New forms of entrism
Geert Cool
Vonk) decided that at the universities they won't practice entrism in
the social democratic studentorganisations. Instead they have decided to
do entrism in the Actif Left Students, the frontorganisation set up by
the Militant!
They say the ALS is a lot bigger than the social democratic student
organisations. And thus they admit that the open work of the Militant,
for example through the ALS, at present is a better strategy than working
inside social democracy. I'm wondering if they will come to seriuous
conclusions through their "entrism".
I'm also wondering if they will accept the analysis of the ALS on the
social democratic parties and their bourgeoisification.
--
Geert Cool
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Militant Links: http://surf.to/militant
Aktief Linkse Studenten: http://www.student.rug.ac.be/als
Blokbuster: http://www.antifa.net/blokbuster
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Geoff Collier
Geert Cool <gc...@eduserv2.rug.ac.be> wrote in message
news:7vpblb$3ih$1...@inf6serv.rug.ac.be...
Geoff Collier
Do you welcome other tendencies in your front organisation ?
Geert Cool
: Are they doing entrism outside the universities too ?
Yes, but in social democracy.
Geert Cool
: Do you welcome other tendencies in your front organisation ?
We fight them politically. If they want to help build our front
organisation, it's no problem. But we won't be soft on them. At present
everyone on the left sees we're succesfull and tries to come in our
organisation. We had a small group of CP-sympathizers who attended a
meeting (but didn't come back....) and yesterday there even was a
mandelite present at our student meeting (to defend the idea of a
people's front in the council elections in Antwerp..., but perhaps
also a bit because their last recruit in Gent left them to join us).
We make them clear that if they want to build seriuosly we might discuss
with them to accept them in our frontorganisation.
In the case of the Vonk-supporter, we discussed with him and he seems
to be genuine.
GC
: Geert Cool <gc...@eduserv2.rug.ac.be> wrote in message
: news:7vpblb$3ih$1...@inf6serv.rug.ac.be...
: > In Belgium the members of the Ted Grant-tendency (here they are called
: > Vonk) decided that at the universities they won't practice entrism in
: > the social democratic studentorganisations. Instead they have decided to
: > do entrism in the Actif Left Students, the frontorganisation set up by
: > the Militant!
: > They say the ALS is a lot bigger than the social democratic student
: > organisations. And thus they admit that the open work of the Militant,
: > for example through the ALS, at present is a better strategy than working
: > inside social democracy. I'm wondering if they will come to seriuous
: > conclusions through their "entrism".
: > I'm also wondering if they will accept the analysis of the ALS on the
: > social democratic parties and their bourgeoisification.
: >
: > --
Geoff Collier
but there are a couple of questions I would like to ask
1) Writing of the USec "people's front" do you mean a popular front i.e.
electoral alliance with parties of the petit -bourgeoise (or even
bourgeoisie) ?
2) Do you really mean that the Grantites have one person in the universities
?
I have also looked at the website of the Actif Left Students. I find the
language difficult (what is the word for revolution ?) but I admired the
pictures of Che Guevara.
Geoff
Geert Cool <gc...@eduserv2.rug.ac.be> wrote in message
news:7vrsdp$jmi$3...@inf6serv.rug.ac.be...
Geert Cool
: I don't know if I should assume that you are completely fluent in English
: but there are a couple of questions I would like to ask
: 1) Writing of the USec "people's front" do you mean a popular front i.e.
: electoral alliance with parties of the petit -bourgeoise (or even
: bourgeoisie) ?
Yes. They even had a candidate on such a list in the Brussels elections
of last year. So in Brussels you could vote for either a mandelite
candidate on a popular front list, Militant candidates on the open list
presented by the Communist Party or maoist candidates on their own list.
Now in Antwerp they want to repeat the experience from Brussels by
proposing a joint list of social democrats, greens, independents and
"all progressives".
: 2) Do you really mean that the Grantites have one person in the universities
: ?
They have one in Gent, one in Leuven and one in Brussels.
: I have also looked at the website of the Actif Left Students. I find the
: language difficult (what is the word for revolution ?) but I admired the
: pictures of Che Guevara.
William Kaufman
to endorse or form electoral alliances with all manner of Social Democratic
tendencies--such as the British Labor Party--as long they have some distant
historical connection with the labor movement, no matter how far to the
right they have traveled, no matter how lustily they have embraced
procapitalist neoliberalism, and so on; yet these same left groups forbid
any thought of electoral alliances with groups like the Greens who are
programmatically light years to the left of such traditional Social
Democratic tendencies. Is the criterion class composition--that the
Laborites, for example, albeit all but indistinguishable from Thatcherism
programmatically, are insitutionally tied to the working class, whereas
tendencies like the Green, although programmatically much farther to the
left, are "petit bourgeois"? Isn't such talk a bit much coming from Marxist
vanguardists who are themselves largely petit-bourgeois intellectuals? In
other words, this tactical tradition seems to place a greater premium on
traditional political labeling than on actual politics. From this
standpoint, I think that Usec's call for tactical alliances with the Greens
is eminently sane and progressive. No one can foresee exactly what forms of
struggle will emerge over time--this was precisely Lenin's genius--he
embraced new modalities of revolution as they arose, rather than standing
apart, parroting traditional formulas. It is perfectly possible that the
environmental movement, whose concerns certainly dovetail with those of the
masses of workers, might be one such emerging modality of real-world
opposition to the ravages of capitalism. Should socialists stand apart from
it in hidebound sanctimony because Green party's don't carry the magic
talisman "labor" in their titles, even though they are politically far
preferable to many so-called "laborites"? In other words, do some socialists
fall into a pseudoclass labeling fetishism that paralyzes tactical
effectiveness?
Marc Viglielmo
William Kaufman wrote:
> No one can foresee exactly what forms of
> struggle will emerge over time--this was precisely Lenin's genius--he
> embraced new modalities of revolution as they arose, rather than standing
> apart, parroting traditional formulas.
Lenin had little interest in really studying what was going on in society
to understand it. Perhaps early on he had some genuine interest in what is now
called "sociology", as is evidenced by his early book "The Development of
Capitalism in Russia." But in general, as time went on, he only engaged in
intellectual debates in order to score points in factional struggles. The
development of a new form of social organization in the form of soviets is a
case in point. The record shows that Lenin had no interest in promoting the
soviets as a real basis for a new form of government. His ideas on the soviets
were fully as backward and authoritarian as his ideas concerning the Constituent
Assembly. His ideas all flowed from the same twisted kind of thinking, so
perfectly analyzed and dissected by his Zimmerwald comrade, Angelica Balabanoff.
Lenin saw an opportunity afforded by the weakening of the Kerensky regime,
concluded that it was time to abandon the silly Marxist theories concerning the
development of society that had been taught to him by people such as Plekhanov,
and organized a putsch behind the backs of the other parties in the soviets, and
proceeded to employ the most shocking, blatant deceptions and frauds to maintain
himself and his Bolshevik buddies in power at all costs -- at the cost of
alienating Mensheviks who had worked all their lives for democracy and
progressive social reform, alienating the intelligentsia upon whom depended the
building of a truly progressive, educated society, and physically annihilating
one of the most effective bulwarks against bureaucratic counterrevolution by
smashing the Kronstadt soviet.
Lenin succumbed to the temptation of being "the boss" and of having the
opportunity to remold society according to his pseudoscientific theories. He
was a "genius" at nothing other than cynical, shameless manipulation of people.
He was the intellectual inferior to many other Bolsheviks -- Bogdanov, Bukharin,
Kollontai and others -- who just didn't have the stomach to lie and to repress
people the way Lenin did.
M.V.
