?
Or perhaps you have written off the working class, and see Billy Hayes as the last hope for mankind.
More generally speaking, there is the question as to whether ‘marxism’ has to come bolted on to ‘the party’? This is not just a matter of the SWP, but a century-old problem. Clearly for ‘marxism’ to be more than a set of interesting ideas, it has to be linked to ‘organisation’ and ‘change’. Since the Russian Revolution, most people who’ve described themselves as marxists have thought that the best way to make this link is with a ‘party’ and the many parties that have evolved have derived from the Russian model whether they called themselves ‘Communist’, ‘Trotskyist’ ‘Revolutionary Socialist’ etc.
People in these many organisations over the last hundred years have fought bitterly over who is being ‘correct’, who is the true inheritor of Lenin etc etc. The ossification of the SWP could be a moment where we question this bolting of marxism to ‘party’. People who are no longer – or who were never in a party- can take (and of course are taking) time to consider several what-ifs that weren’t possible so long as one always thought marxism-party, party-marxism.
One of the delusions that grips parties is that with their tiny membership and uncertain leaders, that the ‘intervention’ being made is absolutely ‘vital’ to the outcome of events going on. And that being in ‘the party’ is what has made this ‘intervention’ so important/successful etc etc. To take one example: one of the tasks all marxist parties have taken on since 1917 is to ‘generalise the struggle’. So, through the medium of the ‘the paper’, the party lists reports of the struggles going on all over the country and all over the world. It is hoped that when people in one struggle read the report of their struggle and alongside it all the others, they will move from seeing themselves in a sectional dispute to one where they perceive of themselves as being in a class ‘for itself’.
Open question: in a hundred years of trying this, how successful has any party been in ‘generalising the struggle’? If the answer is ‘not very’, might there be any cause to question whether the process has experienced any snags? If so, what might these snags be?
Lenin showed the need for a party by the victory in 1917 Michael Rosen.
You are right to say after a hundred years we do need to look where we have gone wrong.
But you do have to look at the objective conditions as well. As Tony Cliff wrote in “A World to Win”, the First, Second and Third Internationals came into existence during periods of working class advance; the Trotskyist organisations were born during a dire period in working class history-the victory of Nazism and Stalinism.
Trotsky’s criticism of Stalinism in the 1920s and 1930s was absolutely correct. But tragically this did not benefit Trotskyism. The disastrous errors of Stalinism contributed to Hitler’s victory and to setbacks in Britain, Spain and China. In consequence a defeated working class looked for a strong organisation to save it from the Nazi catastrophe. Stalinism became a religion.
This fact held back revolutionary struggle for decades. When the class grew in strength leading to a mass general strike in France in 1968, the Communist Party could play a leading role in saving Capitalism.
Some would probably agree with me on this, but then say, Stalinism is now dead, so how is it a revolutionary party cannot grow when Capitalism is in crisis?
If you use the wrong tools you cannot grow. The SWP grew even when Stalinism was still powerful because it believed in the centrality of the working class.
The long years of industrial downturn, whilst politically with the growth of movements an upturn was taking place, made it very difficult to keep hold of the belief of the centrality of the working class.
Because things were difficult, the leadership of the SWP decided to move in a centrist direction (without debating in the party whether this would be a good idea). Rank and file members were not entirely happy with this but in a low level of class struggle were not confident enough to fight it.
As Cliff and Lenin recognised, the most revolutionary class are the working class. When workers started to spectacularly fight back with wildcat strikes in 2009 “a bending of the stick” in the SWP was desperately needed.
Unfortunately Martin Smith was no Lenin. The original wildcat strike by Lindsey oil refinery workers was a racist
strike, calling for “British jobs for British workers” – supporting Gordon Brown’s slogan. A few months later construction workers came out again, rejected racism after socialists argued with them, and won.
As the SWP took a clear anti-racist line at the time, the organisation was justifiably proud of this massive working class victory. But because they had looked to a temporary alliance with the trade union bureaucracy they could not see it was time to “bend the stick”. This was despite the reactionary position of the union leader Derek Simpson.
I remember clearly a meeting discussing the strike victory at Marxism event. Michael Bradley argued that “this is our time”. But because he is waiting for the likes of Billy Hayes to initiate struggle things have regressed massively, rather than progressed.
We need to see the rank and file struggle victories in construction (and the sparks) as a stepping stone to building a rank and file movement, and at the same time build a revolutionary party. The SWP has rejected this strategy, instead looking to a broad left, ginger group strategy.
