Permanent Revolution

Gerry Downing on Tue 27, January 2009 @ 12:38

Gerry Downing — 2009-01-27 12:38:48

Bill,

The name of the group who made the points on consumer boycotts vs workers' boycotts of Israel was Socialist Fight, a fact of which you are well aware. It is also a hotly contested political issue on the left as those who fought it on the sanctions against South Africa, which DID NOT bring down the regime. And what is the inspirational event of modern times if not the US Longshoremen's strike against the war in Iraq? WORTH A MILLION CONSUMER BYCOTTS.

If only a SF member and a SP member supported it that was only because the dominant political method in the meeting was Popular Frontism, a fact that you do not even mention. The Stalinists from the CPB advocated we read Dimitrov, the father of Popular Frontism, in the opening session, in the Public Sector meeting we were told we had to ally with the Tories to defeat the BNP (and we all know that the SWP's UAF operates a Popular Frontist method in deference to and collaboration with the TU bureaucracy). We were presented with a Popular Front Peoples Charter (the Healyite World to Win whose spokesman Gerry Gold was a keynote speaker had another Peoples Charter for Democracy). A class conscious militant might have become suspicious at the elevation of bourgeois individualist democracy over workers', collectivist democracy at this stage.

When Nick Wrack confidently announced to the meeting at the end that he was confident that no one there opposed the People's Charter he must have been pleased that the politics of Popular Frontism had dominated the day. Not quite as he was rudely interrupted by yours truly to say there was an opposition. But where was your opposition Bill? You had a keynote speech; you had seen the Peoples Charter in advance as I had sent it to SK, unlike most in the room who were supposed to agree an unseen document because Bob Crow and John McDonnell had agreed it. You must have known it was penned by the CPB.

When Gregor Gall advocated this wretched document at a Commune meeting in the Lucas Arms last night Chris Ford slapped him down, I slapped him down, in a far more robust manner, as is my wont, and the overwhelming consensus from the meeting of about 25 was that Popular Frontism is poison to the class politics now, we need the class struggle.

Although disagreeing with many things the Commune propose (like splitting off the progressive wing of the TUC because the rest is unreformable) there was far more class, i.e. socialist revolutionary politics there than in the COL in Manchester, which was an abysmal meeting in many ways

SOCIALIST FIGHT, so you will remember the next time.

bill j on Tue 27, January 2009 @ 17:37

bill j — 2009-01-27 17:37:51

Yes you were rude.

Chris S on Tue 27, January 2009 @ 18:33

Chris S — 2009-01-27 18:33:22

More rude than having no debate on a reformist charter which could of been written by the CPB?

bill j on Tue 27, January 2009 @ 18:49

bill j — 2009-01-27 18:49:17

Actually there was no debate about the "reformist charter" as you put it. Someone wanted to discuss it from the floor. Are you saying they shouldn't have been able to?

If you wanted to speak you could have put your hand up. You didn't bother. Your bad. Of course your comrade could have mentioned it if he'd wanted to as well, evidently he wasn't too interested either.

And yes rudeness is important, the constant interruptions, cat calling, hysterics,absurd hyperbole etc. which was typical of many of the contributors - and indeed made an especial virtue of by G Downing - prevents a real discussion about the issues.

I'm sure that was the point, these people don't want to discuss the issues they're too busy puffing their chests out.

Gerry Downing on Tue 27, January 2009 @ 21:32

Gerry Downing — 2009-01-27 21:32:58

It is disgraceful to defend this appalling document in this way, as if we should all become reformist through politeness. And before it was punishable by death to oppose the leader Stalin in the USSR Bukharin famously heckled Lenin and said he was talking rubbish and Lenin reflected and admitted he was and reformulated his estimation of the state, if you remember the incident. Nick Wrack was talking total rubbish, you knew that but it seems you were too polite point that out. I did the meeting a big service in pointing it out. I never noticed politeness inhibiting you in discussions with your opponents from the left, or even slightly to the right of you. Nick Wrack is a long way to your right, right? Or is he much closer than I thought?

bill j on Tue 27, January 2009 @ 22:15

bill j — 2009-01-27 22:15:06

I wasn't defending the document. I haven't read it.