A.Prianikoff
" Question: Why, in the folkways of some left groups, is it deemed
acceptable
to endorse or form electoral alliances with all manner of Social Democratic
tendencies--such as the British Labor Party--as long they have some distant
historical connection with the labor movement, no matter how far to the
right they have traveled, no matter how lustily they have embraced
procapitalist neoliberalism, and so on; yet these same left groups forbid
any thought of electoral alliances with groups like the Greens who are
programmatically light years to the left of such traditional Social
Democratic tendencies."
Calling for a vote for social democracy was only ever a recognition of its
hold over the working class, the need to take sides in a conflict with
openly bourgeois parties. Standing openly on a socialist programme is
always the preferred option, as long as it doesn't split the working class
vote.
Take the case of France & Germany. Is Cohn Bendit "light years" ahead of
Jospin? Is Joshke Fischer "light years" ahead of Schrodinger?
In reality, they share the same ground. They are merely the marginalised
radicals of the 60's, re-entering the establishment in the late 90's. Both
supported the bombing of Yugoslavia. Both support capitalism as long as it's
ecologically tamed capitalism. Neither has any organic links with the
unions or workers movement and both are moving to the right.
The ecology is an issue that the working class has a vital interest in.
Socialists should debate with the Greens and attempt to provide a
programmatic alternative to "green capitalism". Forming an electoral
alliance with such parties is a recipe for compromise.
William Kaufman
A.Prianikoff wrote:
> Calling for a vote for social democracy was only ever a recognition of its
> hold over the working class, the need to take sides in a conflict with
> openly bourgeois parties. Standing openly on a socialist programme is
> always the preferred option, as long as it doesn't split the working class
> vote.
Yet the Democratic Party has had a "hold" over the working class in the
United States--it is, in fact, the functional and programmatic equivalent of
a mainstream Social Democratic or Labor party in Western Europe. Yet
Trotskyists have always boycotted it--perhaps rightly--while countenancing
support--however critical--for substantively indistinguishable social
democrats in Europe. Again--this is pure labeling fetishism. The Democrats
match the social democrats in every key area--hold over the working class,
ties to the established unions, rhetorical tilt to the left of center, yet
Trots are allowed to vote for the latter but not the former. MOREOVER, Trots
are allowed to vote for social democrats but not, say, for Greens, who are
much farther to the left than the mainstream social democrats. This is a
purely mechanistic reflex, a kind of historical nostalgia for the Marxian
roots of certain parties that are now just neoliberal capitalist parties,
quite identical to the U.S. Democrats. So your rationalization doesn't hold
here at all.
> Take the case of France & Germany. Is Cohn Bendit "light years" ahead of
> Jospin? Is Joshke Fischer "light years" ahead of Schrodinger?
> In reality, they share the same ground.
He might not be "light years" to the left of Jospin, but he is
programmatically quite distinct and much more recognizably an oppositional
tendency of the left. Fischer's posture has caused bitter divisions within
the German Greens, who are not a Leninist organization but are a diverse
grouping whose rank and file are mostly at odds with the policies of the
current German regime.
They are merely the marginalised
> radicals of the 60's,
As are many sectarian Trot activists. Using a term like "marginalized"
flirts with the notion of using popularity rather than principle as the
criterion for judging a group's politics. Such tactics are time-honored in
the bourgeois media.
re-entering the establishment in the late 90's. Both
> supported the bombing of Yugoslavia. Both support capitalism as long as
it's
> ecologically tamed capitalism.
Again, most of the ranks of the Green movement in the U.S.--and in Europe,
too, I believe--were militantly opposed to the bombing. Your logic here is
to try to discredit the entire Green movement based on the actions of a
couple of its prominent leaders rather than looking into the breadth and
substance of the movement. You are replicating the approach of bourgeois
commentators who try to discredit the entire socialist movement by tarring
it with the broad brush of Stalinism.
The Green movement
Neither has any organic links with the
> unions or workers movement and both are moving to the right.
Selected leaders have moved to the right but not the movement as a whole.
Moreover, the idea that they have no organic links with workers is absurd.
Just what class do you the millions of Green supporters and voters come
from? This conception that the only sector of the working class worrying
about are industrial workers--a declining sector in the west is another bit
of dogmatic nostalgia that makes certain sects feel more "Marxist" in the
religious sense but renders them less Marxist in the sense of applying
critical analysis to contemporary empirical developments.
> The ecology is an issue that the working class has a vital interest in.
> Socialists should debate with the Greens and attempt to provide a
> programmatic alternative to "green capitalism". Forming an electoral
> alliance with such parties is a recipe for compromise.
And voting for the Thatcherite Laborites is a recipe for revolution? You
keep missing the point here. Your view on this issue is a perfect example of
what Wittgenstein called being "bewitched by language" rather than remaining
open to the realities of the contemporary world--thus you perpetrate the
absurdity of allowing support for groups that are glaringly farther to the
right than other groups based on merely terminological fixations and
historical nostalgia. There is nothing particularly smart or revolutionary
about such thinking--it's pure hidebound conservatism. The Green movement
represents the most serious organic mass challenge to capitalism throughout
the world today--if the programs and precepts of the Green parties were
implemented as stated in their programs (as opposed to the adaptations of
some of their leaders), it would be fatal to the capitalist order. Thus the
Green movement is a spontaneously evolving example of the transitional
program in action around issues that are central to the very survival of the
working class and the planet it inhabits. For you and your likeminded
comrades to turn up your nose to such a development while maintaining links
to "labor"-adorned cheerleaders for neoliberal plunder is nothing but
scholastic fixation on the past rather than rational engagement with the
present, oblivion to where the real mass opposition to capitalism can be
found, and a good explanation for why the traditional Marxist left remains
confined to its sectarian ghettoes.
>
>
>
>
Marc Viglielmo
William Kaufman wrote:
> A.Prianikoff wrote:
> > Calling for a vote for social democracy was only ever a recognition of its
> > hold over the working class, the need to take sides in a conflict with
> > openly bourgeois parties. Standing openly on a socialist programme is
> > always the preferred option, as long as it doesn't split the working class
> > vote.
>
> Yet the Democratic Party has had a "hold" over the working class in the
> United States--it is, in fact, the functional and programmatic equivalent of
> a mainstream Social Democratic or Labor party in Western Europe. Yet
> Trotskyists have always boycotted it--perhaps rightly--while countenancing
> support--however critical--for substantively indistinguishable social
> democrats in Europe. Again--this is pure labeling fetishism. The Democrats
> match the social democrats in every key area--hold over the working class,
> ties to the established unions, rhetorical tilt to the left of center, yet
> Trots are allowed to vote for the latter but not the former. MOREOVER, Trots
> are allowed to vote for social democrats but not, say, for Greens, who are
> much farther to the left than the mainstream social democrats. This is a
> purely mechanistic reflex, a kind of historical nostalgia for the Marxian
> roots of certain parties that are now just neoliberal capitalist parties,
> quite identical to the U.S. Democrats. So your rationalization doesn't hold
> here at all.
Most Marxist parties and organizations are just hostile to
environmentalism, period. Or haven't you figured that out yet, Kaufman? They
don't have anything written down from their guru, Karl Marx, to guide them on
how to think about environmental issues, so they just stick their heads in the
sand. You won't find Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring" on sale in socialist
bookstores.
Kaufman's just stuck in his Eurocentric world. The Green movement is
important, but it's generally limited to Western (i.e., white) countries, and
some white environmentalists in the U.S. have shown their true colors in the
conflict with indigenous whalers in the Pacific Northwest.
M.V.
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
A.Prianikoff
>>A.Prianikoff wrote:
>> Calling for a vote for social democracy was only ever a recognition of
>>its hold over the working class, the need to take sides in a conflict
with
>> openly bourgeois parties. Standing openly on a socialist programme is
>> always the preferred option, as long as it doesn't split the working
>> class vote.