If you do not listen, or are not prepared to learn from the class, then eventually you will become irrelevant. You do have to generalise the struggle, but you cannot do this if you use the wrong tools. Who teaches the teachers? Just pretending “Leninism” is agreeing with Charlie Kimber and Alex Callinicos is obviously a dead end.
1917, Russia…hmmm not very like UK 2014 is it?
No Michael,
But in some ways life is easier now. In 1917 the working class was much smaller, and debate is harder when reformism is forbidden.
But it is true Lenin didn’t have to worry about reformist trade union leaders in his day.
But we stand on the shoulders of giants, so we can look at what is relevant from the politics of Lenin, Trotsky, Luxemburg and Cliff.
I’m unconvinced that deriving a party structure from that time is helpful or useful. We should be thinking in terms of federations, networks, umbrellas…
Why? Has the state become less centralised? Has the unevenness of class consciousness become obsolete? These were the two central tenants of the type of organisation associated with Lenin.
Has the nature of capitalism changed in anyway since 1917 Russia? Have the reasons for the unevenness of class consciousness changed since then?
Then, if we observe the behaviour of Leninist parties over the last 100 years, have any patterns of action and behaviour emerged which might possibly suggest that their structures tend towards certain ways of going on which have not been productive? Have any repeated actions not produced the results that people in those parties say that they should?
I’ve already mentioned one of these last ones: there has been a hundred years of journalism from Leninist parties and groups which has been solely intent on ‘generalising the struggle’. I put it to you, how successful has this been?
Most Leninist parties that I know of use a ‘slate’ or ‘panel’ system and if they are big enough, they have people on a pay role – part- and full-timers. The main effect of the slate is to create party ‘elders’ who become a cabal, or elite who behave like any other cabal or elite in any organisation of any kind. They start to talk and write as if they’ve know more than they know, they ‘rule’ on issues they shouldn’t rule on. So, while the ‘party’ preaches recall of trade union leaders, recall of MPs it can’t and won’t have a circulating leadership. Side effects of this are the mystery expulsions, resignations and disappearances. You have the charade of people once honoured and feted suddenly becoming non-people. From the outside this looks bizarre, untrustworthy and childish. Why would you or could you trust an organisation that behaves like that to its longstanding members? In fact, it reeks of a religiosity, and cult behaviour.
So when a crisis hits the elite, whether that be on a political or personal matter, guess what? They behave like an elite: they defend their right to be the elite and run around securing a line, holding a position, sending out directives, banning this or that, excluding and dishonouring. This is then paraded as healthy ‘bloodletting’ or some other bit of cods. In other words, one of the features of these parties has been the incredible ability they have of shedding members, and stamping out ‘dissent’ and losing people with wide-ranging ideas. So you then get the wonderful irony of the party running along after dissenting types outside of the party, feting ‘resistant’ and ‘rebellious’ ideas on the outside and stamping them out on the inside. So, in the case of the SWP, it’s laughable and pathetic that people like Richard Seymour, China Mieville, Ian Birchall, John Rees, are either non-people or vilified while all kinds of dissenting writing and artistic output going on in the outside world, is written about appreciatively. This sort of thing is not new. It’s been going on in Leninist parties for a hundred years. Again, from the outside, it just looks dodgy and unsafe. So, the ‘party’ looks on the one hand as if it’s welcoming and open and on the other, when you lift the lid, it looks narrow and persecuting. And it is! The idea that this kind of behaviour helps build socialism is again, laughable.
Meanwhile, capitalism has changed in several important ways: it has become brilliant at creating desire for its products even amongst those who can’t afford them. It’s become brilliant at creating passivity through mass media and mass education. In many parts of capitalism the workplace has changed so that smaller groups of people come into contact with each other. Entertainment through the mass media has atomised people much more than in the past. At the heart of a lot of this is that ‘choice’ has become a fetish as powerful as the commodity. But in this case, it is mostly bogus. However, the powerful part of it is that it absorbs people’s sense of participation and entitlement. I am choosing between these two kinds of shirt. I am exercising my ‘freedom’ to do this. Yet, the freedom over the production and distribution of those shirts is zero.
This needs engaging with in imaginative and open ways. It’s all pervasive. Getting into little top-down organisations who persecute their own once-great members ain’t going to do it! Absolutely not.
