discussion of this article

Chris S said…

How are you in a united front with Labour Party?

Wed 27, May 2009 @ 17:24

bill j said…

A united front is a united working class struggle for a common goal. In this instance getting Labour elected.

A united front with the Greens on the other hand is an oxymoron. They are a bourgeois party. Any vote for them would be a popular front.

 

Wed 27, May 2009 @ 17:53

Basti O. said…

This is just wrong. There is no basis for a united front with the labour party. At least not for PR at the moment. The tactic of the united front was developed as a vital tactic for revolutionary communists in minority positions to gain influence over a reformist dominated working class and win them over for revolutionary politics. But this tactic becomes its own opposite if it is used in a mechanistic and automatic way. It turns into opportunism and its effect is to strengthen illusions in bourgeois politics.

The point about stepping alongside the millions of trade union supporters of labour as it is called in this article is that these millions of workers see that the revolutionary communists support them. But if we are honest we know that only a very small percentage of these labour supporters even know about PR. So if you have no acces to the workers you want to form an united front with what is the point about doing it? It is not only a waste of energy, but also a dangerous signal to the advanced workers who already lost there illusions in labour and probably know about PR if they see revolutionaries supporting what they have already overcome.

In the end supporting labour without the basis of forming an united front just means supporting labour. This is de facto joining the bourgeois camp and defending the capitalist political hegemony instead of showing a way out of it. As revolutionary communist we know that parliamentarism in the best case can be used by us to show its real character, as an instrument of the ruling class. Every force participating in parliament therefore helps backing up the system. It really doesn’t matter if they are elected by middle class fascists, greens or “subjective revolutionaries”. A revolutionary slogan for elections in the present situation can only be abstention, and as it is evident most of the working class doesn’t gives a shit about the elections and doesn’t even leave their houses for the euro elections.

If elections do not lead to a intensed sensibility for politics in the working class they have no significance for us. We should not support the bourgeois illusion that there actually is any kind of politics going on in the euro elections by calling for a vote. Instead we should make clear that elections are not politics but just make up for the capitalist system ruled by capital relations and not by parliaments. We have to focus on real politics at the breakpoints of the capitalist system where the working class gets into contradictions with the ruling order of capital. Only there it is that politics are created which are going further then the capitalist frame. And only beyond the capitalist frame there is space for revolutionary politics.

Wed 27, May 2009 @ 19:05

bill j said…

Do working class people give a shit about the elections?

Some don't. Some do. Advanced militants do. They don't want the BNP elected for a start.

Are you saying that doesn't matter? You are indifferent as to whether the fascists win seats? It seems you are.

Indeed if you care so little why did you post here on a thread about elections?

You evidently care more than you make out. More than the people who you claim are so indifferent.

So we think elections do matter. And where we are able we will combine anti-fascist work with a vote for Labour. There is no one else it is principled for a socialist to support.

Ultra lefts/abstentionists yearn for some mystical force to destroy people's illusions in the Labour Party. There is no such force.

They sit at home. They condemn. They do nothing.

Wed 27, May 2009 @ 19:23

Duncan said…

Are the Labour Party aware that you are in a united front with them?

How will a small number of PR members ticking a box marked 'Labour' in the voting booth connect you with millions of people also voting Labour?

Wed 27, May 2009 @ 19:30

bill j said…

Well the ones I did leafleting with were. Who do you support?

Wed 27, May 2009 @ 19:32

Chris S said…

Firstly, I agree you cannot be in a united front with the Greens, it was called a united *workers* front for a reason.

Surely the biggest and most obvious mistake you have made is that you are not a Communist Party and are a group with no influence on the working class. The united front is done on a mass scale, I don’t see any section of the masses following PR at the moment. This is not a slur, it is just true, PR is in similar situation in terms of numbers to my own organisation. “If the use of this tactic is to advance the cause of Communism, the actual Communist Parties carrying it out must be strong, united and under an ideologically clear leadership.” [http://www.marxists.org/history/international/comintern/4th-congress/united-front.htm] Neither PR or my own organisation is at that point. Your understanding or use of the United Front does not at all correspond with the theses accepted at the Fourth Congress of the Comintern.

The United Front tactic is to be deployed by parties which have won a significant layer of workers to communism. Trotsky is quite clear on this:

"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://www.marx.org/archive/trotsky/1924/ffyci-2/08.htm]

The United Front tactic was introduced as workers’ were moving back towards the social democratic parties at the end of the slaughter of world war 1, it was about engaging with these workers and winning leadership of them. Over the last period the working class is abandoning the Labour Party and in the Euro elections will deal a severe beating to the Labour Party. The workers are not calling for unity with Labour Party in face of mounting assaults by capitalism, our class is having to defend itself against this onslaught led by the Labour Party.

Also to enter into a united front during in elections, the non revolutionary workers party would have to agree. Do they even know they are in a united front with you?

Wed 27, May 2009 @ 19:43

Basti O. said…

@Bill: Not supporting a bourgeois party is not ultra leftism, it’s just what revolutionaries should do. Do you really think there is a qualitative difference between the BNP, the Tories or Labour? Sure the fascist brought us war and heavy attacks on the working class,… but wait! So did Tories and Labour! They all are nothing else than agents of capital. And this is just what parliament is for, to try to hide that the people and the working class have nothing to say and that in the end capital makes the decisions! So if you support a bourgeois party you are just supporting this illusion.

I don’t care about the euro elections. In fact I am not even citizen of the euro zone. But I do care about the relations of revolutionaries with the working class. I think our main tactic must be to be always absolutely honest to the working class about the character of the capitalist system and not create any false illusion. In fact this is just the heart of the united front strategy. But as I said it is turning into its opposite and actually creating more illusions as its fight if used in an automatic way. If there is no basis for a united front and there is no you can’t support a bourgeois party at all. Not because of principles but just because of the fact that this would create illusions in the bourgeois system.

What you call “working class militants” are in fact just these workers who resigned and integrated their struggle into the capitalist frame. There are many workers who are much more militant, who condemn every day they have to get up and go to work, They have no illusions in the trade unions or in politics. In fact they are at a point where they think they can do nothing about it. As communists we have to offer these honest workers an communist perspective and not alienate them by sticking to the dead institutions they have already overcome. It is a well known truth, that if you can’t do anything right you are better on by doing nothing. So in regards of parliamentarism at this stage of party organization it is probably better to sit at home condemn and do nothing.

Wed 27, May 2009 @ 20:37

David B said…

Critique of mainstream "anti-fascism" and "vote Labour to stop the BNP" (sorry if this seems like a plug, but no need to copy and paste bits of the same basic argument:

http://thecommune.wordpress.com/2009/05/17/the-european-elections-the-left-and-anti-fascism/

Wed 27, May 2009 @ 20:51

bill j said…

@Basti. If you are unable to distinguish between the BNP and Labour then I suggest you give up politics.

@ Chris The united front referred to in the comintern theses is an action proposal between parties. In that sense we or indeed no one else on the left is in a position to operate the united front. (WPs proposal of a "united front" between itself and various unions and other parties is evidently nonsense in thise sense.)

But the united front is also any common action for a common goal between socialists and non-socialists. In that sense we are perfectly able to operate the united front tactic and do every day, including in elections with a Labour vote.

As you point out your advocacy of a Green vote is however, impermissible and unprincipled in either sense.

Wed 27, May 2009 @ 22:48

Chris S said…

What you are describing are campaigning blocs not united fronts. You are also confusing tactics with principles.

Wed 27, May 2009 @ 22:51

Jason said…

Basti, I agree with a lot of what you say. In particular that we should support working class struggles against capital and I also agree that parliament is not democracy but a substitute for it.

However, I don't agree with a couple of points. First you say that revolutionaries should not stand in elections as they are sham. If there was a mass struggle against the government e.g. strikes and occupations against privatisation then I think it would be right to argue for worker militants to stand in elections if it was a way of glavanising the campaign, identifying and mobilising further support. We would argue as communists that it is class struggle that changes things not elections but use the election to make propaganda, to win and identify supporters etc. If a socialist won a seat then s/he should take it up and use the position to again mobilise class struggle.

More importantly in the current context you argue that the BNP is irrelevant because they are merely another agent of capital. However getting a Euro seat is not irrelevant for the BNP- it means a hundred thousand pounds, it means more resources to conduct its street war against Black and immigrant workers and to attack organised labour. We should vote against the fascist BNP even where it means voting for the hated and despicable Labour party- but here our message is still that workers need to fight for their own action programme, for their own party and for the working class to control society. That is the only sustainable way to defeat fascism or other forms of bourgeois rule.

Support for the Labour party is currently very weak and rightly so. Unfortunately with the working class divided and defeated, the left confused and deluded, this has not directly translated into greater militancy or a recombined and reconstituted socialist left.