>Yet the Democratic Party has had a "hold" over the working class in the
>United States--it is, in fact, the functional and programmatic equivalent
>of a mainstream Social Democratic or Labor party in Western Europe. Yet
>Trotskyists have always boycotted it--perhaps rightly--while countenancing
>support--however critical--for substantively indistinguishable social
>democrats in Europe. Again--this is pure labeling fetishism. The Democrats
>match the social democrats in every key area--hold over the working class,
>ties to the established unions, rhetorical tilt to the left of center, yet
>Trots are allowed to vote for the latter but not the former.
There is a difference however, and quite an important one: -
Until Blair's abolition of Clause 4 of the Labour Party, its programme
contained the aim of nationalisation of "the commanding heights of the
economy".
The L.P had introduced a free National Health service, nationalised coal,
steel, railways, significant sections of the car and shipbuilding industries
and introduced non-selective comprehensive education. All reformist
measures, all measures which were either eradicated or severely compromised
under the Tories between 1980 and Labour's re-election.
The tradition of reformist socialism in the Labour Party has not been
entirely eradicated and continues to exist within its left-wing. While the
US Democrats have always thrown up populist figures, such as Jesse Jackson,
the Labour Party has always possessed a permanent organised left.
Blair's abolition of Clause 4, section 4 of the LP constitution was
calculated to re-cast the LP as something like the US Democrats.
But this doesn't mean that Blair can simply escape from the history of the
Labour Party, which unlike the US Democrats was formed by trade unionists to
gain political representation.
Blair has yet to sever the constitutional links between the unions and the
LP. In fact, the union leaderships have become a transmission belt for
social partnership ideology. Any radicalisation within the unions would
call into question the Blair project and strengthen the Labour left
vis-a-vis the Blairites creating the possibility of a political showdown.
That will certainly happen if the economy falters in the near future.
Blair's desperate attempts to prevent Ken Livingstone standing for Mayor of
London show just how paranoid his entourage are about ANY figure from the
left becoming an independent focus of opposition. Livingstone has virtually
bent over backwards to appease Blair, but is simply not trusted because of
his past associations.
Blair can only carry his project to completion if he maintains the impetus
he has had since his election. It is neither complete or irreversible.
> MOREOVER, Trots are allowed to vote for social democrats but not, say, for
Greens, who are
>much farther to the left than the mainstream social democrats. This is a
>purely mechanistic reflex, a kind of historical nostalgia for the Marxian
>roots of certain parties that are now just neoliberal capitalist parties,
>quite identical to the U.S. Democrats. So your rationalization doesn't hold
>here at all.
It's never been a blanket "Vote Labour " position. This was always
predicated on either demanding a socialist programme, or some other formula
based on an independent fight against the policies of the leadership of the
party. At various times this has happened within the party itself or from
the outside. In the current situation the balance has shifted to standing
independently. But as yet, there is no likelihood that this tactic would
lead to anything more than a large minority of voters transferring their
allegiance to a socialist organisation or platform.
> Fischer's posture has caused bitter divisions within
>the German Greens, who are not a Leninist organization but are a diverse
>grouping whose rank and file are mostly at odds with the policies of the
>current German regime.
Bitter divisions within a movement which is actually in power are much more
important than those within a movement which remains on the fringes of
power, or is acting as a power broker. It's a question of social weight. A
serious split in the British Labour Party would be a thousand times more
significant than a split in the German or French Greens at the moment.
>>They are merely the marginalised
>> radicals of the 60's, > re-entering the establishment in the late 90's.
Both
>> supported the bombing of Yugoslavia. Both support capitalism as long as
>>it's ecologically tamed capitalism
>As are many sectarian Trot activists. Using a term like "marginalized"
>flirts with the notion of using popularity rather than principle as the
>criterion for judging a group's politics. Such tactics are time-honored in
>the bourgeois media.
Cohn-Bendit and Fischer were exactly that.
.>Again, most of the ranks of the Green movement in the U.S.--and in Europe,
>too, I believe--were militantly opposed to the bombing. Your logic here is
>to try to discredit the entire Green movement based on the actions of a
>couple of its prominent leaders rather than looking into the breadth and
>substance of the movement. You are replicating the approach of bourgeois
>commentators who try to discredit the entire socialist movement by tarring
>it with the broad brush of Stalinism.
Except that the Green movement has never elaborated any firm programmatic
principles with regard to imperialist war, so their actions were not so much
a "betrayal" as consistent with the political vagueness which permeates
their politics.
>>The Green movement Neither has any organic links with the
>> unions or workers movement and both are moving to the right.
>Selected leaders have moved to the right but not the movement as a whole.
>Moreover, the idea that they have no organic links with workers is absurd.
>Just what class do you the millions of Green supporters and voters come
>from?
Certainly not the organised working class. More likely a disaffected layer
of youth, middle class and bourgeois living outside the main metropolitan
centres. The French Election results certainly don't indicate that the
Greens have a strong urban base. Besides which, I don't really think the
Greens have ever really been on the left. Politically they espouse a from
of Liberalism, mixed with Charity and ethical utopianism. In Britain the
Greens have just recruited their first "Green Peer", Lord Beaumont an ex
Liberal Democrat. He was brought up on a farm during the war with his
"squirearchical father, a right-wing Tory". He is now Vice President of the
Family and Farmers Association. Will he want a red-green alliance, even if
we want one with him?
>This conception that the only sector of the working class worrying
>about are industrial workers--a declining sector in the west is another bit
>of dogmatic nostalgia that makes certain sects feel more "Marxist" in the
>religious sense but renders them less Marxist in the sense of applying
>critical analysis to contemporary empirical developments.
What you fail to understand is that the working class is growing.
Internationally its larger than ever.
Industrial workers aren't its only component just the most organised one.
>> The ecology is an issue that the working class has a vital interest in.
>> Socialists should debate with the Greens and attempt to provide a
>> programmatic alternative to "green capitalism". Forming an electoral
>> alliance with such parties is a recipe for compromise.
>the Green movement represents the most serious organic mass challenge to
capitalism throughout
>the world today--if the programs and precepts of the Green parties were
>implemented as stated in their programs (as opposed to the adaptations of
>some of their leaders), it would be fatal to the capitalist order.
>the Green movement is a spontaneously evolving example of the transitional
>program in action around issues that are central to the very survival of
the working class and the planet it inhabits
Nonsense, they're utterly clueless about even the protection of the
environment, reformist and ultimately nationalists. The most over-rated
political phenomenon of the 90's. Anyone wanting a sustainable future
should leave the Greens and join a revolutionary socialist party.
I'm afraid you've had another hot flush. Take a lie down.
William Kaufman
A.Prianikoff <al...@prianikoff.freeserve.co.uk>
>
> I'm afraid you've had another hot flush. Take a lie down.
I'm glad you have such a high estimation of your polemical talents, but I
don't share it. All you've done is confirm everything I said in my
post--your justification for supporting the Labor Party is PRECISELY based
on citing its PAST policies and principles, which confirms my point about
your policies reeking of scholasticism and nostalgia rather than engagement
with the contemporary world.
Moreover, your notion that the proponderance of the millions of Green
voters are composed mainly of "a disaffected layer of youth, middle class
and bourgeois living outside the main metropolitan centres" reeks of the
most retrograde dogmatism and impressionism. Just what do you think is the
difference--even in formal Marxist terms--between a member of the middle
class or the bourgeoisie on the one hand and a worker on the other? The
worker is someone who sells his or her labor power to survive. If you think
there are millions of "bourgeoisie" in Germany, then you're simply a
fool--or perhaps looking through lenses misted over with images of
proletcult posters of overalled male factory workers rather than taking a
hard look at the increasingly heterogeneous and nonindustrial workforce of
the contemporary West--temps, service-industry and high-tech sector
employees, government employees, and so on. Your exclusive fixation on
unionized industrialized workers is a quaint bit of religious
antiquarianism, one that runs against the grain of contemporary economic
developments in the West. It's the socioeconomic matching piece to your
profound ignorance of and dogmatic antipathy to any current of Marxist
thought that postdates the deaths of Lenin and Trotsky.