…and if there are party employees on the ‘slate’, you guarantee that at least some of the decisions made by the executive are made in order to guarantee the livelihoods of those full-timers. It’s locked in. The funny thing is , is that the analysis of why and how was made by people like the SWP and IS when it looked at Trade union bureaucracies in some brilliant papers and books in the late 60s early 70s. The party just can’t apply it to their own structures because….because….because….well, ultimately because the elite will always justify its right to be the elite, whether that’s through citing the holy writ of Lenin or whatever.
Michael, be interested who was made to disappear in the SWP! Your arguement is a familiar one which in short rests on a traditional lenin lead to Stalin narrative. No one in the SWP today or previously has argued that the structure of society is the same as at the turn of the last century.indeed much has been written on this stuff from Kidron, Cliff, Harman and Callinicos amongst many others. One of the foundng elements of the SWP was the theory of the permanent arms economy and how capitalism was able to stabilise itself post Second World War.
However the capitalist state remains centralised and one that rules for the ruling class etc so the fundamental point about the need for a democratic centralist revolutionary organisation in my view retains is necessity , of course one can argue alternatives but the arguement is a very old one. On the question of uneven conciousness the precise way this is formulated today will have different elements..but is there unevenness in the class and is the arguement that those who are most militant and wanting to see a complete destruction of the system etc better and more effective if they are organised together? I would suggest that remains true. Is the SWP the complete article in this then obviously not, many many great fighters are not members of the SWPl or any organisation,, I think this is a weakness for our side.
In terms of generalising the struggle. I don’t think this simply comes from a newspaper or internet for that matter…the struggle can lead people to generalise, to make links with their own situation and others, can start to see through the fog, I guess the miners strike was such a brilliant example of that despite the defeat etc.mi would have thought in Ireland at the moment there are many questioning the system through the water charge revolt which seems to me to be on a huge scale…now having revolutionaries centrally involved in that movement helps the process of generalising, of making links, of seen the bigger picture etc as well as arguing for a way to win etc.
You say ian birchall, john rees etc are non people…not sure what is meant by this. I thought ian spoke at marxism last year? Richard seymour and China have left the party and formed ISN which has been a rip roaring success! , they disagreed etc that’s fine so not sure what the issue is? John rees also left the party, why? Because he wanted to have a fairly uncritical alliance with the trade union leaders via people assembly. There was much debate within the party about if you could have a stop the war type organisation re austerity and the problem regarding the trade union leaders etc. john is not a non person, he left the party and started Counterfire ! Not sure what else there is to say.his books remain in bookmarks and are on the party website as are lindsey Germans and ian birchall..photos have not be altered to remove them!,..it really is a trigger to the Stalin stuff that you use the language of disappearance and non persons. It is the same old arguement that the russian revolution failed not because of its isolation etc but power hungry people will always keep power and it’s in our human nature..I don’t say you believe all that but that is what it ultimately rests on.
I don’t think you know or realise what goes on under your nose and I don’t understand why you persist in extrapolating what I say into some scenario I don’t believe in. I didn’t say Lenin = Stalin. And I didn’t over-determine ‘power’. However, by doing this kind of extrapolating (a very old rhetorical dodge, by the way – see the CPGB’s put-downs of the Minority Report), it enables you to not examine any possible mishaps or failings in your own tent. ( I notice that this happened again and again during the Delta crisis e.g. ‘So are you saying that an older man can’t have a relationship with a younger woman, eh? eh? eh?’ etc etc)
So, I am saying to you that small Leninist groupings have several tendencies e.g. shredding celebrated members who become more or less invisible. Yes, their past writings for the organisation are not always disappeared, but their presence in the socialist movement is. However, more serious than that is the ‘corridor’ effect. Apart from a small core of oldies, most people’s life in a leninist organisation doesn’t last much beyond ten or fifteen years. So, though organisations always trumpet ‘recruits’ , it doesn’t seem to able to analyse why membership is in general temporary. For example, I wonder how many people there are in the country who are ex-members of the CP, WRP, Militant-SP, the various Maoist groupings, IMG, RCP, IS-SWP? A hundred thousand? Why are they ex-members? Why or how did we lose them?
I would suggest that one main reason for that, is that the organisational structure and behaviour of these organisations was not right for them. Simply blaming it all on to e.g. social democracy, is not sufficient.
Part of it is the endless and pointless mix of triumphalism and millenarian expectation-ism. So on the one hand the organisations say that x was a stupendous and amazing victory and on the other that another triumph is just round the corner…so we all need to work just that bit harder tomorrow and we’ll be there. After a few years, many people, especially if they’re in busy jobs and have children can’t cope with this sort of thing.