We desperately need to take steps toward rebuilding the working class movement and the movement for revolutionary socialism within it. Voting Labour is a sign of utter desperation but where there are no workers' candidates of struggle let alone revolutionary socialist/communist candidates then because of the very weak attenuated but still just about extent organic links with some sections of the workers' movement then however desperate it is then a highly critical vote Labour is not unprincipled. However, it is by no means enough or even good- much better is to win adherents for class struggle, to reorganise the left and it is only a very small part of a tactic within that larger picture.

After the election when Labour will be pounded, NO2EU sidelined, the BNP may well secure some minor increases in vote and perhaps even an MEP then as workers continue to be attacked, sacked, services cut and privatised and our environment and global resources ransacked to the point of chaos then we again need to make the case for open discussion meetings to organise and co-ordinate working class campaigns of direct action against capital, to rebuild the fighting organisations of the class and of a revolutionary socialist party within it. I hope Basti, despite our sharp disagreements on some issues, you and comrades like you can be part of that debate and that struggle.

Wed 27, May 2009 @ 22:54

Basti O. said…

@Bill: In your nice short answer you have missed out just one tiny point: an argument!

@Jason: Firstly I don’t say that communists shouldn’t stand for elections. I would even more stress out that they have to. But this depends on two very important circumstances:

1. The strength of the communist organization. A communist organization needs a certain strength to stand in an election. Having election campaigns is a very intense thing so it is absolutely idiotic to stand with organizations for elections which don’t have the resources to do so, like the CWI in Austria did. The main purpose of a communist party is not to be an electoral group but to be a fighting instrument of the working class. Therefore a party should not forget about the much more important fights only to put all its efforts into election campaigns. But if a party is strong enough to stand for elections and fight the more important fights of the working class it would be ridiculously to miss out such an opportunity like an election.

2. It also depends on the intention the communist party has for its parliamentary work. Like the third international I think the only purpose for revolutionaries in parliament can be to dismantle the inefficiency and the true essence of these bodies of bourgeois rule. Every form of “participation” in a bourgeois government which means a constructive work has to be heavily refused by communists. This would reinforce illusions in parliaments and there function and also lead to a situation where the communist party subordinates itself under the bourgeois order as history has shown several times.

I know that it would be horrible if the BNP would get this large amount of extra money. But fascism is a tool of the bourgeoisie to guarantee their rule in times of intensified class struggle. The bourgeoisie however is quite careful in playing out the fascist card. As long as there is a possibility to rule through a parliamentary democracy they will prefer this option. Therefore they will instate a lot of laws and take a lot of action and stuff making it impossible for the fascists to seize too much power.

If they however feel the need for a stronger hand dealing with their affairs they will support fascism anyway. Like Hitler was support by the German capital. Then it doesn’t matter anymore where the fascists get there many from because they get it anyway. Now it is bad that this money goes to the BNP. But does it matter if it goes to the BNP who are fighting foreigners on the streets, or to another party? What the BNP does is bad. But the other parties do exactly the same thing although in a more sophisticated way like police, army, war, social cuts and so on. All in all every party that is doing the business for the capitalists fights a brutal and ruthless fight against the working class and it’s militants. So I would say this money is at least as dangerous in the hands of the tories, of the liberal, of labour or even in the hands of the green.

Wed 27, May 2009 @ 23:31

Basti O. said…

And by the way I think PR is highly correct in their analysis. I also agree on the tactics of the united front. I only disagree with the automatistic way they use it in elections.

Wed 27, May 2009 @ 23:47

stuart king said…

Chris S seems to think united fronts can only take place between mass organisations. A very strange idea as every socialist knows they regularly get involved in united fronts in all sorts of struggles: to stop post office closures, to defend a school threatened with closure or privatisation, in demonstrations and campaigns against war, to defend council housing. Very few of which are "mass" or involve agreements between parties.

A united front is a merely common campaign where the participants reserve the right to criticise their allies. It does not have to be "mass" and it does not have to be "formal". Chris S wants to restrict its use to a particular type of united front, involving mass formations like the Communist International. Thus for him it is impossible today, and therefore allows Respect a free hand to vote and campaign for the Green Party.

This of course is not a workers "united front" but as Bill said united action with a bourgeois party - what Trotsky called a popular front.

Basti thinks "at this stage of party organization it is probably better to sit at home, condemn and do nothing." Well I suppose for the passive propagandist this is the obvious option.

But he is mistaken when he says we always automatically support Labour. He obviously does not know our history or our politics too well. We fought to build the Socialist Alliance as an alternative to Labour and we have, and will, support genuine class struggle candidates against Labour where they have real support in the workers movement and struggles.

Thu 28, May 2009 @ 01:55

bill j said…

@Chris

But tactics are subordinate to principles and flow from them. They are the means through which principles are fought for. Hence a tactic which runs against or impedes us winning our principles is - unprincipled i.e. impermissible.

Our first principle is the struggle for socialist revolution for which the working class needs to be consicous and independent of the capitalists. A tactic i.e. voting for the Greens, a bourgeois party, which promotes dependence on the capitalists and impedes that independence and class consciousness is therefore, unprincipled i.e. impermissible.

Thu 28, May 2009 @ 07:39

Duncan said…

Jason says:

"getting a Euro seat is not irrelevant for the BNP... it means more resources to conduct its street war against Black and immigrant workers"

The BNP have around 10,000 members now. How many casualties of this 'street war' have there been recently?

They don't seem to have built a very effective fighting force.

Thu 28, May 2009 @ 10:09

Dan said…

Duncan the far left has been so weak that often the BNP hasn't had to resort to violence. However in places where the far left has put up some kind of challenge, like in Liverpool and Carlisle, it has result in violence from the BNP. This shows the difference between a fascist organisation and organisations like UKIP or the Tories. Can you imagine Tories or UKIP members trying to turn over a stall or their members attacking political opposition on the street?

Basti I think you have to be careful lumping in fascists with bourgeois parties, there is a difference, and the main one is the use of street violence by their members.

Thu 28, May 2009 @ 12:46

Chris S said…

Stuart, thanks for your response, your understanding runs counter to everything I have read and am reading at the moment on the United Front. If what you are describing are united fronts then you have broken with Trotsky’s and the Bolshevik understanding of the United Front. The campaigns around school closures etc are simply campaign blocs. The United Front is a specific tactic of the Communist Party to win the adherents of social democracy/ labourism to socialism. In the UK we have no Communist Party. We are not even at the point communists were before the formation of the CPGB in 1920. I think looking at what Trotsky has to say on this is helpful (sorry for the length):

“to conquer the masses – the parties are divided quite naturally and logically into three large groups:

First, there are the parties which are but at the beginning of their successes and which are not yet in a position to play a big role in the immediate action of the masses. Naturally, these parties have a great future, like all the other communist parties, but right now they cannot count very much upon the action of the proletarian masses for they are numerically weak as organizations. Hence, these parties must fight for the time being for the conquest of a basis, of the possibility of influencing the proletariat in its action (our English party is now emerging from this situation with ever-increased success).

On the other side there are parties which completely dominate the proletariat. I believe comrade Kolarov is right in claiming that this is the case with Bulgaria. What does this mean? It means that Bulgaria is ripe for the proletarian revolution and that only international conditions stand in its way. It is clear that in such a situation the question of the united front scarcely exists. In Belgium and England, on the other hand, it signifies the struggle for the possibility of influencing the proletariat and of cooperating in its movement.

Between these two extremes, there are parties which represent a power, not only in ideas but also through their numerical and organizational strength. This is already the case with most of the communist parties. Their strength may come to a third of the organized vanguard, a fourth, even a half or a bit more – that does not alter the situation in general.

What task confronts these parties? To conquer the overwhelming majority of the proletariat. And to what end? To lead the proletariat to the conquest of power, to the revolution. When will this moment be reached? We do not know. Perhaps in six months, perhaps in six years. Maybe the interval will differ for the various countries between these two figures. But speaking theoretically, it is not excluded that this preparatory period will last even longer. In that case, I ask: What will we do during this period? Continue to fight for the conquest of the majority, for the confidence of the entire proletariat. But this will not be attained by today or tomorrow; for the moment we are the party of the vanguard of the proletariat. And now still another question: Should the class struggle stop meanwhile, until we have conquered the entire proletariat? I put this question to comrade Terracini and also to comrade Renoult: Should the struggle of the proletariat for its daily bread stop until the moment when the communist party, supported by the entire working class, is in a position to seize the power? No, this struggle does not stop, it continues. The workers who belong to our party and those who do not join it, like the members of the social-democratic party and others, all of them – depending on the stage and the character of the working class in question – are disposed and able to fight for their immediate interests; and the struggle for their immediate interests is always, in our epoch of great imperialist crisis, the beginning of a revolutionary struggle. (This is very important but I mention it here only parenthetically.)