Moreover, you keep retreading the same leadership argument about the
Greens, except now you extend it to the British leadership. Having spent
most of your adult life voluntarily confined to various Leninist prisons of
groupthink, I know that it's hard for you to imagine a vital anticapitalist
current whose every public word and deed is not ordained by a central
committee, but that is exactly what the Green movement represents: a MASS,
SPONTANEOUS upsurge against the depradations of a profit-driven economy,
exactly the sort of things that socialists should be rejoicing about; you
would think that any THINKING socialist would be furiously engaged in
linking up with these forces to guide them toward a more effective and
explicit anticapitalist strategy, as many Usec sections are quite sensibly
doing. Instead, you and your fellow talmudists are content to make
dismissive clucking noises on the sidelines because this mass movement
doesn't conform to your cult's rigidly preconceived notions of what
anticapitalist struggle should look like. You wouldn't recognize a mass
anticapitalist struggle if it sat on your thick head because that's not what
you're interested in--you're a nostalgic fantasist, waiting for it be 1917
or 1926 again. You and your ilk are not activists, Prianikoff--you're cult
builders, dreaming of a Leninist paradise lost rather than a vital socialist
future. If the real world of activism doesn't correspond to your religious
formulas, so much the worse for the real world.
It's understandable that you are very taken with imagery of being
flushed away. That's exactly what the real currents of history--the living
history to which you are so serenely oblivious--has done with your Trot
church and all similar sects. You were impotent in your monastic religiosity
fifty years ago, you are now, and you will be a dim memory in another fifty
years. Heu pietas! heu prisca fides!
>
>
mmcdon
<802fkv$6j6$1...@fir.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
[snip Alec Prianikoff sneering at the Greens, and William Kaufman defending
them and sneering right back at Leninists]
William is, of course, correct to attack the confusion of "middle class" in
it's colloquial sense with "bourgeois" in the Marxist sense. The
overwhelming majority of Green movement supporters live by selling their
labour. Furthermore, a large strand of Green ideology is indeed deeply
anti-capitalist.
However, that an ideology or movement is (at least partially)
anti-capitalist is not reason enough to embrace it as progressive. A
movement calling for a return to feudal social structures would be
retrograde (to use an extreme example), even though it would be objectively
anti-Capitalist. Likewise, I have yet to be convinced of the "progressive"
content of environmentalism.
Is mise le meas,
Brian Cahill
Hunter H. Watson
<va...@aloha.com> wrote:
Years ago it became clear to most Western Marxist/Leninists that they
simply had to jettison Stalin and that they could not speak much of
Asian Communism at all for fear that eventually Black Books tying it
all together would be written. This decision was not one of the heart
but one of the mind, tactical if you will. All Leninists are
Stalinists, but they had no choice. The rest of us, their potential new
victims, had finally generated a common understanding of what happened
in the Soviet Union. That fateful and yet inevitable decision left them
dug in round and about the mumified Lenin's tomb. They are weak and
increasingly desperate. But they know that Marxism in power in the 20th
Century *is* Leninism. Without a successful cult of Lenin there is
nothing left, nothing at all. Without the Lenin cult, without the
"living Lenin" himself, the infinitely bloody crisis of legitimacy
becomes terminal and Marxism/Leninism crashes to earth.
Every word of Marc Viglielmo's post above is accurate. His work here is
extremely interesting partially because his focus is upon subtleties of
Bolshevik history of which few lay people have heard much less
understood. It is also interesting because it is pivotal. As Marc has
repeatedly pointed out to my mild discomfiture, I have spent most of my
time evaluating the post-1917 period. His interest in the intellectual
history of pre-1917 Bolshevism is something which ought to be
cultivated by every comrade. Eventually they will all have to have
reasons for finally embracing reform, individual rights and democratic
institutions. Marc offers mitigation of humiliation.
HW
REMEMBER THE TERROR!
Derek McMillan
workers or *any* political persuasion. Lenin mentioned "casual
gatherings of the people" as a forum in which "entrism" would be
carried out.
Supporting Labour candidates is largely a thing of the past now that
Labour has undergone a decisive change. Incidentally now Ken
Livingstone regards the market as the only way to run the economy so I
fail to see how any kind of socialist can support him - even if you
were to set aside his suppoirt for bombing Serbia ...
-------------------------------------
The homepage of Socialist Party teachers is
socialistpartyteachers.homepages.com
Read before you judge
A.Prianikoff
>I'm glad you have such a high estimation of your polemical talents, but I
>don't share it. All you've done is confirm everything I said in my
>post--your justification for supporting the Labor Party is PRECISELY based
>on citing its PAST policies and principles, which confirms my point about
>your policies reeking of scholasticism and nostalgia rather than engagement
>with the contemporary world.
Can you read?
>Your exclusive fixation on
>unionized industrialized workers is a quaint bit of religious
>antiquarianism, one that runs against the grain of contemporary economic
>developments in the West.
Can you read?
>It's the socioeconomic matching piece to your
>profound ignorance of and dogmatic antipathy to any current of Marxist
>thought that postdates the deaths of Lenin and Trotsky.
Dogmatic antipathy perhaps. Profound ignorance? Nope.
I know that it's hard for you to imagine a vital anticapitalist
>current whose every public word and deed is not ordained by a central
>committee, but that is exactly what the Green movement represents: a MASS,
>SPONTANEOUS upsurge against the depradations of a profit-driven economy,
Let's see some evidence about what they actually say, you've provided none
whatever.
A.Prianikoff
>Supporting Labour candidates is largely a thing of the past now that
>Labour has undergone a decisive change. Incidentally now Ken
>Livingstone regards the market as the only way to run the economy so I
>fail to see how any kind of socialist can support him - even if you
>were to set aside his suppoirt for bombing Serbia ...
What does LARGELY a thing of the past mean? Either you support Labour
against the Tories in areas where no socialists are standing or you don't.
Would the Socialist Party- like the SLP advocate standing against Benn,
Skinner, Liz Knight, Jeremy Corbyn, etc. If not, why not?
Until the Labour left has been driven out of the party, the change towards a
liberal democrat party is NOT decisive.
A.Prianikoff
>Would the Socialist Party- like the SLP advocate standing against Benn,
>Skinner, Liz Knight, Jeremy Corbyn, etc. If not, why not?
Correction I meant Liz Davies of the Labour Party NEC, who spoke out
against the bombing of Serbia, as did Tony Benn, Jeremy Corbyn and Alice
Mahon amongst others who took part in actions against the war.
I believe I referred to the German Chancellor as Schrodinger instead of
Schröder earlier in the thread.
Does Schröder own a cat?
Geoff Collier
> Geoff Collier (Ge...@balcony17.freeserve.co.uk) wrote:
> : I don't know if I should assume that you are completely fluent in
English
> : but there are a couple of questions I would like to ask
>
> : 1) Writing of the USec "people's front" do you mean a popular front i.e.
> : electoral alliance with parties of the petit -bourgeoise (or even
> : bourgeoisie) ?
>
> Yes. They even had a candidate on such a list in the Brussels elections
> of last year. So in Brussels you could vote for either a mandelite
> candidate on a popular front list, Militant candidates on the open list
> presented by the Communist Party or maoist candidates on their own list.
