discussion of this article

Pete said…

Thanks for the report, I couldn't make it, but was involved in decisions to support and send delegates in several bodies.

What most concerns me here is that we have the NSSN (seen as dominated by the SP) and now the RtW (seen as dominated by the SWP) essentially claiming to do the same thing. Neither organisation (SP/SWP) is known for its ability to build open democratic organisations where non-members feel they have a real say. Those of us in mneither feel trapped in the middle of a faction firght which typifies the British left and undermines the sort of movement we need to build.

Wed 03, February 2010 @ 04:59

bill j said…

As you say its difficult to have a great deal of optimism about what will happen next. There have been numerous of these front type groups founded over the years, all predicated on the top down control of a single organisation.

At Saturday's conference it was crawling with full timers, all walking around with a purpose, going quickly no-where in particular, with a serious look on their faces. You get the picture?

Unfortunately they do not want to build a revolutionary movement, but a revolutionary bureaucracy who does the thinking (and acting - provided we do what we're told)on behalf of the movement. In that respect the SWP, SP, AWL, WP etc. are indistinguishable.

Ho-hum.

Wed 03, February 2010 @ 09:02

Sacha Ismail said…

No post from Bill J is complete without an attack on the AWL, so I shouldn't be surprised he snuck us in there.

Let's look at the example of Workers' Climate Action, which involves numerous different people, mostly from a Climate Camp-type milieu, not in the AWL. Which is most emphatically not an AWL front, to the point where we sometimes find ourselves having to justify our collective involvement as the AWL (something I do not approve of!) Which your own comrades have intermittently been involved in: for instance, Helen W and Kirsty P turned up to a large organising meeting called shortly after the start of the Vestas occupation, while Helen praised WCA's work in her speech at the Climate & Capitalism conference.

On that note, let's look at Feminist Fightback, founded by AWL members, but with even less dominating AWL presence, and which PR has most certainly promoted.

Or what about the student National Convention Against Fees and Cuts taking place at UCL this weekend, which AWL members have loyally and enthusiastically built with no thought of taking it over and dominating it - while the SWP have repeatedly tried to stop it from happening because they knew they couldn't dominate it.

I'm not sure in what proportions anti-AWL venom and sheer demoralised defeatism are mingled in Bill's bile.

Wed 03, February 2010 @ 15:43

bill j said…

I think you need to get a grip. The AWL have particularly noxious quasi racist/Zionist pro-war politics true. But this post wasn't especially directed at them. Although obviously as a bureaucrat you're paid to promote this stuff. So you do. You're an obstacle to be overcome. Its what Trotskyism is all about.

Wed 03, February 2010 @ 17:17

Jason said…

'sheer demoralised defeatism'? Sacha, come on, that's hardly serious.

To say that 'only truly independent local groups not controlled by top-down bureaucracies will really encourage the involvement of activists' is not defeatist at all.

There are many vibrant campaigns whether some of the ones Sacha mentions like Vestas or some of the occupations by parents some of our activists have been involved in or campaigns like Visteon. But they are the exception not the rule.

The RTW conference whilst encouraging- and our report welcomes it- is still largely run on a flawed model. However, there are healthy signs that activists can be won to the idea of rank and file not bureaucratic control of actions.

The labour movement is in a parlaous state. Even where 'the left' are in control strikes can still be sold out by left bureaucrats. An example is St Paul's Way where a vibrant union group was defeated with the left largely staying silent.

We of course disagree on Palestine/Israel. We see Israel as a racist state based on systematic oppression requiring international solidarity including an economic boycott and support for armed struggle against Israeli attack. The AWL argue against a workers' boycott and for continued restriction on Palestinian movement within Palestine/Israel- merely arguing for Israeli withdrawal from occupied territories. We fundamentally disagree on this.

On Iraq and Afghanistan we argue for troops out now and en end to the imperialist occupations. The AWL disagree.