Now then, the workers who do not join our party and who do not understand it (that is precisely the reason why they do not enter it), want to have the possibility to fight for the piece of daily bread, for the bit of meat, etc. They see before them the communist party, the socialist party, and they do not understand the reason why they have parted company. They belong to the reformist General Confederation of Labor [CGT], to the socialist party of Italy, etc., or else they do not belong to any party organization. Now, what do these workers think? They say: Let these organizations or sects – I don’t know how these not very conscious workers call them in their language – give us the possibility of conducting the fight for our daily needs. We cannot answer them: But we have separated in order to prepare your great future, your great day-after-tomorrow! They will not understand this, because they are completely absorbed by their “today”. If they were able to grasp this, to them, entirely theoretical argument, they would have joined our party. With such a mental outlook and confronted with the fact of different trade union and political organizations, they have no means of orienting themselves; they find it impossible to undertake any immediate action, no matter how small or partial. Along comes the communist party and tells them: Friends, we are divided. You think it’s a mistake; I want to explain the reasons. You don’t understand them? I regret it greatly, but we are already in existence, we communists, socialists, reformists and revolutionary syndicalists; we have our independent organizations for reasons which are entirely sufficient for us communists. Nevertheless we communists propose an immediate action in your struggle for bread and meat, we propose it to you and to your leaders, to every organization that represents a part of the proletariat!” [http://marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1922/02/uf.htm]

As you can see Trotsky is quite clear on which type of organisation should carry out the United Front tactic, that is those parties that have won a significant section of the vanguard and have the ability to engage the reformists in serious way both organisationally and politically. Groups the size of PR are not at this point. They are at the first stage that Trotsky describes, that is the fight for a Communist Party.

Now if I was to believe what the majority of organised socialists believe in this country then I would believe that the fight for a revolutionary workers movement is off the cards. On this I am happy to be in the minority, same goes on the United Front, just because you are with the majority does not make you right. Very few campaigning blocs involve a large number of people.

I don’t want to restrict the use of the United Front tactic, I am against it being gutted of it’s actual content on whims of small revolutionary groups be it the SWP or PR, which is essentially a self delusion and has led to such wonderful “United Fronts” like the UAF.

What allows Respect a free hand to vote for the Greens and No2EU is there own opportunist confusion by two wings of that organisation. Not a misunderstanding of the United Front, they share your misunderstanding on this question not mine.

No one is calling for a United Front with the Green Party as far as I know, I am not. If as you say the United Front is simply about agreement of actions between organisations of the class, and a Popular Front is founded on agreement of actions between proletarian and bourgeois forces then you happen to find yourself on the leadership of a popular front called Hands Off the People. In what you would describe as a Popular Front you sit happily with Jim Jepps and the Greens in organising common action against war, sanctions and in solidarity with the people of Iran. You see, your understanding that little campaigns, be it at Lewisham Bridge or HOPI are United Fronts with Greens means that you are in a Popular Front and have consciously chosen to enter into a Popular Front. Obviously you are inconsistent on this as your talk does not match your actions. For me it is completely acceptable to enter into campaigning alliances with the greens in blocs such as HOPI, it is also completely acceptable to form *temporary* alliances with anyone as long as it advances the cause, and does not impact on the organisational independence of the Communist Party. I think it was Trotsky who said “you can make an alliance with the devil”?

Bill, again you confuse tactics and principles. In principle there is nothing wrong with voting Green, Labour, SLP or No2EU. Tactically it is permissible to argue for a vote for the Greens to keep the BNP out. Granted they are using this threat to whip up as much support as possible, but there is nothing wrong in principle in suggesting a vote for the Greens against the BNP. Voting for the Greens does not imply dependence of the capitalists anymore than it does voting Labour. I thought that would have been obvious!

A question neither of you have answered is, does Gordon Brown and the Labour Party NEC know they are in a United Front with you? Did they agree to it? Or is there no agreement over common action in your imaginary “United Front” with the Labour Party?

Thu 28, May 2009 @ 14:16

bill j said…

All your references to the Comintern are simply a cover for voting Green. Explain that contradiction away if you can.

Saying our tactics don't mean anything because we're small is a cop out. It means that we don't want to get our hands dirty - voting Labour - safe in the knowledge that others will do so on our behalf.

Why Vote Labour?

1) it is the only party that socialists could in principle support - unless you think the fascists are irrelevent and it really doesn't matter if they win then this is enough on its own

2) its better to have Labour in power where they can show themselves up than out of power where they can pretend to be something they're not

3) it allows us to work alongside others many of them working class militants who still support Labour

4) its better than sitting at home, watching telly and telling everyone

else what they should be doing while doing nothing yourself

Thu 28, May 2009 @ 14:24

Chris S said…

Bill, still confused on tactics and principles. The idea that the Labour Party is "the only party that socialists could in principle support" is just absurd. It also contradicts your own tendency's history with regards to the Socialist Alliance! I never said tactics don't mean anything when we are small, read what I wrote and try and quote me on that, or failing that don't respond to stuff you clearly haven't read. You sound silly with the "its better than sitting at home" nonsense. I don't advocate sitting at home.

The comintern and Trotsky quotes are to show that your understanding of the United Front is wrong. As usual you don't discuss barely anything that has been written. Luckily not everyone in PR has the your approach to political discussion!

Thu 28, May 2009 @ 14:35

Duncan said…

Dan,

The fact that a full 15 years after the BNP successfully abandoned street confrontations for electoral politics you're still getting anxious about the largely imaginery threat of far right violence is a testament to a profound inability of leftists to understand why the BNP has been so successful.

The far right lost the 'street war' of the late 80's and early 90's and moved successfully into community and electoral politics. Violent groups like the National Front are a pathetic shadow of their former selves while leftist bogeyman 'Combat 18' haven't been seen in public in almost a decade now.

The remaining militant neo-Nazi groups (like the RVF or the BPP) are not only tiny but incapable of pulling of any activity in this country. That's why their main activitiy is travelling to Holland and Germany to attend demos there.

You can't compare the situation we have now with the early and mid-90's, when C18 and the BNP were capable of bringing mobs of a couple of hundred out to attack the Bloody Sunday demos in London. It's completely different.

The street war is over because the far right were beaten and changed tactics. Your view of the BNP only being restrained from street conflicts by the weakness of the left is pure fantasy.

For example, I don't know where you've got your information from about 'BNP violence in Carlisle' but it was nothing of the sort. I know some of the people involved in that incident (the NO2EU supporters not the BNP!) and all that happened was a bit of shouting before the BNP called the police. You've led a sheltered life if you think that's evidence of a 'street war'.

I don't know the specifics of what happened in Liverpool but its hardly indicative of a general trend. There are still plenty of BNP members willing to engage in low-level confrontation with the 'reds' but this is a small minority of their membership.

I still think the BNP is a fascist party but they have a highly limited capacity, and desire, to engage in confrontation.

This is why the number of casualties in the 'street war' between the BNP and 'Black and immigrant workers' in recent years in around zero.

Thu 28, May 2009 @ 16:09

squatticus said…

Fascist demo on streets of Luton:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1187165/Nine-arrested-masked-mobs-march-Muslim-extremists-turns-violent.html

Duncan is a trifle optimistic!

Thu 28, May 2009 @ 16:25

Duncan said…

squatticus,

Strange kind of fascist demo that, one not organised or advertised by any active fascist groups in Britain and where some of the (confused) participants had 'NF Go to Hell' placards.

If you knew anything more about the march in Luton that the Daily Mail says you'd know it was largely organised and attended by southern English football casuals associated with the Facebook group 'firms reunited' and the 'March for England' mob from Britain. These people are unlikely to be members of any political group and who would deny they are racist (March for England go out of their way to emphasise this) even though it's not a very plausible denial.

Football firms are not political groups and regularly turn out large numbers of people for stuff like this. The only difference is that there was no football on.

Still, that goes some way to illustrating my point. A potentially violent, aggressive demo against Muslims and the BNP don't endorse it or encourage attendance. Again, not evidence of a 'street war' being waged by the far right.

Feel free to continue to fantasise that Britain faces a street-level violent fascist movement.

Thu 28, May 2009 @ 17:35

Duncan said…

"'March for England' mob from Britain" should read "from Brighton".

Thu 28, May 2009 @ 17:36

Dan said…

Duncan,

Of course I'm not saying the BNP have built up their success around street fighting, far from it. They've built up their success on doing local campaigning work and give false answers to people's probalems of unemployment, lack of housing, lack of opportunities etc

Also where did I say the situation was like the early 1990s? Where did I talk about "street war" either?

Maybe things weren't in Carlisle as I thought, but there was definately violence in Liverpool and there have been incidents in other places. Even these incidents set the BNP apart from groups like the Tories and UKIP who simply wouldn't get involved with street violence of any kind. As said I think they've put street violence on the back burner as it's not necessary for them and isn't a vote winner, but I have no doubt that it's a tactic that they will still use as and when necessary. We'll see in the next few years.