I don’t think you address what I was saying about ‘generalising the struggle’. I wasn’t saying that it’s impossible or that it doesn’t sometimes happen briefly. I was pointing to a collective failure on all our parts to achieve this over the last 100 years! My own view is that though Leninist organisations are very good at maintaining the flow of theory, they are crap at ‘generalising the struggle’. And part of the reason is to do with the in-built structural ossification which leads to these weird behaviours and effects I’m talking about – ‘corridor effect’, Healey/Delta events, expulsions, disappearances, to which I would add the crazy competitive recruiting at public meetings. There have been times when I’ve been approached by 5 different leninist organisations at one meeting!
My battery is running out. I’ll address ‘power’ in another post.
Here’s another cause for thought: at their height(s) the Anti-Nazi League and Stop the War were both very successful campaigns in terms of numbers, mobilisation, organisation etc. If the best structural and organisational way to proceed and progress is through Leninism + united front-ism, how come for example the result of those campaigns was not a massive swelling in the ranks of a permanent cadre of socialists? And, given the emphasis of those campaigns, how come neither campaign resulted in a massive increase in the numbers of people of recent migrant origin? What was/is the obstacle?
…and so to ‘power’. Yes, classical marxists have tended to come down heavy on people like Foucault who seem to have described power as having a force of its own, or existing in social groups for no other purpose than that it feels good to those in power…or some such. No, we’ve said, the power ultimately links to the purpose and function of capitalism (in present circumstances) i.e. ultimately ‘power’ serves capital.
That’s OK (if that’s a very rough summary of the positions) but when we see e.g. power operating in left groupings, we might be excused for a moment saying, hang on, how is this possible? How can it be that this executive clique is throwing its weight about, bullying, humiliating, hectoring others when we know that we are socialists? One solution to this pickle is to deny it: ‘no we weren’t bullying, we were explaining’ or ‘we’re not in a position to heavy others because we come up for election every year’ and so on.
Hmmm….
I personally think that if we stick to our view that capitalism creates and manifests and reproduces and is (in part) reproduced by the ‘prevailing ideology’ then one aspect of this is that a) capitalism is run through a hierarchical system in which power is vested in capital, capital is vested in power – that is, the process of ruling, dominating and controlling others. Because ideology is all-pervasive, none of us can escape the ‘normality’ of this..even if we try hard to resist a tendency to accept power (or be dominated by it), even the conscious act of resistance is as a result of its all-pervasiveness. However, we can also be in a position in which we are not aware of ‘trying it on’, trying to dominate, rule and control others even as we say that we’re not, even as we might think it is undesirable.
I think this latter position is the pickle that Leninist organisations keep getting themselves into. People on committees who’ve been on the same committee for years start to think of themselves in terms of their entitlement, their apparent ability to tell others what’s what, and believe in their wisdom in such a way that it starts to move towards a sense of infallibility (supported by sacred texts). Given the process of power (in capitalism) what’s then sad is that some people ‘make way’. They accede to the power of the people who just so happen to stay year in year out in these positions. You only have to talk to ‘survivors’ of the Gerry Healey era in the WRP to get a sense of how this acceding power to the powerful went on even as people thought they were being ‘revolutionary’.
I suspect that unless the left comes to terms with these ways in which capitalist structures do indeed affect our relationships within the left, we won’t get anywhere. It’s not a ‘sufficient’ condition of our advance but I’m sure it’s a necessary one.
I don’t think you can lump a Tankie organisation like the CP as the same as the SWP.
But the lack of democracy in both organisations has nothing to do with Lenin.
Any organisation has a tendency to conservatism. Lenin would constantly fight against the “committee men” by appeals to the Bolshevik rank and file. Michael is right to say Capitalist structures affects us all, but it is the political mistakes, not the particular way of organising which has led to the crisis on the revolutionary left. I can understand listening to Alex Callinicos waffle, some may think what he is really saying is “Lenin made me do it!”.
The Tories want 500,000 public sector jobs to go by 2015. What are the trade union leaders doing about this?
The truth is, rather than lacking confidence, these leaders at least partly accept that major cuts have to be made because they want to nurse Capitalism back to health.
Revolutionaries should be saying we need to learn from the Sparks, and be prepared to act independently of the trade union bureaucracy when necessary.
How are you going to get postal workers black or white to come to a meeting to hear how great Billy Hayes is after he has sold out the fight against privatisation?
Rather than explain why the strikes were sold out just a couple of weeks ago, Socialist Worker talks about the threat from UKIP. Defeats lead to despair, you have to look reality in the face, or the racism will rise.