We will continue to work with all activists in campaigns such as Feminist Fightback, Climate Camp, Climate Action and the unions- but make clear our opposition to imperialist politics.

That is called workers' democracy and having a debate. Calling it 'venom' helps no one and clouds the issue.

Wed 03, February 2010 @ 19:43

Sacha Ismail said…

Bill, thanks for making me laugh as always.

Jason, however you try to paint it up, Bill's comments were hysterical - as they always are when the AWL is involved. Nowhere did I object to free debate or workers' democracy, disagree with the points made about the Right to Work conference (I wasn't at it, but they sound plausible) or object to criticism of bureaucratism in the labour movement. I merely defended the AWL against the charge of being exactly the same as the SWP.

What on earth do our disagreements on Palestine, Iraq and Afghanistan (which you misrepresent, btw: we do call for troops out of Afghanistan) have to do with the debate at hand? Isn't it in fact disloyal to workers' democracy and freedom of debate to respond to every point, no matter what the subject, with "Yes, but you're Zionists"?!

Btw, if the AWL exercised any control over my posts on this site, it would tell me not to bother.

Wed 03, February 2010 @ 20:14

bill j said…

You're obviously very defensive. Is that funny? No its hysterical.

Wed 03, February 2010 @ 21:06

Jason said…

Sacha, yes but the artcile is not 'demoralised defeatism' nor are Bill's comments.

I think we can agree to work together on points we agree on and also disagree openly where we disagree.

Wed 03, February 2010 @ 21:24

bill j said…

On a more interesting note, looks like things are hotting up in the SWP.

http://luna17activist.blogspot.com/2010/02/resignations-from-socialist-workers.html

Wed 03, February 2010 @ 21:54

Sacha Ismail said…

Not in the slightest bit defensive, Bill.

In Lambeth Unison, for instance, we work happily with PR comrades - while, as Jason suggests, having sharp arguments where we disagree. One reason this is possible is that they don't respond to every discussion with "Yes, but you're Zionist scum". Learn from your comrades!

Wed 03, February 2010 @ 22:57

AA said…

I have no truck with the AWL position on Israel/Palestine but to say they support racism, that is going too far. You can't have democracy if the debate is dishonest.

Having said that the AWL are just as bad, with their cries of 'Clerical fascist' supporters!

Thu 04, February 2010 @ 09:06

bill j said…

My personal opinion is that their Islamophobia and pro-Israeli Zionism tips over into quasi-racism. Some people don't agree with me so people do. (Obviously their own paid officials don't agree with me!) I didn't call them "scum" maybe this is a projection of their own real feelings about themselves? 

My original point wasn't about their chauvinist international politics however, but about the dominance of their organisation, like all the others on the left, by their apparatus officials. The traditional way this is understood on the left is that the officials are there to "build the organisation". They are funded from the subs of their members, who they nominally work for. In fact of course its the other way round. The members work for the officials - literally they go to work and pay for them - who then control the organisation. In the AWL, SWP, WP, SP they are not even directly elected or accountable to the members they work for. Indeed the separation of the officials from the members was celebrated in the recent SWP faction fight as a key mechanism for central control. 

This basic tenet of democratic centralism that the Left Opposition fought to have reestablished is not even obeyed, in these nominally Trotskyist "anti-bureaucratic" but in fact highly bureaucratic organisations.

What effect does this have? It takes power out of the hands of the rank and file and puts it into the hands of the bureaucrats.

All of these bureaucrats have a common interest in maintaining the separation and division of the left - their jobs literally depend on it - and this is why all of the attempts at left unity have failed over the last 10 years rather than any deeper political imperative.

Thu 04, February 2010 @ 09:28

Andrew Coates said…

We have a report on our site (Ipswich Unemployed Action) by an Ipswich activist.

http://intensiveactivity.wordpress.com/2010/02/03/right-to-work-conference-report/

Local campaigns of the unemployed are already being set up. A major concern is not just the Right to Work but Welfare Reform - leading to Workfare.