>
> Now in Antwerp they want to repeat the experience from Brussels by
> proposing a joint list of social democrats, greens, independents and
> "all progressives".
1) By "social democrats" do you mean supporters of something like the
British Labour Party ?
2) What sort of Communist Party are you allied with ?
>
> : I have also looked at the website of the Actif Left Students. I find the
> : language difficult (what is the word for revolution ?) but I admired the
> : pictures of Che Guevara.
This was irony but still worthy of comment
Geoff
William Kaufman
A.Prianikoff <al...@prianikoff.freeserve.co.uk>
>
> Can you read?
Apparently you are so stupefied by your own rote recitation of the same old
formulas that you aren't even aware of what you're saying anymore. Your
entire recitation of reasons for supporting the Labor Party over the Greens
is in THE PAST TENSE, based on things that happened at least TWENTY YEARS
AGO.
Look at your post. It's nothing but a ritual recitation of the virtues
of labor parties and the need to fixate primarily on the most rapidly
shrinking sector of the working class in the West, the industrial workers.
You've become so stupefied by your own catechisms that you don't even know
when you're mumbling them anymore.
>
>
> >It's the socioeconomic matching piece to your
> >profound ignorance of and dogmatic antipathy to any current of Marxist
> >thought that postdates the deaths of Lenin and Trotsky.
>
> Dogmatic antipathy perhaps. Profound ignorance? Nope.
Here's some progress. You admit that you're a dogmatist. But since you have
not contributed one syllable of informed commentary to the threads on
Western Marxism and Critical Theory, one must assume that ignorance is the
reason, since you typically show no shyness about charging into print about
matters about which you are less than half informed--e.g., this thread. For
example, in your comment below, in which you ask for "evidence" of the
positions of Green parties, you make it laughably clear that you don't have
a clue as to what this movement is all about, a fact that has not prevented
you from gobbling up a good deal of badwidth with your windy reflections on
the subject.>
> Let's see some evidence about what they actually say, you've provided none
> whatever.
Because the Greens are a multiform movement, their platforms vary. The
British Greens, for example, have as one of their central precepts,
"Challenge the Market."
Here are some platforms of some Green Parties around the world. Note that
although they are not explicitly revolutionary vanguardist programs, they
are all essentially radical socialist in thrust and represent a developing
mass movement--and you haven't a clue how to deal with them because they
aren't male factory workers in proletcult overalls.
New York State Green Party Platform
GRASSROOTS DEMOCRACY
1 RECLAIM DEMOCRACY. Public financing of campaigns. Proportional
Representation. Initiative and Referendum. Term limits. Equal access to
media; build democratic communications.
ECOLOGY
2. CLEAN AIR, WATER AND ENERGY. Stop global warming; endorse the Kyoto
agreement without pollution tax credits and convert to renewable energy.
Shut down nukes and garbage incinerators. Hold corporations financially
accountable for pollution. Fund mass transit; promote cycling. No bailouts
of utility shareholders; protect ratepayers. Preserve open space, forests,
coastlines, natural habitats. Reduce, reuse, recycle, compost; enact
packaging reduction laws. Promote cycling. Oppose toxic dumping in minority
and poor neighborhoods. Make GE Clean Up PCBs in Hudson River. Address
linkages between pollution and cancer Support efforts of indigenous people
to protect their native lands and water.
3. ECOLOGICALLY SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE. Promote organic. Ban genetic
engineering of food supply. Save community gardens. Save family farms; price
supports for NY's dairy industry. Protect animals; rapid phase out of
factory farming. Halt the use of pesticides. Promote biodiversity.
SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC JUSTICE
4. UNIVERSAL, FREE NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE. Support a single payer health
care system to eliminate insurance profits and administrative waste. Include
mental health, dental. Reproductive freedom. Full funding of AIDS /HIV..
5. JOBS FOR ALL AT A LIVING WAGE. State Constitutional Amendment to
guarantee a job. Immediately raise the state minimum wage to $7.50 an hour.
30 hour work week for 40 hour pay. Universal, quality child care. Repeal the
Taylor's Law anti-strike provisions. Foster sustainable communities through
support for workplace democracy and community-controlled economic
initiatives such as credit unions, land trusts and consumer and worker
cooperatives.
6. QUALITY PUBLIC EDUCATION FOR ALL. Guaranteed irrespective of ability to
pay. Include college and vocational training. Restore the cuts at SUNY and
CUNY. Use progressive income tax to fund schools. Immediately fund needed
school repairs and conversion of coal-burning furnaces.
7. TAX FAIRNESS. Make corporations and the wealthy pay their fair share.
Hold corporations accountable for promised job creation. Enact IDA reform.
8. CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFORM. Abolish the Death Penalty. Build Communities,
not Prisons. Punish corporate crime. Civilian police review boards .End the
Drug Wars; repeal Rockefeller drug laws. Legalize marijuana use for
medicinal purposes. Oppose denial of parole, double bunking.
9. JUSTICE FOR ALL. Civil Rights. NYS Gay / Lesbian Civil Rights Bill. Same
sex marriage. Affirmative action. Eliminate state-sanctioned racism.
10. AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR ALL. Extend rent control, make it permanent.
House the homeless.
11. REAL WELFARE REFORM. Jobs not Workfare. Guaranteed minimum income. Feed
the hungry.
Here are the "key values" of the U.S. Association of State Green Parties:
GREEN KEY VALUES
1. GRASSROOTS DEMOCRACY
Every human being deserves a say in the decisions that affect their lives
and not be subject to the will of another. Therefore, we will work to
increase public participation at every level of government and to ensure
that our public representatives are fully accountable to the people who
elect them. We will also work to create new types of political organizations
which expand the process of participatory democracy by directly including
citizens in the decision-making process.
2. SOCIAL JUSTICE AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY
All persons should have the rights and opportunity to benefit equally from
the resources afforded us by society and the environment. We must
consciously confront in ourselves, our organizations, and society at large,
barriers such as racism and class oppression, sexism and homophobia, ageism
and disability, which act to deny fair treatment and equal justice under the
law.
3. ECOLOGICAL WISDOM
Human societies must operate with the understanding that we are part of
nature, not separate from nature.
We must maintain an ecological balance and live within the ecological and
resource limits of our communities and our planet. We support a sustainable
society which utilizes resources in such a way that future generations will
benefit and not suffer from the practices of our generation. To this end we
must practice agriculture which replenishes the soil; move to an energy
efficient economy; and live in ways that respect the integrity of natural
systems.
4. NON-VIOLENCE
It is essential that we develop effective alternatives to society's current
patterns of violence. We will work to demilitarize, and eliminate weapons of
mass destruction, without being naive about the intentions of other
governments.
We recognize the need for self-defense and the defense of others who are in
helpless situations. We promote non-violent methods to oppose practices and
policies with which we disagree, and will guide our actions toward lasting
personal, community and global peace.
5. DECENTRALIZATION
Centralization of wealth and power contributes to social and economic
injustice, environmental destruction, and militarization. Therefore, we
support a restructuring of social, political and economic institutions away
from a system which is controlled by and mostly benefits the powerful few,
to a democratic, less bureaucratic system. Decision-making should, as much
as possible, remain at the individual and local level, while assuring that
civil rights are protected for all citizens.
6. COMMUNITY-BASED ECONOMICS AND ECONOMIC JUSTICE
We recognize it is essential to create a vibrant and sustainable economic
system, one that can create jobs and provide a decent standard of living for
all people while maintaining a healthy ecological balance. A successful
economic system will offer meaningful work with dignity, while paying a
"living wage" which reflects the real value of a person's work.