You on the other hand have no problem shouting over people and generally being rude and unpleasant. Big service to the meeting? What do you dip in your tea?

Tina on Tue 27, January 2009 @ 23:05

Tina — 2009-01-27 23:05:36

Actually Gerry when we are mobilising workers to boycott Israeli products it is a form of workers boycott, since they make up the mass of consumers - and they'll be the main targets for building the campaign. This goes hand in hand with a campaign for unions to take action, to call on their members to implement a boycott in their workplace, to fight to for there workplaces to break any ties financial or otherwise that they have with Israel - just like my union branch has done.

The strike by the Longshoremen was certainly inspirational, but how many people knew about it? A massive boycott campaign drawing a wide lay of workers, unionised or otherwise, into activity would provide a great audience for similar actions around Palestine. And don't forget who is asking the international working class to carry out a campaign of Boycott, Sanctions and Disinvestment - Palestinian trade unions!

David Broder on Wed 28, January 2009 @ 01:52

David Broder — 2009-01-28 01:52:59

Gerry mentions The Commune's meeting above: for a view on the People's Charter by a member of our group, see link below.

http://thecommune.wordpress.com/2009/01/28/the-people%e2%80%99s-charter-a-charter-for-change/

WP on Thu 29, January 2009 @ 12:11

WP — 2009-01-29 12:11:15

Centrists shield reformist leaders

http://www.workerspower.com/index.php?id=47,1819,0,0,1,0

Chris S on Thu 29, January 2009 @ 14:53

Chris S — 2009-01-29 14:53:48

There is a list of reports of the Convention on my blog, if anyone finds anymore I will add them. http://hammer-and-sickle.blogspot.com/2009/01/more-centrists-than-you-can-shake-stick.html

bill j on Thu 29, January 2009 @ 16:35

bill j — 2009-01-29 16:35:35

Its fair to say I take it then that Workers Power weren't happy!

bill j on Thu 29, January 2009 @ 16:50

bill j — 2009-01-29 16:50:03

Sorry I missed out the lies when I skimmed WPs report the first time;

"This worship of uncritical "left unity" is the basis of the convention, with a focus on "concrete" (i.e. immediate) demands and proposals: as Bill Jefferies put it, things that everyone can agree on like anti-fascism, campaigning against postal privatisation, etc. But this means excluding demands that stress effective ways of fighting back, and forms of organisation able to ensure workers control their own actions not the labour bureaucracy.

Further, it means not advancing demands that can develop a consistent anticapitalist response to the attacks that workers face, much less a party that could lead these struggles to socialism. That is not possible in today's climate, PR and the ISG argue, and, besides, it would divide the left."

I never said that and never have.

My brief 3 minute contribution centred on the need to build in the workplaces and that the strength of the working class did not lie in elections, but in their base class organisations. It was indeed a criticism of the electoral approach presented by the pro-partyites, who wanted a party in order to stand in the Euro elections in May.

WP didn't criticise that. But even I don't think they're so dumb that that means they support it.

Chris S on Thu 29, January 2009 @ 17:39

Chris S — 2009-01-29 17:39:18

'My brief 3 minute contribution centred on the need to build in the workplaces and that the strength of the working class did not lie in elections, but in their base class organisations. It was indeed a criticism of the electoral approach presented by the pro-partyite'

But Bill, whilst Dave Church said that we need a focal point for the working class during election time, I don't think anyone took that as the only thing a workers' party would do. If we had the debate, that would of come out.

bill j on Thu 29, January 2009 @ 19:08

bill j — 2009-01-29 19:08:25

It depends who you asked.

My contribution was a criticism of electoralism as a strategy i.e of Respect, the LRC, Socialist Alliance, Greens etc.

Workers Power said I made no criticism of these groups - that's isn't true and that's why they are known as a load of liars.

I said that the core of working class power rested in the work places. This is so elementary for a Trotskyist as to be totally unremarkable. Workers Power make this pretty banal point into a grand "centrist" schema.

What can you say?