Interested as I am in fights between the AWL and Permanent Revolution this is more important.

Will the Right to Work campaign be more thana few marches? Clearly we need activity on Welfare Reform. Just to give one example, the purge of those on Disability Allowance is reaching monstrous proportions - up to 80% locally being assigned to JSA. These include a hefty number of people with 'invisible' disabilities - mental health issues. They risk being penalised when they are the Flexible New Deal because of the massive range of sanctions for non-compliance with every dotted t and i.

Thu 04, February 2010 @ 10:22

Sacha said…

I'm going to leave this debate because I agree with Andrew that it would be more useful to discuss the conference and the fight to organise the unemployed, against New Labour's attacks etc.

However, I want to state briefly:

1. Throwing around accusations of racism like that is pretty cheap.

2. AA, we've made a clear case why the Muslim Brotherhood is 'clerical fascist' (a term first used in this way by Tony Cliff). And some on the left have, at some points, supported them. Pointing this out is not the same as accusing me of racism.

3. No, the Left Opposition never demanded that central full-timers be elected by party members. (As far as I know the Bolsheviks, a very democratic party, never elected their central staff by a poll of all members; rather they were elected by the central committee.) It demanded that local party secretaries etc should be - a practice the Stalinists were undermining. As they are in the AWL. Don't confuse the issues.

Sacha

Thu 04, February 2010 @ 15:05

Sacha said…

Clearly I meant "local secretaries should be elected - as they are in the AWL". Not "a practice the Stalinists were undermining - as they are in the AWL".

Thu 04, February 2010 @ 15:06

bill j said…

From the Platform of the 46;

"Nowadays it is not the Party, not its broad masses, who promote and choose members of the provincial committees and of the Central Committee of the RCP. On the contrary the secretarial hierarchy of the Party to an ever greater extent recruits the membership of conferences and congresses, which are becoming to an ever greater extent the executive assemblies of this hierarchy."

http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/document/ilo/1923-lo/ch02.htm

Although it is true to say that the Left Opposition, at least in its Trotskyist variety, were unclear about the extent of the bureaucratic degeneration of the party at the time. Trotsky published the New Course in 1922, by the end of 1923 by his own account in the Revolution Betrayed, the counter revolution - Thermidor - was complete.

The AWL support the law of return. The law of return discriminates against Palestinians by refusing them to "return" to Israel on the basis of their religion or race. It is a racist law. So the AWL support a racist law. They are quasi racists. 

As for their methods of debate, after denouncing the left as "anti-semites they equate them with Red-Brown fascists how about this juicy example; 

"Most of the kitsch left's "anti-imperialist" rhetoric, in general and about the Palestinians in particular, is empty and stupid bombast. It lines them up with out-and-out reactionaries — here, with Islamic clerical fascists— and turns them into ventriloquists' dummies for reactionary right wing politics. They are "reactionary anti-imperialists". All proportions guarded, and changing what needs to be changed, that "left" now has more than a little in common with the "Red-Brown" bloc between "communists" and fascist nationalists that emerged in post-Stalinist Russia."

http://www.workersliberty.org/story/2008/08/21/reason-politics

That's not cheap of course, its just what you would expect from that crew.

Thu 04, February 2010 @ 15:40

Pete said…

I was hoping for some discussion of how those in neither the SWP or the SP can steer a path of trying to build some kind of national movement in the unions when the RtW campaign is seen as a SWP front, and the NSSN is seen as an SP front. Whether those perceptions are true or not isn't always the point - the perception keeps many good militants away.

Instead, we have a slanging match between some PR cdes and Sasha of the AWL. I'm not against debating Islamophobia, Iraq, Afghanistan etc etc, but that wasn't what I thought this particular thread was supposed to be about.