Local communities must look to economic development that assures protection
of the environment and workers' rights; broad citizen participation in
planning; and enhancement of our "quality of life". We support independently
owned and operated companies which are socially responsible, as well as
co-operatives and public enterprises that distribute resources and control
to more people through democratic participation.
7. FEMINISM AND GENDER EQUITY
We have inherited a social system based on male domination of politics and
economics. We call for the replacement of the cultural ethics of domination
and control with more cooperative ways of interacting that respect
differences of opinion and gender. Human values such as equity between the
sexes, interpersonal responsibility, and honesty must be developed with
moral conscience. We should remember that the process that determines our
decisions and actions is just as important as achieving the outcome we want.
8. RESPECT FOR DIVERSITY
We believe it is important to value cultural, ethnic, racial, sexual,
religious and spiritual diversity, and to promote the development of
respectful relationships across these lines.
We believe that the many diverse elements of society should be reflected in
our organizations and decision-making bodies, and we support the leadership
of people who have been traditionally closed out of leadership roles. We
acknowledge and encourage respect for other life forms than our own and the
preservation of biodiversity.
9. PERSONAL AND GLOBAL RESPONSIBILITY
We encourage individuals to act to improve their personal well-being and, at
the same time, to enhance ecological balance and social harmony. We seek to
join with people and organizations around the world to foster peace,
economic justice, and the health of the planet.
10. FUTURE FOCUS AND SUSTAINABILITY
Our actions and policies should be motivated by long-term goals. We seek to
protect valuable natural resources, safely disposing of or "unmaking" all
waste we create, while developing a sustainable economics that does not
depend on continual expansion for survival. We must counterbalance the drive
for short-term profits by assuring that economic development, new
technologies, and fiscal policies are responsible to future generations who
will inherit the results of our actions.
QUALITY OF LIFE
Our overall goal is not merely to survive, but to share lives that are truly
worth living. We believe the quality of our individual lives is enriched by
the quality of all of our lives. We encourage everyone to see the dignity
and intrinsic worth in all of life, and to take the time to understand and
appreciate themselves, their community and the magnificent beauty of this
world.
>
>
William Kaufman
The Green Vision
We live on a finite planet with finite resources, but are consuming our
ecological capital instead of living off the interest. We are undermining
the ability of natural cycles to renew such resources as clean water and
air, topsoil, fish, and trees. We must move from growth to sustainability.
Green vs Grey
Politics is no longer defined by the struggle between the Left and the
Right. The politics of the 21st century will be divided between the Green
and the Grey: between those who see the Earth as an interconnected web of
life, and those who see it as a collection of resources to be exploited for
maximum short-term profit.
In a Grey economy, the worth of vanishing species and natural resources is
disregarded because these cannot be easily quantified. Instead economic
indicators rise with every automobile accident, with every oil spill, and
with every newly diagnosed cancer patient.
In a Green economy, progress would be redefined to stop counting the
liquidation of nature as income; corporations would be held responsible for
their products from cradle to grave; new economic indicators would be
applied to account for the social and ecological costs of products and
services; and to create jobs, income and consumption taxes would be replaced
with environmental taxes.
Green Jobs not Pink Slips
There are many more jobs in a Green economy than in a Grey economy. A Green
economy is labour-intensive, sustainable, based on the skills of people, and
produces quality products from local resources incorporating local culture.
Tax Bads NOT Goods
The Green Party suggests shifting taxes away from personal income and onto
non-renewable resources, and eliminating taxes on ecologically benign
products and processes. Green taxes reward sustainable businesses and
penalize resource-intensive industries. Reducing income taxes and payroll
taxes makes people less expensive to employ.
Sustainable Forestry
Forests belong to future generations and provide habitat for other species.
Clearcutting should be banned and the remaining 1% of old growth should be
preserved. Higher stumpage fees would encourage selective cutting, and
value-added production creates more jobs than exporting raw logs. Hemp and
kenaf should be grown as alternative sources of paper fibre.
Organic Agriculture
Agribusiness encourages mono-cropping, chemical farming, centralization,
overprocessing, long-distance transportation and decreased employment.
Greens seek to preserve crop diversity, reconnect the farmer with the
consumer and ensure a supply of locally produced, pesticide-free food.
Product labels should indicate the use of pesticides and bio-engineering.
Food guides should not promote meat.
Renewable Energy and Conservation
In view of global climate change and the dangers of radioactive waste, the
Green Party suggests phasing out fossil fuels and nuclear energy in favour
of renewable energy sources such as solar, wind, biomass, and micro-hydro.
The transition to sustainable energy can be achieved through improved energy
efficiency, conservation and cogeneration.
Life-cycle Product Stewardship
Pollution is resources being wasted. Landfilling is like burying money in
the ground. Nothing should be landfilled or released into the air, water or
soil. Greens would introduce product-stewardship programs that would require
producers to assume the full recycling and disposal costs of their products.
Community Economic Development
Transnational corporations have no stake in the communities where they get
their raw materials or where they operate. As a result, resources are
overexploited and jobs migrate to where labour is cheapest and environmental
standards are lowest. Green tax reform would favour locally owned and
operated businesses that use local resources for value-added production in a
sustainable manner, thereby keeping jobs, decision-making and profits in the
community.
Guaranteed Income Supplement
Welfare and Employment Insurance should be replaced with a Guaranteed Income
Supplement plan that would encourage recipients to seek employment. A GIS
would provide financial compensation for traditionally unpaid and
undervalued contributions to society, such as child-rearing and homemaking,
and would contribute to the support of artists, students, volunteers and
small-business start-ups.
Pedestrian Communities and Rail
Trains concentrate development while cars encourage sprawl. Greens would
revitalize the rail system for long-distance haulage and passenger travel.
We envision gradually rebuilding all urban areas into pedestrian
communities, interconnected by surface light rail, making the private
automobile redundant.
An End to Deficit Budgeting
Twenty-five cents of every federal tax dollar goes directly to commercial
banks to pay the interest on Canada's $600-billion debt. Greens recommend
that the Bank of Canada take over a significant portion of the debt as an
interest-free loan. Greens also suggest implementing a currency transaction
tax.
Proportional Representation
The Green Party suggests switching to proportional representation so that
when a party receives 15% of the popular vote it would also receive 15% of
the seats in Parliament. We would oppose paid political advertising and
political donations. Instead all parties should receive equal access to the
media and funding.
Restorative Justice
Justice should be restorative rather than retributive. Crime should be
defined as a violation of one person by another, not as a violation of the
state. The 80% of offenders who are non-violent should be sent directly to
halfway houses. Sentencing circles should be used as an alternative to trial
by judge and jury.
The Four-day Work Week
Moving to a four-day/32-hour work week would provide jobs for those now
unemployed. Greens suggest five weeks of vacation per year, disincentives
for overtime, job sharing, paid leave for child rearing and educational
leave. Lower welfare and Employment Insurance costs would mean lower income
taxes.
Biodiversity and Wilderness
A conservation strategy is needed to protect biodiversity on an evolutionary
scale. Canada needs a system of core reserves, corridors, and buffer zones
free from development to accommodate viable, self-reproducing, genetically
diverse native plant and animal species, including large predators.
Sustainable Fisheries
The use of draggers in both the east and west coast fisheries has decimated
our ocean ecosystems. We must recognize and support ecologically appropriate
fishing technologies. Greens discourage aquaculture since it spreads disease
among native fish.
Cultural Funding
While the cost of funding the arts is relatively low, its social benefits
and economic multiplier effects are high. Greens would maintain and increase
arts funding, especially for smaller, community-based, participatory arts
and recreational activities.
Military Reductions
The cost of Canada's peacekeeping operations is less than $700 million
annually -- only 6% of the defence budget. The Green Party suggests that
Canada dramatically reduce its military budget, halt low-level flight
training in Labrador, and withdraw from the global arms race.