And of course one may say that standing in the Euro elections - a pretty mad idea I might add - was not the only thing that the "Party" would do, but there was clearly no consensus on that from amongst its "supporters", quite a few of whom evidently think that is what the party would do. One of the speeches - can't remember which one - spoke about the party entirely in those electoral (Kautskyite ;-0 ) terms.

Chris S on Thu 29, January 2009 @ 20:19

Chris S — 2009-01-29 20:19:32

It did not seem as a criticism of Respect etc. It seemed more of an attack on the SA motion for simple elctoralism as Dave Church spoke about the Euro Elections? Maybe I mistook what you were saying.

I don't remember anyone speaking in entirely electoral terms, my notes are pretty good but i may have missed it. Mclaren and Church from the SA did not speak about a party in just electoral terms.

bill j on Thu 29, January 2009 @ 21:53

bill j — 2009-01-29 21:53:46

I remember one of them saying that the reason that we couldn't get anywhere was because we didn't have any MPs to represent us. Can't remember who mind you.

Of course the paradox is that the Socialist Allliance, LRC, Greens, Respect etc. have the same strategy - electoralism, this unites both the "partyites" and the "anti-partyites".

If you look at Jeremy's criticism of my speech he objects to the idea that we should fight for concrete, i.e. real demands. Now its understandable why a group who indulge in such abstract phrase mongering should object to that. But as Lenin explained many times the truth is concrete i.e. real, not abstract.

Can we all agree on anti-fascism, postal privatisation, etc? Obviously not, as was demonstrated in Liverpool recently and was demonstrated at the Convention by someone who attacked Pete Keenlyside for proposing demands on Labour to keep the post nationalised.

Have PR ever said that it was not possible to develop anti-capitalist demands to the present crisis? We never have, this is a fiction - a lie - that Jeremy has invented.

In fact WP in their "charter" of 10 demands (I think) abandon the link between immediate, concrete demands and revolutionary socialism i.e. they break the link between the minimum and transitional demands and the revolution itself, the maximum programme. Paradoxically they do the thing that they accuse PR of, presenting a centrist programme which does not link the everyday struggles of today to the struggle for power.

If I could remember anything about Jeremy's speech then I'm sure I could prove it was "centrist" too. I recall many years ago attending a Workers Power aggregate where Jeremy had drafted an action programme, it was so bad it was voted down - but what was amusing, at least to me, was that I moved an amendment from one of our previous programmes on the workers government in a futile endevour to save it - but this amendment was denounced as "centrist" by Richard G even though he, unbeknowst to him, had probably written it. It just goes to show they've talked crap for an awful long time!!

bill j on Fri 30, January 2009 @ 08:03

bill j — 2009-01-30 08:03:30

There's another point I missed out, Jeremy "quotes" me as saying;

"Bill Jefferies, one of the key leaders of the convention and a member of the Permanent Revolution group, tried to deflect criticism by saying, "There's not going to be an election any time in the near future, so the question of a new party is not where it's at." It is quite tragic that a former member of Workers Power should come out with such nonsense."

Of course I didn't say that - the discussion was around the Euro elections in May. Even I can work out that is only three months away, I would have been able to do so even if I hadn't once been "a member of Workers Power" they teach it in year two.

My point was that we could not wait for an election to start the fightback. But we needed to do that now. That the strength of the working class rests in the workplaces not the ballot box etc. Jeremy mentions some of the points I made in the next sentence against me, why doesn't he try listening for a change, and then continues;

"second, Jefferies was wrong. There definitely will be an election in the next 12-15 months and, if we don't build a new party now, workers will have no one to vote for... except Labour! And of course this is Bill and Permanent Revolution's position, though they hardly shout about it because - as the latest opinion polls for The Independent (15 per cent Tory lead) and The Guardian (12 point Tory lead) show - workers are still turning away from Labour in revulsion."