When Michael talks about how the system creates passivity, this is not decisive, if it was, all those organised trade unionists would have not voted for strike action in October.
It was not democratic centralism that won a vote on the issue of democracy and fighting women’s oppression. It was a bureaucratic manoeuvre which won. A revolutionary party has to be seen to have had a real debate and the argument clearly won. This didn’t happen, that’s why hundreds left the organisation.
The top down centrist organisation needs to be replaced by a new genuine revolutionary party.
So Sparky is at it again…please Sparky where is the article about the fight against sell out over pay on this site..meanwhile former allies of the unison leadership have broken ranks in many branches and the North west region and the biggest revolt amongst unison activists against the leadership is unfolding…socialist worker has and is covering this development and SWP members are alongside many others are organising to try and overturn the retreat…meanwhile the monumental failure of the right and left leaderships in unite, GMB and unison are not worthy of a single article on this site. Of course in relation to UKIP there are some on the left who say they are not really a problem and you seem to think if a socialist newspaper runs articles about the threat they pose this equates to letting the union leaders off the hook over pay!!!!!! Frankly your logic is weird..you can be against UKIP and the retreat over pay.!!
Look forward to RS21 writing at least something over the arguements in UNISON.
I take it back on October the 10 there was the solitary article…very interesting for Sparky to comment on..no mention of the key role McClusky played in getting the strikes called off clearly left wing union leaders shouldn’t be criticised !..then amazingly the article ends with the London Underground strike being called off..quotes the new gen sec of the RMT and doesn’t even say if the calling off of the strike was right or wrong..Sparky it reads like a morning star piece…and you call the SWP centrist…no link provided to any rs21 leaflets being distrubted re local govt and London Underground strikes being ditched! By the way SW argued against pulling the underground strike off ….
This discussion (between James and Sparky) is interesting but I wonder if either of you have got anything near an answer to the matter of why – no matter what shape an industrial dispute ends up taking – the process of a) supporting strikes, b) writing them up in the ‘the party’ newspaper and c) selling the paper has not succeeded in ‘generalising the struggle’. Be clear, I’m not ‘against’ this method. And I don’t think saying – ‘it’s the fault of social democracy and trade union leaders’ is a sufficient explanation. So, for example, now more than almost any other time in my lifetime, we have the possibility of people generalising the struggle against austerity across the public sector, across public and private and indeed internationally. (What I mean is that the ‘one enemy’ argument is clearer than it often is, and likewise, ‘we (the workers) are in the same situation’ argument is clearer than it often is. Yes, we know that TU leaders and Labour will shy away from putting all this together,) but if it’s the argument put by all the left-of-Labour groupings, why doesn’t it result in ‘generalising’ ?There are times when the Daily Mirror has laid it out as clearly as the Left of Labour papers – certainly around a year or two into this government with their attacks on fat cats etc.
By the way, berating this or that trade union leader for not backing this or that strike, may or may not be helpful. I mean by that, that relatively small groups of workers, taking action without mass sympathy action can be picked off and smashed relatively easily. The rule: every strike must be right, is dangerous because the outcome can be the opposite of what’s intended i.e. despair instead of victory. And even the regular victories of the RMT in the London Underground was hard to translate into ‘well we could do that too’, wasn’t it? Why?
Further: it’s probably time to look again at just how unimaginative we are. The main idea of what a revolutionary socialist is and does is sell newspapers, go to meetings, organise strikes, demos, vigils, petitions and the occasional benefit and/or memorial. Surely we have to do better than this. One of the consequences of the grip of the Leninist model is that it’s about getting everything that the party organises being absolutely correct. So if it’s a ‘party’ event then it’s party people telling it how it is. Given that the quality of what the ‘party ‘ (and this applies to all the Leninist parties) can offer, this may well be deadly dull. If it’s a ‘front’ meeting, then the meeting may well be better but of course the format is nearly always the same: the jam packed platform, the repetitious speeches, the recruitment agenda, the whip round etc etc. I’ve done hundreds of them. Meanwhile, for example, people like Mark Thomas, Mark Steel, Jeremy Hardy, Anna Chen, Billy Bragg and probably a hundred or so other people (including of course Russell Brand) have experimented with a variety of styles of event, entertainment, agitation, resistance. Mark Thomas in particular has experimented with various kinds of guerrilla agitation/entertainment.