Back to the point. Neither the SP or SP are known for building open democratic organisations where they are willing to cede control. That makes drawing in many militants extremely difficult.

The statement from the RtW conference talks of building rank and file movements in the unions, but that is not the experience of working with the SWP in the CWU. But the statement also implies such groups can be wished into existence - if only. The SP, on the other hand, are very much wedded to the Broad left/electoral machine model.

The statement from the conference also talks of building local groups, but how does this relate to bodies that already exist, like Trades Councils, which already attempt to do the things on the list?

Hoping for a useful discussion of how we - those committed to building the movement - can work in this difficult situation.

Fri 05, February 2010 @ 05:15

bill j said…

Fair point Pete.

Fri 05, February 2010 @ 09:21

JC said…

This is the problem. I read the Workers Power report and it made the criticism that the SWP think that confidence is the key to all. But then Workers Power do exactly the same thing but basically saying this conference is the best thing since sliced bread followed by grand announcements about how well WP is doing. But we've heard it all before with Globalise Resistance, STWC, RESPECT etc

Are the SWP suddenly going to have some damascus conversion and embrace open and democratic structures, no, they will do what they have always done. The SWP will run the RTW organisation as a tight ship having tightly controlled local branches at best and probably only set piece rallys and marches from time to time. The SP have basically done the same thing with the NSSN.

Look at the way they operate in UNISON, UNITE, CWU etc, it's the same thing over and over. But as the rest of the forces involved are so marginal and weak who exactly do WP think will turn this into a serious venture? Who do they think will stop the Trade Union and Socialist Coalition (oh the irony of the name)or Right to Work being exactly how we know the SP and SWP will make them.

The problem is that there is all this grand standing and statements about rank and files but I see very little evidence of it in the ground. We have put hard work in our UNISON branch, recruited 20 new stewards in the last 18 months, pulled lots of stewards over to socialist ideas and slowly increased density as well as linking up with local campaigns. If our branch can do it then so can others, so why isn't it happening?

Until the left, even if it starts with very small forces, starts taking doing the ground work seriously we will be back here time and again.

Fri 05, February 2010 @ 15:59

Sacha Ismail said…

Agree with what a lot of James said.

I apologise for continuing this here, but don't know how else to do it.

Bill, that statement is talking about the election of the Central Committee and the regional etc committees. Yes, I've read about the Russian counter-revolution in the 1920s, thanks! It doesn't say that every party functionary should be elected.

If the counter-revolution was completed, how come Russia was still a workers' state?

Fri 05, February 2010 @ 19:45

bill j said…

I already agreed with Pete on this.

Fri 05, February 2010 @ 20:26

Jason said…

I agree with JC that there’s a lot of ground work to be caught up on and that building viable union branches in workplaces (and I’d add community organisations on the estates and neighbourhoods) has to be a central priority -almost from which all else flows.

Of course discussions around socialism, agitation in campaigns and solidarity action is also important but without the groundwork of building viable combat units of organised workers we’re never going to get far.

Wed 10, February 2010 @ 21:18

mbt sale said…

http://www.mbtshoesupply.com mbt anti-shoe

http://www.mbtshoesupply.com cheap mbt shoes

http://www.mbtshoesupply.com discount mbt shoes

http://www.mbtshoesupply.com mbt sale

http://www.mychristianheels.com Christian Louboutin Shoes

http://www.mychristianheels.com Christian Heels

http://www.mychristianheels.com Cheap Christian Louboutin on Sale

http://www.cheapchloe.com chloe

http://www.cheapchloe.com chloe shoes

http://www.cheapchloe.com chloe boots

http://www.cheapchloe.com chole sale

http://www.webuggshoes.com/index.php ugg boots sale

http://www.webuggshoes.com/index.php ugg shoes

http://uggsbank.com/index.php cheap uggs

http://uggsbank.com/index.php australian ugg boots

Mon 31, May 2010 @ 09:34