Thu 28, May 2009 @ 18:06

Jason said…

Duncan: if your point is that the BNP are not exactly the same as they were then that is worth engaging with and answering.

The BNP under Griffin has tried to portray itself as a patriotic right-wing party which is anti-immigrant but not racist, tried to present itself as speaking up for ordinary people and interested in power through the ballot box not through physical violence. Under Griffin's leadership violence has gone down but it would be irresponsible to claim that thereofre thye pose no threat to immigrant workers, Black workers or the organised working class.

However, I did use he words 'street war' and for a reason. I remember very vividly attacks on the streets of Oldham 8 years ago (not 15) when BNP supporters attacked various homes, when racists from both the BNP and the NF walked through areas chanting racist slogans, homes were attacked, a colleageu at work had his car attacked with a baseball bat while he was in it, another friend had his windows smashed and an Asian councillor had his house firebombed- all this when Griffin stood in Oldham West for MP. Five years ago a BBC undercover reporter recorded prominent BNP members admit to racism including ones who fantasised about gunning down Asians and other sick racist fantasies.

The BNP have changed their publicity and we certainly need to adapt. That is why the main response to the BNP has to be political- to rebuild working class campaigns, to build a workers' alternative. However, to believe the propaganda of a man who today in The Times claimed that he would be quite happy to break laws against racist discrimination, to believe that they pose no threat to Black and immigrant workers is far too complacent and to be taken in by their rhetoric.

Thu 28, May 2009 @ 19:34

bill j said…

@Chris I was obviously talking about this election not all elections throughout the history of time. Fair point I'm not very interested in debating the ins and outs of the Comintern with someone who uses it to support a Green vote. Interested in discussing politics? Explain that one away.

Thu 28, May 2009 @ 20:09

Duncan said…

Sorry Dan, I was getting your response confused with Jason's original post.

I think what happened in Liverpool was unusual and that, in total, the amount of incidents of political violence in Britain in the last few years (with the exception of that bloke getting hit in the face with a hammer) probably number less than what you'd see on a typical Friday night out. It isn't a significant feature.

Jason, I think we agree on a fundamental point, the BNP is an important threat to focus on. However, I think the threat they pose is different to the threat the fascist right in Britain has traditionally posed, street level violence against leftists, immigrants, and LGBT people, and that describing the problem in those terms is no longer accurate.

The threat they pose now is following the example of what the extreme right have done in some European countries, gaining control of part of the state machinery, shifting the policial agenda sharply to the right and framing social problems in racial terms.

With regards to Oldham, I would suggest that the significant changes I mentioned (in terms of tactics) have happened since then. The BNP is roughly three times the size it was in 2001 and seems to have lost a lot of its base in Oldham.

Thu 28, May 2009 @ 20:21

Chris S said…

Bill, I am not bothering writing you more paragraphs that you will simply ignore or are incapable of answering. When your responses range from non-existant in terms of politics, to down right sillyness, it is just waste of time.

Fri 29, May 2009 @ 00:06

stuart king said…

To reply to Chris S (of the CPGB I assume). I think you are being a formalist Chris. You are taking one episode of the CI’s history/tactics and deciding that is the be all and end all of the UF tactic. And even there you get it wrong. You say that “The United Front is a specific tactic of the Communist Party to win the adherents of social democracy/ labourism to socialism” and only this.

Well what about the workers united front against fascism that Trotsky argued for in the 1930s – its aim was to defeat the fascists. What about the Anglo Russian Committee? When this united front was struck in the early 1920s, quite formally between the Russian TUs and the British TUs, its aim was to prevent British intervention against Russia. So for the CI and Trotsky, UF’s were not limited to winning Social-Democrats to communism – although in all UFs, indeed all actions of the CPs, this was a general aim.

Neither is it true to say “As you can see Trotsky is quite clear on which type of organisation should carry out the United Front tactic, that is those parties that have won a significant section of the vanguard and have the ability to engage the reformists in serious way both organisationally and politically.” Both Lenin and Trotsky referred to the CPGB in the early 1920s as a “propaganda society” when they were encouraging it to affiliate to Labour as part of the UF tactic – it was both small and had relatively little influence in the British working class at the time. The sections of the FI that Trotsky encouraged into UF’s in the 1930s were even smaller with even less influence. So UF’s were not limited to agreements between significant or mass parties.

As you say, there is no problem in being in united fronts, or “campaign blocs” as you prefer to call them, with non proletarian forces. As Trotsky said the united front can be with “the devil and his grandmother”, as long as we march separately, are allowed to make our criticisms, and strike together – the method of the UF tactic laid down by the CI. Which is why in anti-war campaigns we can fight alongside all sorts of forces, including Green Party members – providing they are genuinely fighting against war.

But these blocks or UF’s are for action NOT elections or government, which is quite a different thing. The SWP confused the two (deliberately) and gave us Respect.

But you say “In principle there is nothing wrong with voting Green”. But when we vote we do so to put parties in power – in one sentence, without thought, you sweep away a principle that has guided the Marxist movement since the founding of the First International, “That the emancipation of the working classes must be conquered by the working classes themselves”. This is why no Marxist (as opposed to revisionists abandoning Marxism) have ever advocated supporting, joining, or voting for bourgeois parties. Perhaps you can give us an example where the Bolsheviks or the CI advocated voting for a bourgeois party?

The reason that Lenin and the CI thought it was possible to critically support Labour or Social Democratic parties was precisely because these were workers parties (not bourgeois parties), even though they had (reformist) bourgeois programmes and leaderships. If you support bourgeois parties it is a short step to joining them in government, “to block the fascists”.

Are you really telling workers that the Green Party can stop fascism?

This is all the ABC of Marxism. The fact we have to explain to socialists why it is impermissible to vote for bourgeois parties just shows how far revisionism has triumphed over Marxism since Lenin’s time

Fri 29, May 2009 @ 01:19

bill j said…

@Chris That's fine. But of course that means you still haven't explained how its principled to vote Green.

Fri 29, May 2009 @ 09:11

Jason said…

Hi Duncan

I'm glad we agree that fighting the rise of the BNP is a priority. We probably also agree that the main method of fighting fascism is through building a working class socialist alternative.

Through the direct action of the working class through campaigns, strikes, occupations and the rest to cut through the despair that breeds fascism and racism to create hope that we can reclaim our communities and economy by fightng for working class control over society. Where electoral activity by socialists helps build this class struggle we should fight for it- this will be a priroty after the elections and particualrly after the general election. We really need to come up with new creative ways to cut through the sectarian squabbles of the left and come up with ways to cut through the impasse.

Voting Labour is not anything any of us want to do. Much better would be to have a genuinely socialist party to fight for power through class struggle. However sadly we have not won that argument yet with millions of workers a significant section of whom in the organised working class still look to Labour. What complicates this argument is that there is another section of th epoliticised working class- perhaps tens of thousands- who quite rightly hate Labour and this seems to also strike a chord with the millions owho have become dejected with politics who also quite rightly hate Labour as a bunch of crooks who bail out the bankers whilst sacking hundreds of thousands of workers. Do we say to these people vote Labour?

What we say is get involved in class struggle politics, point to how campaigns can and have worked, how workforces who have fought back have gained concessions and even outright victories. We say we want to build a party, a revolutionary party, that willtake away power from the current bunch of crooks and the bankers,the factory owners, media moguls, arms manufactureres, the whole rotten capitalist class. To do this we have to engage with the organised working class- fight for workers' candidates, to democratise the political funds in the unions, to argue for socialist politics, for selections of fighting policies and candidates willing to represent them. For this to happen we have to challenge Labour- to enage with the left outside Labour and those still inside.

To thosw workers who want to vote against the BNP- quite rightly- who will vote Labour because there is no alternative we say you are wrong if you expect Labour to do anything for you- that's why we need an alternative. The Greesns despite having some well meaning activists is not such an alternative- they don't even have attenuated links to working class organiations. NO2EU despite having some militants in it has been steered down the old path of Europhobic Stalinism (the sort of thing you used to read in the Morning Star- perhaps they are still at it) and mixing leftish reforms with patriotic appeals to 'sovereignty'- a dismal dead end, though even here if it had rank and file involvement with union branches backing it may have been worth engaging with calling for a critical vote to challenge the illusions of those tempted by this road but instead it was last-minute stitch up with no organic working clas ssupport (though it will out of utter desperation attract some activists it is unlikely to translate into significant votes).

But until we have built that alternative we will say that the instinct to fight for working clas spolitical representation through a workers' party is not wrong- it's the rotten bourgeois politics of imperialist murder and constant attacks on workers that is wrong. We don't say Vote Labour because Labour is any good but to challege the illsions of those who still have not been won to building workers' struggle candidates and a fighting militant rank and file trade union movement.