A vibrant left would have found ways to have put this sort of thing centre stage – without trying to dominate or control it. There are left-minded organisers (‘impresarios’ if you like) with massive experience of organising festivals, being part of ongoing festivals etc etc who can organise events. So instead of these being sporadic, there needs to be something like a left clearing house that gave just a bit of direction – very light-handed – to what would in effect be a semi-permanent road show. I’m not saying anything new here. People like Roland Muldoon and Red Saunders knew this years ago with ‘New Variety’ and Rock against Racism. Both of them were in IS and Red is still in the SWP, as far as I know. They have massive experience of how to organise and run rolling events. Dave Marshall from Faithless has been doing massive gigs all over the world for the last ten years at least. Same goes for Benjamin Zephaniah, Billy Bragg, Mark Thomas and of course, now, Russell Brand.
When people like that put their minds (and their contact books!) together, you attract thousands to the events, there is a mix of politics and culture, and you trust the material that singers, poets, actors, comedians, musicians etc do to critique the political situation. Now, of course, some of this goes on. Again, I’ve turned up to many of them myself. I would suggest that a creative thing to have done in the anti-austerity fight, would have been to have created a cultural-political roadshow along the lines of Rock Against Racism – a mix of huge bloody events with bands and comedians – alongside medium and small-sized events. The core message could have been simple: austerity is a hoax, it was another trick to make the rich richer and the poor poorer. Resist it how you can, where you can. ‘Rock Against Austerity’ – or something like that – better please! Old hands like Red and Roland could have been enlisted for advice and new people brought in.
I’d put it this way: another ‘assembly’, another ‘conference’, another ‘let’s all unite’ meeting will not do it. When I think of my own children and step-children they just won’t get involved in stuff like that. Something that engages them culturally AND politically – that’s a different matter. The watchword phrase has to be ‘resistance through fun; fun through resistance’.
Ask Red Saunders. He knows. How ironic that he has spent the last twenty years saying this in private, his expertise from Rock Against Racism ignored and yet he’s been in the SWP all this time. Meanwhile, tens of thousands of meetings later, what have we got? A vista of tens of thousands more meetings ahead of us in which the struggle has not been generalised, in which the ‘corridor’ effect goes on and on (people joining then leaving), in which the ‘revolution is round the corner’- ism goes on and on, (one more push, comrades) and so on.
And I don’t need to mention (OK I will) that Martin Smith was getting a lot right with LMHR but it was the absurd response by the SWP to the allegations which screwed that up…and the direct reason for that screw-up was that a greater priority was put on keeping him in place than on doing what any Trade Union would have done in that immediate circumstance.
Michael Rosen says “berating this or that trade union leader for not backing this or that strike may or may not be helpful.” I don’t know anyone who is doing that.
Clearly, if you just denounce trade union leaders you do not build a rank and file. Trotsky understood that at various times you have to have temporary alliances with sections of the bureaucracy.
But what your general political understanding of these leaders is clearly makes a difference. If you think like Tony Cliff that in a capitalist crisis the bureaucracy fears the workers more than they fear restrictions put on them by the state, and will therefore side with the bosses unless strong pressure is applied from below you will act differently to if you think like Martin Smith that the trade union leaders want to fight, they just lack confidence.
Matt Wrack of the FBU is due to speak at the UTR conference, now this could be argued as a positive development, because all though the union leadership has tried to wind down the fight against attacks on pensions, pressure from below has stopped this happening. But a ginger group strategy cannot play any real positive role.
As I still await somebody to answer – what benefit is there in inviting the union leader who sold out the postal workers to the UTR conference?
The 100,000 workers who demonstrated with TUC clearly shows a willingness to fight. But it does matter if a worker thinks the election is the biggest hope, or if they lack the confidence to act independently from union leaders. These union leaders prefer the one day occasional strikes because it stops the growth of grassroots independent initiative. They do not want to loose control to workers, so you ‘let off some steam’.
Workers militancy is perishable, it does matter that action by 2 million workers was called off over pensions. it does matter when UNISON, GMB and Unite back off from fighting to defend pay. It leads to many workers being demoralised.
You cannot fudge, you have to orientate on building a rank and file movement. The Tories have not smashed the workers, they are being held back. The Tories understand they are not powerful enough to take on all the workers, thats why they had the Ridley plan and why they gave a knighthood to Brendan Barber for his services to the ruling class.
We need to get back to the times when the bosses favourite union leader, Joe Gormley, was unable to stop many of them fearing revolution was around the corner.
My 25 notes on cultural politics and a political culture are here. Please feel free to circulate and discuss… http://michaelrosenblog.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/notes-for-cultural-politics-and.html