A.Prianikoff
>Your entire recitation of reasons for supporting the Labor Party over the
Greens
>is in THE PAST TENSE, based on things that happened at least TWENTY YEARS
>AGO.
How many times do I have to say it: - I DON'T SUPPORT THE LABOUR PARTY!
The argument for membership of the LP has never been weaker, the argument
for standing candidates on an independent socialist program never better.
Labour have a disgusting record of selling out streching back for over 70
years. The problem is the working class keep voting for it!
The question is whether Labour is ANY kind of workers party at all. And a
note on terminology - workers are those who don't own enough property to
avoid having to sell their labour power in order to live. They aren't all
industrial workers - nurses and teachers are part of the working class.
Call me dogmatic if you like, but I argue that reports of Social Democracy's
death are premature. My arguments aren't based on things that happened 20
years ago. They're based on the union link with Labour and the class basis
of its vote. NOW, not in the past. Only when these cease to be and the
Labour left is no more will Labour resemble the proverbial dead parrot.
>> Dogmatic antipathy perhaps. Profound ignorance? Nope.
>Here's some progress. You admit that you're a dogmatist. But since you have
>not contributed one syllable of informed commentary to the threads on
>Western Marxism and Critical Theory, one must assume that ignorance is the
>reason, since you typically show no shyness about charging into print about
>matters about which you are less than half informed--e.g., this thread.
I have no contribution to make on "Western Marxism" because I'm not
interested academic Marxology.
That's what Marcuse, Fromm, Adorno, Habermas represent. I've read all of
them at some time or another, so what ? Marcuse and Fromm have some
interesting things to say, but they were hardly political leadership
material.
This thread was on the question of whether socialists of the trotskyist
persuasion should call for a green vote in preference to one for Social
Democracy. What knowledge do I have of either?
Well, I have been a member of the Labour Party, I did vote Labour at the
last election. I did take part in the campaign against the abolition of
Clause 4 in the LP. This was 4 years ago not 20.
I have met my MP - he came to a strike meeting we organised a couple of
years ago and said he wasn't a Blairite. Many members of my union voted for
him in the hope that "things could only get better".
A couple of hundred of us turned up to a meeting in the House of Commons
last summer in an attempt to persuade the government to live up to this
promise.
My MP who spoke there now IS a Blairite. He's been rewarded for this
political volte face by being made a Labour whip. There's a big difference
between an upwardly moblile young careerist like this and someone like Tony
Benn, who was in the audience at the same meeting.
Benn stayed around to talk afterwards and made the point that what was
needed was "more politics" - he was right. He's STILL not a Blairite and
has now stated that he'll no longer automatically follow the Labour whip.
Neither is the chair of my union branch, who's a Labour Councillor and was
out on the picket line last month.
They get tens of thousands of votes from ordinary people, because they have
some principles left.
> in your comment below, in which you ask for "evidence" of the
>positions of Green parties, you make it laughably clear that you don't have
>a clue as to what this movement is all about, a fact that has not prevented
>you from gobbling up a good deal of badwidth with your windy reflections on
>the subject.
The Green Parties have no chance of achieving power. They will only ever be
pressure groups buoyed up by Proportional representation. Support for the
concerns of the Greens is fine by me, even the incoporation of some of their
demands into a socialist programme, but not their politics which are
unrealisable by the utopian methods they promote. Those greens who aren't
absorbed into the bourgeois mainstream will join the socialist movement.
William Kaufman
A.Prianikoff <al...@prianikoff.freeserve.co.uk> wrote
Those greens who aren't
> absorbed into the bourgeois mainstream will join the socialist movement.
>
Did it ever occur to you that if socialists don't take an active orientation
toward mass anticapitalist movements like the Greens, the "socialist
movement" (by which you presumably mean the Trot sects) will end up as an
antiquarian vestige while the real LIVING socialist movement passes them by?
After all, the Green movement is the key arena of anticapitalist struggle in
the West now, and not a shred of their core insights and program emanated
from traditional Marxist groups, whose only contribution to the notion of
recycling applies to their shopworn formulas and dogmas.
(Note: even though you have finally pried yourself kicking and screaming
from the British Labor Party, you still have not addressed the OVERALL Trot
principle of approval for entrism to reformist "Labor" formations IN GENERAL
while eschewing much more vital and radical movements like the Greens whose
evolution doesn't conform to preapproved Trot categories such as traditional
left parties, industrial unions, and so on. It seems that you still cling to
this formula for sectarian impotence.)
Finally, your indifference to twentieth-century refinements of Marxist
theory helps to explain your frozen political posture.
A.Prianikoff
>the Green movement is the key arena of anticapitalist struggle in
>the West now, and not a shred of their core insights and program emanated
>from traditional Marxist groups
I don't accept that the Green parties are anti-capitalist, let alone
socialist. None of them use terminology like that. The " Green Movement"
could refer to anyone concerned about Global Warming, GM foods, Nuclear
Power, BSE etc. These issues are being taken up by Marxist groups and being
debated within them.
> (Note: even though you have finally pried yourself kicking and screaming
>from the British Labor Party, you still have not addressed the OVERALL Trot
>principle of approval for entrism to reformist "Labor" formations IN
GENERAL
>while eschewing much more vital and radical movements
I have to admit that, although I was brought up to vote Labour, I was a
revolutionary socialist before I was ever a member of the Labour Party.
Even that was only for a brief spell in the early 80's, when the Bennite
left was in the ascendant. I believe in relating to the LP via my union,
not being an election footslogger for Tory Plan B.
The " Trot" principle you speak of has only ever been a tactic to build a
party independent of social democracy.
William Kaufman
A.Prianikoff <al...@prianikoff.freeserve.co.uk>
> The " Trot" principle you speak of has only ever been a tactic to build a
> party independent of social democracy.
The only thing you're going to end up independent of is reality itself if
you can't bring yourself to confront it in all its refractory diversity. If
the anticapitalism isn't sufficiently explicit for you, the programs I
posted should make it quite clear that the movement is most certainly
implicitly anticapitalist at its core and overtly anticapitalist in a good
many respects. It's the job of socialists to intervene in such movements to
maximize their socialist potential rather than writing them off because they
don't quote from Lenin and Trotsky in their theoretical organs.
Your outlook here--and that of likeminded sect builders--is an
instructive example of the hazards of the Leninist party's pose of
omniscience; having decreed the foreordained structures and directions of
the revolutionary process, the party sages are loath to acknowledge any
forms of struggle that they didn't anticipate, since it would undermine the
very claim to theoretical and practical infallibility that justifies their
stranglehold on the public profile of the party. Once the leadership and its
party line acknowledge that some aspect of reality has escaped their grasp,
their raison d'etre--and that of the invariably "correct" party they
lead--evaporates. They're far better off rebuking unanticipated movements
than trying to work with them, since their real objective is not to
understand and shape the real world but to construct an increasingly
airtight political biosphere admittance to which only the perfectly
likeminded can enter--their idea of revolution is not seeking to lead real
forces but to gradually convert the entire population into docile, "right"
thinking Leninist cadres. No thoughtful, free being would wish to be a part
of such a delusional structure, nor would he wish its leadership on an
entire country, much less on the mercifully small handful of devotees who
willingly submit to its dictates.
Anent the Canadian Greens' postulate about Green vs. Grey politics, I
can only repeat one of Lenin's favorite quotations, from Goethe's Faust:
"All theory is grey, but the tree of life flows evergreen!"
A.Prianikoff
William Kaufman wrote
>No thoughtful, free being would wish to be a part
>of such a delusional structure, nor would he wish its leadership on an
>entire country, much less on the mercifully small handful of devotees who
>willingly submit to its dictates.