Fri 29, May 2009 @ 12:31

Phil said…

I think Respect have made the right decisions re the euro elections. they aren't strong enough to stand themselves and No2EU and the Greens are the best alternatives. They have their faults but have not proved themselves to be actually Thatcherite as Labour has done. As long as calling for a vote for No2EU/Green is done as part of an ongoing local activism then why not? also voting Labour rather than No2EU/Green would probably mean the Tories getting extra seats at the expense of smaller parties. as for boycotting the election - if you are lucky enough not to be registered then no worries but otherwise you may as well vote for someone other than the status quo just to show you don't like it.

Phil

Fri 29, May 2009 @ 15:11

Chris S said…

Stuart, thanks for your response, yes I am member of the CPGB. You still have not explained whether Labour have agreed to joint action over the elections. You are right that the united front is simply more than just a way to win the adherents of social democracy, as you rightly point out there can be agreement between workers’ parties in the face of fascism. However, a united front against fascism is about defeating the fascist threat but it is also about winning leadership of the class. Again we must go to Trotsky:

“The program of action must be strictly practical, strictly objective, to the point, without any of those artificial “claims,” without any reservations, so that every average Social Democratic worker can say to himself. what the Communists propose is completely indispensable for the struggle against fascism. On this basis, we must pull the Social Democratic workers along with us by our example, and criticize their leaders who will inevitably serve as a check and a brake. Only in this way is victory possible.” [http://marxists.org/archive/trotsky/germany/1931/311208.htm]

On the Anglo Russian committee Trotsky is helpful again:

“The Anglo-Russian Committee was an impermissible type of bloc of two leaderships on one common political platform, vague, deceptive, binding no one to any action at all.he maintenance of this bloc at the time of the British General Strike, when the General Council assumed the role of strikebreaker, signified, on the part of the Stalinists, a policy of betrayal.” [http://marxists.org/archive/trotsky/germany/1931/311208.htm]

Also in PR1 from 1983(Original Series) you wrote:

“to maintain a bloc with the reformist leaders during and after a betrayal in action, is to become complicit in it. Trotsky stigmatised the Russian trade unions for doing just this during the British General Strike by remaining with the TUC in the Anglo-Russian Committee: “Temporary agreements may be made with the reformists whenever they make a step forward. But to maintain a bloc with them when, frightened by the development of a movement, they commit treason, is equivalent to criminal toleration of traitors and a veiling of betrayal.””

But considering your existing inconsistency and confusion over the United Front, it is not surprising to find Trotskyists not only defending but promoting an “impermissible type of bloc”.

I don’t think it is formalistic and at the same time revisionist to simply state that a little group like yourself (or the CPGB) cannot form a United Front with the Labour Party. It is what is written in the theses but more importantly, it also proven by reality. You persist in dodging the question that started this discussion. This discussion is about the delusional idea that you are in a United Front with the Labour Party. How are you in a United Front with the Labour Party? Does the Labour NEC agree, do they even know who you exist?. Could you answer that, instead of trying to dodge it with talk of the Greens. I have not, and will not call for a vote for the Greens in this discussion, the CPGB has agreed its approach to these elections which is for a vote for the Labour Party as there is a lack of a principled alternative, fortunately we lack your grandiose assertion that we are in a United Front with the Labour Party. There are arguments to be had on whether to vote Labour, some of which Basti has brought up, some of them have been discussed in the pages of the Weekly Worker and also in Workers Power’s article on the No2EU and the elections.

You also have changed you mind on this thread on what a united front is, and what a popular front is. You wrote “there is no problem in being in united fronts, or “campaign blocs” as you prefer to call them, with non proletarian forces.” and you also wrote “as Bill said united action with a bourgeois party - what Trotsky called a popular front.” So which one is it, are campaign blocs and common actions with the Green Party such as HOPI, where you sit on the leadership, United Fronts or Popular Fronts?

Trotsky is clear on what type of organisation should and can carry out the United Front tactic. Let’s look at Trotsky’s advice to the ILP, he is even more clear:

“QUESTION – Should the ILP terminate its united front with the CP?

ANSWER – Absolutely and categorically – yes! The ILP must learn to turn its back on the CP and towards the working masses. The permanent “unity committees” in which the ILP has sat with the CP were nonsense in any case. The ILP and the CPGB were propaganda organizations not mass organizations; united fronts between them were meaningless if each of them had the right to advance its own program. These programs must have been different or there would have been no justification for separate parties, and with different programs there is nothing to unite around. United fronts for certain specific actions could have been of some use, of course, but the only important united front for the ILP is with the Labour Party, the trade unions, the cooperatives. *At the moment, the ILP is too weak to secure these; it must first conquer the right for a united front by winning the support of the masses.* At this stage, united fronts with the CP will only compromise the ILP. Rupture with the CP is the first step towards a mass basis for the ILP and the achievement of a mass basis is the first step towards a proper united front, that is, a united front with the mass organizations.”[http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1936/xx/ilp.htm]

You are even smaller than the ILP, how you believe you can enter a United Front with the Labour Party is just wrong.

On voting in elections, unless you promote tactics to principles then it can at times be permissible to vote for Greens and all sorts of parties such as Lenin was fine with calling for votes for Cadets and Trudoviks. You will know that the Bolsheviks looked at elections with a range of tactics, the discussions over the second Duma in 1906 are very interesting and extremely helpful in breaking down yours and Bill’s misunderstanding over tactics and principles. Just one example from Lenin on temporary agreements with a bourgeois party during elections:

“To succeed in an assembly of electors a candidate must obtain at least 51 votes out of every 100. This indicates that the general tactical rule of the Social-Democratic electors must be: to   try to win over a sufficient number of bourgeois-democratic electors who sympathise with Social-Democracy, or such as most deserve support, in order jointly with them to defeat the rest and thus secure the election of in part Social-Democratic and in part the best bourgeois-democratic electors.

We shall illustrate this rule by simple examples. Let us assume that out of 100 electors, 49 are Black Hundreds, 40 are Cadets and 11 are Social-Democrats. A partial agreement between the Social-Democrats and the Cadets is necessary in order to secure the election in full of a joint list of Duma candidates, on the basis, of course, of a proportional distribution of Duma seats according to the number of electors (i.e., in this case, one-fifth of the Duma seats from the whole gubernia, say, two out of ten, would go to the Social-Democrats, and four-fifths, or eight out of ten, would go to the Cadets).” [http://marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1906/eleagree/vi.htm#v11pp65-290]

Are you also accusing Lenin of sweeping away the guiding principle of the Marxist movement? Because he is saying, like I am, yes temporary agreements with bourgeois forces are acceptable to move forward the struggle. Lenin and the Bolsheviks were clear that you can at times call for a vote for none proletarian forces as long as you maintained the independence of the workers’ party. So how am I revising that approach? Marxists must have a vast arsenal of tactics for elections, and sometimes that will manifest itself in temporary agreements or calling for vote for parties like the Greens to keep the BNP out or agreements with Cadets to keep the Black Hundreds out.

Nowhere have I argued that the Green Party can stop fascism, that would be stupid. Mathematically they can stop the BNP gaining a seat in the North West. However, that should not be our only consideration when deciding who to vote for. I hope you can deal with the first question I asked properly, before moving on to other points which have come up in this discussion. I would really like to see this agreement for common action during the elections between PR and the Labour Party.

Fri 29, May 2009 @ 15:59

bill j said…

If size was the issue then as a small group no organisation could vote. If we are too small to enter into a united front - i.e. vote for Labour - then you are too small to enter into a united front (misnamed) with the Greens.

The ILP was btw a tiny group albeit it had several thousand members. Clearly the requirement of size did not apply to it. As Stuart has already explained.

You may not have called for a vote for Greens in the discussion but as you point out in your last paragraph that's what you think. So why not be honest?

As for the machinations of the Russian Dumas electoral system from a quick skim of Lenin's article it simply doesn't say what you claim - namely that Lenin called for a vote for the Cadets;

"This brings us to the question of the significance of this election arithmetic from the point of view of political principle. Our duty here is to oppose seat-hunting and to put forward an absolutely firm and consistent defence of the standpoint of the socialist proletariat and of the interests of the complete victory of our bourgeois-democratic revolution. Under no circumstances, and in no way, should our Social-Democratic delegates and electors keep silent about our socialist aims, our strictly class position as a proletarian party."

You on the other hand remain silent about socialism. In fact you oppose it, sdvocating a nebulous Kautskyite "democracy". In practice it amounts to sitting at home and supporting a bourgeois party while mouthing orthodox phrases.

"Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player

That struts and frets his hour upon the stage

And then is heard no more: it is a tale

Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,

Signifying nothing."

http://shakespeare.mit.edu/macbeth/macbeth.5.5.html

Fri 29, May 2009 @ 16:18

Jason said…

Chris, I feel somewhat reluctant to post again as I feel you omitted to read what I wrote the first time round. However, in the spirit of optimisim:

when we say vote Labour against the BNP then the united front if you want to call it that (which you can) is one with voters who think voting Labour is a way to stop the BNP- we enter into a united front with those activist by saying in our opinion what is needed to stop fascism is workers' action and a workers' action programme. If we were big enough and had enough influence we would put forward socialist candidates and that is is our perspective to win workers to socialism, to a reovlutionary party using direct action class struggle to win power and only participating in elections in order to advance that. However we have not won that argument and so we say to workers that Labour will betray you, you need your own own party but we have not won thta argument yet so we will go through the experience of voting Labour with you not to support Labour but to hasten its break up. This does not require agreement with the central committee of the Labour party!

The truth is it would be much better to stand independent working class candidates- but they cannot be magicked out of thin air, nor declared by ome union bureacrats or even militants. It requires rebuilding the workers' movement through common action- including strikes, demos, occupations and yes on occassions voting for a aprty not because you support it but to in order to hasten its demise.

Fri 29, May 2009 @ 17:46

Chris S said…

Apologies Jason, I didn't read your previous post as it was addressed to Duncan.

The point that I am making is not that you can't work with Labour supporters against the BNP or cannot vote for Labour Party. The point is you cannot be in a United Front with the Labour Party for the reasons I have outlined above, such as your size, lack of communist party, lack of agreement etc. You say that you are going along with Labour Party voters to expose the Labour Party, well then that is not a United Front is it? Becuase a United Front has to be agreed. I doubt you even approached the Labour Party to form a United Front during elections. More than this how many workers have you spoke to about this, let's be fair the people who read this website are already on the Left.

Fri 29, May 2009 @ 18:00

Jason said…

Chris, OK fair enough that you hadn't read my previous post though I like to operate under th eillusion that everyone reads my posts!

Isn't this debate beooming a bit of a semantic one about what a united front is? It isn't necessary to have a drawn up agreement between two organisations however. For example in a strike socialists would jpoin a strike committee, propose action to extend the strike e.g. occupations, picketing other sites, demos, collections etc. We would argue for workers' control of the strike with a democratically elected strike committee elected from mass meetings etc. etc. We would be open about the need for a workers' society run by the working class and th need for a reovluitonary party. But we'd undertake common action with all the workers who were willing to do it including the leaders of the trade union where they could be compelled or influenced to do so.

This doesn't mean PR or any other socialist group undertaking a formal agreement with the reformist leaders- we are against joint propaganda because our message is one of revolution not reform. Our vote for Labour goes alongside open communist propaganda. But we are for united action including making demands on the reformists not in order to support them but in order to expose them. In this sense electroal tactics of critical support for a bourgeois workers' party can be compared to a united front.

As you are obvioulsy keen on reading some of our back catalogue you may want to check out the electoral theses from Permanent Revolution 6 first series:

"Where, because of size and resources, communists are unable to stand their own candidates but there exist other, non-communist, working class candidates, it may be principled to operate a united front in the form of critical electoral support. Here, the decisive criterion is the relationship of non-communist candidates to the working class and the oppressed, not the platform of the party. Whilst it is true that non-communists can make promises of pro-working class measures if they are elected and, thereby, win working class support, the requirements of the capitalist system will limit their ability to fulfil such promises, even where they are genuinely made. Communists must seek to warn the working class of this and to exploit the contradictions between reformists and their working class base when such promises are not fulfilled. It is the contradictory nature of such parties which allows the operation of the united front towards them.

This tactic can be applied where such candidates are standing as resentatives of organisations organically linked to the working class, for example, reformist parties or trade unions where no such parties exists. By critical support is meant calling for workers to vote for these candidates but on the basis of criticism of their programme. Once again, the communist programme is the basis of communist propaganda posed as demands on the candidates. Not only must the superiority of this programme over that of the reformists be explained but also the record of the reformist party in failing to fulfil even the limited promises made in the past. Such argumentation, however, is unlikely to convince the mass of workers to desert ‘their’ party. It is necessary also to pose the need for working class action to hold that party to its current promises and to achieve immediate objectives.

In keeping with the principles of united front work, communists march under their own banner of an action programme, sparing neither criticisms of, nor warnings about, the non-communist parties and candidates. They honestly offer to ‘strike together’ with the non-communists both in the sense of voting for their candidate and of taking joint action in current struggles. In this way the non-communists can be put to the test in practice. In periods of relative class peace this tactic has an important application, even for small propaganda groups, in the training of cadre and the recruitment of new forces on an understanding of the method of the united front."

http://www.permanentrevolution.net//?view=entry&entry=1476

Fri 29, May 2009 @ 18:29

bill j said…

In essence Chris says that a small socialist group cannot vote in elections for to do so would constitute a "united front".

Its frankly a joke.

But that's where you get if you treat Marxism not as a tool to guide us in our struggles today but as a dusty set of religious manuscripts that have been buried for too long under a rock.

Just look at his own group the CPGB. They have adopted easily the most ridiculous position on the elections going - critical support for No2EU. Some of them also support No2EU uncritically. Some of them support the Greens. Bizarrely these are labelled internally as "ultra lefts". But all of them are united in a quasi religous view of "Marxism" which wants to rehabilitate Karl Kautsky while saying barely a thing about the contemporary world now.

My advice to them is stay in the library. Its safer than actually doing anything.

Fri 29, May 2009 @ 18:44

Chris S said…

Jason, thanks for your response. It is not about semantics, it is about the actual content of the United Front tactic, and whether Permanent Revolution has constituted a United Front with the Labour Party for the forthcoming elections. The idea that PR have, is absurd, that is what I took up in my previous posts.

Is the United Front simply a common agreement between parties for agreed action? That is essentially what Stuart and yourself are putting forward. I disagree with this notion, it guts the United Front tactic and reduces it to nothing more than campaigning blocs between small, largely tiny groups that the class does not even register as existing.

The Comintern theses does say that there is to be agreement between parties when forming a united front:

“The Executive Committee of the Communist International considers that the chief and categorical condition, the same for all Communist Parties, is: the absolute autonomy and complete independence of every Communist Party entering into any *agreement* with the parties of the Second and Two-and-a-Half Internationals, and its freedom to present its own views and its criticisms of those who oppose the Communists.” [http://www.marxists.org/history/international/comintern/4th-congress/united-front.htm]

You cannot really form a United Front with an organisation you have not even contacted and does not know you exist. This is an unrequited love story. There are times when agreements cannot be reached between a Communist Party and the reformist/ Social Democratic party. This is usually down to treachery on behalf of the reformists. When this happens Trotsky advised that the Communist Party should seek agreement by approaching the reformist leadership and when they refuse expose them publicly to the class and organise common action with the workers who are still tied to the social democratic parties or the TU bureaucracy. PR is not doing this, in fact it cannot do this as it cannot expose anything to the class with its current numbers and lack of support amongst the working class. PR did not even attempt to expose Labour leadership in the way Trotsky suggests. Further how can you have a United Front with a party that is leading attacks on the working class? Surely those elements of the class which are entering into struggle are not looking to reformist leadership as they were when the Comintern theses were formulated. It is the opposite situation, sections of the class is coming out in open confrontation against the Labour party.

You say that you would be open about the need for a workers’ society when entering into common action with other groups, so when you entered into struggle around Lewisham Bridge primary were you open about being socialists then? By the looks of your bulletin, you did not? I am not necessarilly saying your approach at Lewisham Bridge is wrong, as I think it was a great action, but it would contradict what you have said.

You say that your vote for Labour goes alongside open communist agitation, yet with your numbers, will anyone even know apart from those on the British Left that read this website? Have PR members been openly putting out communist literature supporting the Labour Party against the BNP? I see your vote for the Labour Party, but all I see in terms of communist agitation is a blog post. It is obvious that your intentions are wholly supportable and should be fought for when we have a party, but to pretend you are carrying out a United Front with the Labour Party at this moment is an obvious error.

I will read through the electoral theses and other stuff you have from the orginal PR series.

Fri 29, May 2009 @ 19:43

Jason said…

The United Front is not, generally, an agreement between parties at all- this is from where your confusion arises I fear. And it is certianly not unrequited love- we do not love Labour, we hate them! We are trying to destroy them and to argue for the rebuilding of a workers' movement capable of doing it!

Yes we are very small but clear politics passionately argued for backed up by imaginative militant action can lead to great things! I suspect that in Lewisham the argument that a local school should not be closed but run by education workers, students and the local working class community dovetails very nicely with the idea of workers running society in general. You don't have to quote Lenin on every leaflet to argue that- in fact great though he is it's not always the best of ideas. Class struggle is a living struggle requiring fresh examples- that is not hiding our politics!