As if the question of voting Labour or otherwise had anything to do with forming a party. Its the right wing - electoralist side of their abstract schemas. My suggestion is that they get together with everyone else who wanted a party in the room - well those who'll talk to them anyway - form a party and stand in the election. Anything's worth a try eh?

bill j on Fri 30, January 2009 @ 21:18

bill j — 2009-01-30 21:18:11

You can find WPs centrist platform here;

http://www.workerspower.com/index.php?id=47,1679,0,0,1,0

Its crowning point is a new workers party formed to win these demands in parliament;

"A democratic conference should be convened to decide on the programme of the party, which could then stand candidates in next election, to campaign in the workplaces and the streets, and link up with working class parties and movements in other countries to coordinate international action."

Chris S on Sat 31, January 2009 @ 01:31

Chris S — 2009-01-31 01:31:22

Where does it say to win these demands in parliament? It just says that they would want a new workers' party to stand in elections.

bill j on Sat 31, January 2009 @ 22:40

bill j — 2009-01-31 22:40:28

Exactly they say that these demands can be met through a party winning MPs in elections, there is no mention of socialism or revolution.

What is a revolutionary programme?

It is one that links the immediate demands, the concrete needs of the working class to the struggle against capitalism and for its overthrow.

Consider WPs demands can these demands be met through capitalism? Some of them can but as a package certainly not. But they remain important demands because they meet important needs of the working class. So we must fight for them, but we must explain that to meet them we must fight capitalism and overthrow it. We must take power through a socialist revolution.

Yet their platform does not mention socialism or revolution. All it mentions is electing deputies to parliament. It would make Kautsky proud.

It is the method of degenerate post war Trotskyism - typical of say the USFI or Miliant - that they present objectively correct or important needs but they separate these demands from the struggle for socialism and revolution.

It is indeed ironic that all that Workers Powers leftism amounts to is being rude and dishonest while simultaneously abandoning the revolutionary Marxism method.

But isn't life full of surprises?

Luke on Sun 01, February 2009 @ 22:04

Luke — 2009-02-01 22:04:12

Unite the resistance are a set of proposals for a united front to resist the crisis. As the opening preamble explains:

"We can resist. The following 10 steps can turn the tables on Brown and the bosses. We address them as a call to the whole working class movement – to the trade union leaders, to the rank and file union members, to the unorganised workers - to form a united front in action against the crisis. They set out what the working class should be demanding of this Labour government, how we could force the government to give in, and how we can begin to make the bosses, not the workers, pay the price for the crisis of their system."

Our action programme, A Workers Answer to the Crisis, outlines a strategy to turn the resistance into the a struggle for working class power.

It can also be read online here:

http://www.workerspower.com/index.php?id=167,0,0,1,0,0

As the following illustrates, it applies Trotsky's transitional method to link the immediate struggles to maximum programme of socialism and workers' power.

Looking forward to reading PR's programmatic and united front proposals for workers' resistance to the crisis.

Cheers,

Luke

From A Workers' Answer to the Crisis, opening introduction:

We urgently need to draw up a plan of action to resist this onslaught. What sort of organisation do we need? What demands should we fight for? What tactics should we fight around? These are the crucial questions our class faces today. A Workers' Answer to the Crisis is addressed to these questions and problems.

But it also goes further. In the 21st century, if we are to avoid decades more war, poverty and exploitation, then resistance to the bosses' attacks must - more than ever - be linked to the overthrow of capitalism and a socialist world.

This is why A Workers' Answer to the Crisis proposes a strategy that links our immediate struggles to the socialist goal.

It is not a manifesto of reforms for parliamentary legislation but a set of proposals for working class action on the streets and in the workplaces.

Every one of the policies we raise addresses the immediate interests of our class. None of of the solutions we propose are compatible with the capitalist system. Each and every one of them undermines the ability of the capitalists to exploit us.

A Workers' Answer to the Crisis is the British action programme of the revolutionary socialist organisation, Workers Power. If you agree with it, we urge you to join us and help turn it into a reality.

bill j on Mon 02, February 2009 @ 10:36

bill j — 2009-02-02 10:36:11

You see the trouble is Luke's explanation just makes things worse. These demands are not in fact a united front response to the crisis but rather;

"They set out what the working class should be demanding of this Labour government, how we could force the government to give in, and how we can begin to make the bosses, not the workers, pay the price for the crisis of their system."