I alas have got to get on with something urgently, my OU assignment, now with a midnight deadline so will perhaps return to the foray tomorrow. Till then, happy reading!

Fri 29, May 2009 @ 19:53

James Turley said…

Bill: "A united front is a united working class struggle for a common goal. In this instance getting Labour elected.

A united front with the Greens on the other hand is an oxymoron. They are a bourgeois party. Any vote for them would be a popular front."

Didn't you turn up to CU last year (might have been the PR school) and go on about how brilliant it was when you and some other anti-fascists conviced a bunch of market stall holders (i.e. the petty bourgeoisie) to overturn a BNP stall? And now you're lecturing people about popular fronts?

One can only titter to oneself.

Sat 30, May 2009 @ 11:53

bill j said…

Laugh all you like. Unfortunately it's all too revealing. In a common action for a common goal - in this instance denying the BNP a platform obviously we are not going to exlude people from participating because they are in the wrong social class.

Did that in any way compromise our actions? No

Did it imply a political concession to those social forces? No

Did it actively break them from fascism towards the working class? Yes

You attitude reveals the semantic and abstract method of the CPGB. What does that amount to? Opposing no platform. Supporting the rights of fascists. Voting Green. Voting No2EU. Not voting. And all of the above.

The jokes on you.

Sat 30, May 2009 @ 12:19

Chris S said…

Jason, I hope you got your assignment in, I know that a United Front can be concluded between non party formations such as unions. The key however to the United Front is the Communist Party, I don't see one in existence. The point is that these organisations have to have a credible presence within the working class, and have leadership of a section of the working class, as Trotsky says:

"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://www.marx.org/archive/trotsky/1924/ffyci-2/08.htm]

You are not there, the Left is not there, it is just ludicrous to suggest that PR is in a United Front with the Labour Party. I shouldn't have said it is unrequited love, but the point I am making, apart from the other reasons I have already cited, is that you cannot be in United Front with an organisation that does not know you exist, and win those workers who follow the Labour Party, when they do not know you exist.

I am not saying quote Lenin on every leaflet, but surely saying that you are socialists would be a good start? As I said in my previous post, 'You say that your vote for Labour goes alongside open communist agitation, yet with your numbers, will anyone even know apart from those on the British Left that read this website? Have PR members been openly putting out communist literature supporting the Labour Party against the BNP? I see your vote for the Labour Party, but all I see in terms of communist agitation is a blog post. It is obvious that your intentions are wholly supportable and should be fought for when we have a party, but to pretend you are carrying out a United Front with the Labour Party at this moment is an obvious error.'

Sat 30, May 2009 @ 13:56

Jason said…

Chris, I did get my assignment in thanks. I am however consequently extremely exhauasted as I was up at 6.30 with our son.

I kind of get the impression you're repeating yourself. But never mind. The point about the possibility of voting for non socialist candidates is the following:

if we had the numbers and the implantation in the class we'd stand socialist candidates. However, the vast majority of workers are not yet won to the position of revolution or fighting for it in society. Many still have illusions in reformism and against the BNP would however reluctantly vote Labour. As socialists we say Labour offer no answers whatsoever and are in fact a party of the ruling class politically who will attack the working class. However, a certain section of the working class says we don't believe you we think life will be better under Brown than under Cameron or the fascists so we are voitng Labour because we want e.g. better public services, better wages or whatever labour lie they;ve been convinced by. We say Labour offer no solutions but will join you in fighting for jobs, for better conditions, against privatisation bt we warn you now that Labour will not deliver- you need to fight against them which is why we advise standing revolutionary candidates.

If you want to compare this to a united front you could say we are in a united front with workers who are voting Labour to fight for better conditions for the working class. We take common action- demos, strikes, agitation, including voting Labour because if we have lost the argument for a revolutionary candidate por a candidate of struggle then we want to expose to them that Labour- even the best Labour MPs- offer no solution and for the most part govern on behalf of the ruling class. It is a united front with workers mistakenly still wedded to Labourism not with the Labour Party leadership!

You ask what leaflets I have delievered recently. I personally haven't delivered any- but these arguments can and are made in conversations with people. Sadly we like your group is a very small group already overstretched in both activism and theoretical work so we can't write everything down on a leaflet but I think a persual of our webite, journal and leaflets makes it pretty clear that we stand for revolutionary socialism.

Of course when we can create a fighting revolutionary socialist party- from a series of meetings and actions with militants- then united fronts with all sorts of groups may be on the agenda, o finally win workers to the revolutionary socialist party to break with reformism, but a united font in the sense of pursuing common action with a group of workers who are not yet socialists whilst simultaneously being completely open about the need for socialism and working clas spolitics- such a mode of poperation is essential for a small group precisley beacause we are in a minority.

On the Lewisham action then as I already said the argument is about local democracy that schools like other services and workplaces should be run democratically by the workers and working class communities they serve- taht s socialism and that is our message.

Sat 30, May 2009 @ 17:59

Chris S said…

Jason, thanks for responding. We are going round in circles on this, and my response to what you have written above, will be similar to what I have already written. I don't think you are carrying out the United Front tactic and I don't think your at a point to make sustained propaghanda in the class on why communists are suggesting a vote for Labour in order to expose Labour etc. You are aspiring to carry this out, but like us in the CPGB, you are nowhere near it.

I found Trotsky's advice to the ILP, and Trotsky's writings on the United Front is very helpful in sorting it out in my own head, I think I will try and get the CS branch in Manchester to read around it, after we have done our study of the Workers' Opposition, Jason you are welcome to come to the discussion meeting we have on it.

Maybe discuss this further over a beer at the quiz on Tuesday?

Sat 30, May 2009 @ 18:51

Jason said…

Fair enough. We can disagree aboiut the precise definition of what a united front may be. None of this helps answer the question of either who you vote for or far more interesting how we break workers from reformism- what do we do now, at this historic juncture etc.

But perhaps these sorts of matters are best discussed face to face.

Sun 31, May 2009 @ 08:07

Chris S said…

Jason, agreed, but a proper understanding of the United Front helps with both questions. We usually get to the quiz for 9.

Sun 31, May 2009 @ 11:34

bill j said…

Basically the mistake is simple the term "united front" applies to more than one time of common front or action.

Take the word "sausage".

If asked for a definition of "sausage" most people would reply a tube of meat contained within some sort of skin.

And that would be true. That is the definition of a "sausage".

But a sausage can also to a term of affection for a small child. Small children are not tubes of meat.

Chris is a literalist so he thinks they are. Just as he thinks a "united front" can only be a bloc between mass working class parties or organisations.

This is the problem when you separate theory from practice. When you reduce Marxism to an exercise in naval gazing.

Sun 31, May 2009 @ 20:28

Jason said…

Chris writes "a proper understanding of the united Front helps with both questions"- undoubtedly but leaving aside the slightly pompous tone, I think 'proper' understanding comes from dialogue, thinking through and discussing examples both historical and current.

I probably can't make the quiz this week, Chris, but we will certainly meet up soon.

Sun 31, May 2009 @ 21:25

Sacha Ismail said…

I see the CPGB's attempts to win over PR, or at least some of its members, continue. Comrades, be warned! If Jack Conrad and Mark Fisher take against you, their acolytes can be vicious - or rather try to be... Read the sycophantic stuff they were publishing about the AWL ten years ago.

On the issue of the Bolsheviks and elections to the Duma, Chris, you rather spectacularly miss a key point. At that point the Cadets etc, as against the straightforwardly pro-Czarist, landlord etc parties, represented a bourgeois-democratic political force. There was a basic class difference involved; they stood at least to some extent, at least at some points, on a different historical plane, in a society on which the immediate task was to smash semi-feudal absolutism. Today we live in a capitalist society and all the parties involved are capitalist. Thus to eg advocate a vote for Chirac against Le Pen, or the Greens against the BNP, and make an analogy with the Bolsheviks and the Cadets is stupid.

Similarly, even in South Africa in 1994, we advocated a vote for the Workers' List, not the bourgeois ANC.

There may be exceptional situations in which you'd advocate a vote for a straightforwardly bourgeois candidate or party, but you'd have to have a pretty good reason for deviating from the general principle of working-class political independence - which in general is expressed by not voting for the class enemy.

The only qualification I'd add is that, given eg the Greens are a sort of middle-class rather than big bourgeois party like the Lib Dems, and therefore there can more easily be a left within them, you might in principle vote for some Greens who are pretty openly socialistic or have a relationship with the local labour movement, eg Peter Tatchell. That's a personal, not an AWL, view and I'm not sure about it; but if it's right, it's an expression of the problem that the line defining what's a bourgeois party or candidate is not always clear. But the basic principle remains. Working-class independence in election is NOT just a tactic.

Lastly, the AWL and campaigns we're involved eg Notts Stop the BNP in have produced openly class-struggle (in the case of united front campaigns) and in some cases straightforwardly communist literature for use in elections against the BNP. But our tradition of doing this sort of thing goes back further, eg the Socialist Campaign for a Labour Victory in 1979.

Mon 01, June 2009 @ 16:30

Chris S said…

Sacha, yes we only discuss and go to the pub with PR members to recruit a couple of them. Grow up.

On Bolsheviks and the Duma I actually get it pretty spot on. Lenin's approach to the elections of the Duma changed dependant on circumstances. The point I was making is that you can vote for all kinds of people as long as you maintain political and organisational independance of the workers' party.

Mon 01, June 2009 @ 17:54

bill j said…

By spot on I suppose you mean totally wrong. Lenin argues against a bloc with the Cadets in that piece. He says;

"The arguments for are as follows: agitation can be conducted upon strictly party lines. Let the Social-Democrats criticise the Cadets before the masses as much as they like, but let them add: yet they are better than the Black Hundreds, and therefore we have agreed upon a joint list."

Just like you say the Greens - a bourgeois party like the Cadets - are better than the Black Hundreds - the fascists - so you support them. Lenin disagrees;

"The arguments against are as follows: a joint list would be in crying contradiction to the whole independent class policy of the Social-Democratic Party. By recommending a joint list of Cadets and Social-Democrats to the masses we would be bound to cause hopeless confusion of class and political divisions. We would undermine the principles and the general revolutionary significance of our campaign for the sake of gaining a seat in the Duma for a liberal! We would be subordinating class policy to parliamentarism instead of subordinating parliamentarism to class policy. We would deprive ourselves of the opportunity to gain an estimate of our forces. We would lose what is lasting and durable in all elections—the development of the class-consciousness and solidarity of the socialist proletariat. We would gain what is transient, relative and untrue—superiority of the Cadet over the Octobrist."

http://marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1906/eleagree/iv.htm#v11pp65-284

Truth is the CPGB's policy on the elections is hopelessly confused notwithstanding its "Marxism". Some support the Greens. Some support New Labour. Some conditionally support the no2eu. Some unconditionally support no2eu. The only parties left out are the Tories, Liberals and SLP.

That's where abstract phrasemongering gets you. A bad interpretation of Lenin. And a hopeless policy in the here and now.

Mon 01, June 2009 @ 18:04

Mike Macnair said…

CPGB's position (until the next aggregate, at least!) is the position agreed by the PCC and defended in recent issues of the Weekly Worker.

This is:

(1) We would be willing to call for a vote for No2EU in any constituency where the *lead* candidates (i.e. the only ones who have even the remotest chance of being elected) were willing to come out explicitly for our two condiions:

(a) No to Fortress Britain - against all immigation controls

(b) For republican democracy - abolish the monarchy and the House of Lords, the secret state, etc; disband the standing army, for universal military training, a militia and the right to bear arms (this is from memory, so (b) may not be perfectly accurate)

(2) If No2 lead candidates are not prepared to accept our conditions, we call for a critical vote for Labour.

The point of the conditions is that No2EU in its present form is in no sense an advance on Labour, but a drift towards a red-brown policy. Clear opposition to immigration controls, and clear policies on democracy which don't represent nostalgia for parliamentary sovereignty, would be a political break with this drift.

In fact, of course, none of the lead No2EU candidates have been prepared to come out clearly for our conditions or even for watered down versions. The SP-ers and ISG-er have waffled and the CPB-ers have refused to speak to us. We are therefore calling for a vote for Labour.

In relation to Bill J's debate with Chris S - I think Chris S is tactically wrong to support voting Green in these elections. There might be circumstances in which it was tactically justified. But the present dynamic of politics is that the capitalist class and particularly its media is attempting to use the expenses scandal as an analogue of the results of the Italian tangentopoli - to destroy not merely the existing Labour Party but the idea of independent political representation of the working class.

A call for a Labour vote is therefore a call for the left to stand on the defensive. Not against the BNP playing the role of a micro-Fini, but against the media and the Tories on the road to playing the role of Berlusconi.

But this is not in any way the CPGB (or PR) entering into a united front with the Labour Party. It is simply using the existence of the Labour Party to make propaganda - which is all we can practically do - for an independent working class political party.

Tue 02, June 2009 @ 12:47

bill j said…

But what position is the CPGB in to put demands on no2eu? I'm pretty sure they don't want your support. So none.

To pretend that you can is misleading bordering on dishonest. It would be better to say there are no conditions under which socialists can vote for no2eu. But we know of course that a good proportion of your members wanted unconditional support. A hankering after the British Road to Socialism? So the leadership split the difference.

As for your conditions they are no better. There is an economic recession going on. A crisis of capitalism. For that the answer is socialism. Yet, like good liberal democratic Kautskyites, you limit your demands to capitalist democracy. This is the real fruit of your revisionism.

The point about a vote for the Greens is that it is an unprincipled tactic, as Lenin has explained above with regard to the Cadets, it blurs the class line, destroys working class independence and cannot be supported by a socialist organisation. You're not one of those so maybe that explains rather a lot.

Tue 02, June 2009 @ 14:27

Arthur Bough said…

Chris S was right to point out what Trotsky says about the United Front being only something that can exist between mass workers parties. He's wrong about pretty much everything else. He would be right to talk about workers moving away from the LP if they were moving towards the Left, but they are not!!!!

Trotsky goes on to say that if the Communists only form a small minority, and the figures he speaks of are the Communoists having around 40% of the workers behind them, then they have to face the fact that the Social Democrats can simply dictate terms! The Communists have to simply face the facts, and accept they are in a Minority. That is the reality the left should recognise now, and resign itself to working in the LP as a principles Minority, "the Left-Wing of that Party,but still just a Wing of that Party" as Marx and engels described their position in the German Democrats. That means dropping all the ridiculous illusions of organisations of a few dozen people being some alternative revolutioanry Party in embryo.

Wed 03, June 2009 @ 11:03

Kaze no Kae said…

The Green Party may be mostly made up of people from a bourgeois background, and the Labour Party may (or may not, now) be mostly made up of people from a working class background. The fact remains, politically speaking, Labour is a party of the elites and the Greens are the only party with any kind of progressive politics that has gotten a significant number of people elected.

Thu 04, June 2009 @ 14:00

Basti O. said…

Here is a good article and position on the elections by the RSO (Revolutionary Socialist Organization).

Hardly any interest in the EU elections

By Manfred Scharinger

If surveys taken in March 2009 are valid only 21 percent of the persons entitled to vote in Austria will vote in the next elections for the EU parliament which will take place on the 7th June 2009. In Poland this number is even lower with just 13 percent will making their way to the poll stations. At the moment the percentage for Austria is estimated to be slightly higher than the predicted turnout previously mentioned, but right across the European Union indications are that turnout will be poor. In the whole EU only 28 percent claimed to be “absolutely sure” to vote for the European Parliament. Even the 62 percent of the people from Luxemburg who are predicted to be going to vote on the 7th June and the 70 percents of Belgians (the highest percentage in Europe) is nothing more than a “democracy political” success - these countries have an obligation to vote.

Over the years participation in the EU elections has consistently declined. Since the first elections took place in 1979 the participation has fallen from 63 percent to 45.7 percent in the last elections (2004). In the first EU elections in Austria in 1996 nearly 68 percent participated, this fell in 1999 to 49.4 percent and five years later just 42.4 percent. To counter pose this trend the EU parliament decided, in an attempt to remedy mass dissatisfaction with the Parliament, to advocate a series of tokenistic gestures designed to get European youths out to vote, such measures include reduction of mobile phone tariffs in the whole EU and trendy commercials on TV stations like MTV. In total 1.9 Million Euros were spend by the EU to propagate their election.

This downward trend is no coincidence. The institutions of the European Union have good reason to fear being viewed as undemocratic and illegitimate bodies, because they are - even measured by the standards of a bourgeois democracy. The EU has from the beginning, not been an organic project grown from below, but has been brought up by the ruling elites from above to improve the condition of profit making for big business and secure them on the long term in a common economic zone.

So it is no coincidence that it is not in the results of an election, but the turnout that is viewed as a measure for the success or failure of the EU election program. Although the EU parliament has been given some additional competences, the true decisions are made in Berlin and Paris -.and on the EU level, in the commissions and in the European council which is the highest committee of the state- and government administrations. The European Parliament has nothing but a democratic façade. But even a strengthening of the EU Parliament would not change the basic character of the EU, as a project of the large scale Capital for the exploitation of the working class and for the improvement for their own position on the world market. Our Europe therefore is a different one. One that indeed means a social change: The united socialists state of Europe.

Sat 06, June 2009 @ 14:19

bill j said…

What's good about it? And where's the position?

Mon 08, June 2009 @ 12:24