In other words they are limited to reforms within the capitalist system, ones that they hope (fat chance!) are acceptable to trade union bosses etc. hence the abandonment of socialism and revolution.

Rather than starting out from what the working class needs and explaining the forms of struggle necessary to meet those needs, poiinting out that many of the demands, for workers control etc. cannot be met under capitalism, they start out from what the Labour government may be forced to concede and in a thoroughly opportunist manner - centrist manner - limit their demands as a result. That's why their ten demands are neither an anti-capitalist, socialist or indeed revolutionary response to the crisis.

Of course it's typical that centrists will have an "orthodox" programme in this instance "the action programme", that they use with their recruits, in their meetings, in private discussions between themselves - but they aren't fighting on the basis of the action programme are they? But on the opportunist - centrist - ten demands.

Luke on Tue 03, February 2009 @ 10:44

Luke — 2009-02-03 10:44:00

hmm...

So do you think the open letter from the German KPD to social democracy in January 1920 was a centrist document?

It was drafted by Levi and Radek and marks the first attempt at a united front tactic in the Comintern period.

The proposals it makes on common action are certainly not the full programme of the KPD but a series of minimal demands for common action.

See Pierre Broue, The German Revolution, which cites and details the document if you're not aware of it (pages 469 - 470).

bill j on Tue 03, February 2009 @ 13:55

bill j — 2009-02-03 13:55:46

No but I do think your proposals are a centrist document.

You may not have noticed but when Radek and Levi proposed their united front with the German SPD they were a party of millions leading mass sections of the working class.

What are Workers Power? A tiny student based organisation. Your 10 demands are not the basis for a united front but mere posturing. Radical posing that seeks to avoid a discussion about what we actually need to do to build the workers movement with phrases. No wonder Jeremy hates a discussion of the concrete. Far better and easier - more radical sounding - to spout off some abstractions.

Unsurprisingly at the COTL when I tried to open such a discussion about the concrete steps we needed to take to begin such a fight back, Workers Power lied about what I said, preferring instead to abuse the chair and generally disgrace themselves.

Bizarrely at the beginning of your 10 demands it claims that these are demands that can be won from a Labour government and at the end it explains we need a new party to elect an alternative set of MPs to win them. But why if they can be won by Labour? Either way this is no fighting socialist programme but a parliamentary Kautskyian one.

In contrast Radek and Levi's united front proposals, first presented in the name of 26,000 members of the metal workers union, demanded;

"Lower prices for food

Opening the capitalists books and higher unemployment benefit

Lower taxes on wages and higher taxes on the rich

Workers' control of supply and distribution of raw materials and food

Disarming of reactionary gangs and arming of the workers"

Broue p 469

In other words if these demands had been taken up by the workers movement it would have opened the struggle for power and a workers government. No idea that they could be passed in parliament by more radical deputies, these demands had to be won by the workers themselves on the streets and in the factories.

If your demands were taken up by the workers movement - a ludicrous notion I might add - they would result in the election of deputies to parliament.

As I said before this is typical centrist dissembling. On the one hand you have your "radical" revolutionary manifesto your "action programme", but this is just for the gullible. What you really "fight" for is your "reasonable" united front demands.

Either way its just for show.

bill j on Tue 03, February 2009 @ 17:16

bill j — 2009-02-03 17:16:13

Trotsky explains how the united front does not apply when the communist organisation is tiny pretty clearly here;

"3) In cases where the Communist Party still remains an organization of a numerically insignificant minority, the question of its conduct on the mass-struggle front does not assume a decisive practical and organizational significance. In such conditions, mass actions remain under the leadership of the old organizations which by reason of their still powerful traditions continue to play the decisive role.

Similarly the problem of the united front does not arise in countries where – as in Bulgaria, for example – the Communist Party is the sole leading organization of the toiling masses.

But wherever the Communist Party already constitutes a big, organized, political force, but not the decisive magnitude: wherever the party embraces organizationally, let us say, one-fourth, one-third, or even a larger proportion of the organized proletarian vanguard, it is confronted with the question of the united front in all its acuteness."

http://marx.org/archive/trotsky/1924/ffyci-2/08.htm