Troll
William Kaufman
Geert Cool
: > Now in Antwerp they want to repeat the experience from Brussels by
: > proposing a joint list of social democrats, greens, independents and
: > "all progressives".
: 1) By "social democrats" do you mean supporters of something like the
: British Labour Party ?
The social democrats (like New Labour) here are called Socialist Party
like in France. That's why we don't use the word socialism in our name
Almost all traditional parties in Flanders use the example of Tony Blair
and Wim Kok (in Holland). From the rightwing liberals to the social
democrats, they're all wild about the ideas of the Third Way.
: 2) What sort of Communist Party are you allied with ?
We had candidates on the list of the CP. This is the CP which dates from
1919. Since the 80s they haven't stood any candidates anymore. Last year
for the first time they again had a list of their own, basically on a
leftwing reformist program. We had Militant-candidates on this list.
We campaigned on our program and for our candidates. We didn't call
for a CP-vote, but just for a vote on our candidates on the CP.
In june we had elections for the Euro-parlaiment but also for national
parlaiments and for regional parlaiments. In the Euro-elections we
called for a vote on the list 'Debout' of steelworkers leader D'Orazio
and for our candidate on that list.
That was the situation in the Walloon area and in Brussels. In Flanders
we stood a list of our own in Gent and had a candidate on a leftwing
unity list in Aalst. (both for national and regional parlaiments).
: >
: > : I have also looked at the website of the Actif Left Students. I find the
: > : language difficult (what is the word for revolution ?) but I admired the
: > : pictures of Che Guevara.
: This was irony but still worthy of comment
You mean that state capitalist Che Guevara?
If you'd look careful at the language you might find out that it's not
that different from english. Revolution is "revolutie".
dwalters
with the Ted Grant/Alan Woods tendency (the Socialist Appeal
tendency?). In looking over the web sites of both groups EXCEPT for the
issue of entryism, their politics seem to overlap with little or no
deviation. I know of sympathisers of BOTH groups in different
countries. Geert, could you, for the CWI, explain what the differences
are? I know that in some countries that when the split occured it based
on who each group viewed what was going on the Britain and the old
Labour Militant attitude toward it. If there is someone who is around
Socialist Appeal groups, perhaps they could chime in.
David Walters
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Stephen R. Diamond
<kma...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> A.Prianikoff <al...@prianikoff.freeserve.co.uk>
> > Troll
>
> Lackey
Swine.
Stephen R. Diamond
Geert Cool
: This thread start with a polemic by Geert's tendency (CWI) polemicizing
: with the Ted Grant/Alan Woods tendency (the Socialist Appeal
: tendency?). In looking over the web sites of both groups EXCEPT for the
: issue of entryism, their politics seem to overlap with little or no
: deviation. I know of sympathisers of BOTH groups in different
: countries. Geert, could you, for the CWI, explain what the differences
: are? I know that in some countries that when the split occured it based
: on who each group viewed what was going on the Britain and the old
: Labour Militant attitude toward it. If there is someone who is around
: Socialist Appeal groups, perhaps they could chime in.
: David Walters
this dates from before my time but the main issue which caused the
differences was around entryism and the fact that we should also work
independent, which according to the Grant/Woods documents would be
a threat to 40 years of work...
This was in concrete around the candidate who stood on an independent
base in Liverpool, but in other countries it also caused
other discussions. In Belgium the main discussion was on the work
we were doing at that time with the Blokbusters, our radical
young antifascist campaign which was very succesful. The minority
(Grant/Woods) formed a majority in the leadership of the Belgian
section at that time and publicly denounced the Blokbuster-campaign
as it wasn't part of a campaign inside social-democracy (which would
have been a complete mistake already at that time).
Off course there were more questions involved (like for example the
perspectives for the ex-Stalinist countries and the possibility for
Stalinist reinstalment as being said by Grant/Woods, or on the
national question,...).
Perhaps one of the comrades who was already active at that period
could give a better account on the differences.
William Kaufman
Tim Vanhoof
> Besides which, I don't really think the
> Greens have ever really been on the left.
The German Greens were, once.
I realise that the Green Party in Britain has always given the
impression that they thought the environment was something to do with
whales. The German Greens came from a different tradition. They filled a
vacuum on the German left caused by the absence of an important far-left
party like the SWP or Lutte Ouvriere. That meant that left activists
ended up in the Greens and met up with activists from the anti-nuclear
movement which was then at its peak. This collaboration was actually
quite fruitful. The leftists convinced the environmentalists that they
had to address social issues and the greens convinced the leftists that
they had to stop speaking in cliches from the first manifesto of the
Comintern.
In 1980 the Greens saw themselves as the parliamentary arm of the
anti-nuclear movement. And it was the defeat and collapse of that
movement that led to their shift to the right.
William Kaufman quoted:
>Politics is no longer defined by the struggle between the Left and the
>Right.
This is also what the German Greens used to say, and look at them now.
Stephen R. Diamond
(Tim Vanhoof) wrote:
> William Kaufman quoted:
>
> >Politics is no longer defined by the struggle between the Left and the
> >Right.
The Flude L-M line. The unity of opposites!
Stephen R. Diamond
Eric Cartman Sr.
38ldnp1.dialup.mindspring.com>,
Don't say that even this elementary political observation, within the
abilities of young schoolchildren to grasp, has escaped the
"revolutionaries" of APST.
Those who dispute it - can they give an example of a contemporary
political issue where the approaches of the differing world-views of
what used to be Right and Left are in evidence? In Britain, we have a
Labour government cutting disability benefits and launching wars
against the "barbaric East", while we have a Tory Party that has a wing
that opposed the Kosovo war, supports equalisation of the age of
consent for homsexuals, has just selected an openly gay candidate for
the Kensington and Chelsea constituency, and strongly opposes the
testing of GM crops. The New Labour government wants to replace the
House of Lords with political appointees for life, while the Tories
want it elected. The political compass which guided the way before
1989 stopped working shortly afterwards, and the realisation of that
fact must be the starting point of any analysis which tries to make
sense of the present.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Geoff Collier
please explain the point of being on a list for which you don't advocate
voting. How is this different from being on a list with social democrats and
greens and not advocating a vote for them ?
Geoff
P.S. Whether one is a state capitalist or a workers statist, Che was not a
marxist.
Geert Cool <gc...@eduserv2.rug.ac.be> wrote in message
news:8062fk$3k9$1...@inf6serv.rug.ac.be...
Geert Cool
: Please forgive my poor understanding of Belgian politics but could you
: please explain the point of being on a list for which you don't advocate
: voting. How is this different from being on a list with social democrats and
: greens and not advocating a vote for them ?
: Geoff
The election system here doesn't work with small constituencies but with
bigger districts for which there are lists. Like for instance our list
in Gent was a list with 20 candidates. In Brussels the lists for the
Brussels parlaiment had 75 candidates. We called for a vote on our
candidates on the PC-list. The PC is a reformist party which at present
attracs some leftwing people. Therefore we work together with them, but
on OUR program. That's why we called for a vote on our candidates on the
list and why the PC in their propaganda made clear that our candidates are
Militant-members.
The mandelites called for a vote on the "SP!Aga"-list (Social democrats,
Agalev which is the Green Party and independents). This list was formed
as a pure electoral calculation. The USFI called for a vote on this
list, even amongst the Frenchspeaking because they said that this was
the only way to stop the Vlaams Blok.
This is related to the complicated electoral system in Brussels. In Brussels
you can vote either for a Dutch-speaking list of for a French-speaking list.
Only about 15% votes for a Dutch speaking list. But the Brussels
government needs to have a majority amongst both Frenchspeaking and Dutch
speakings. The Vlaams Blok had a big campaign amongst Frenchspeakings
to vote for their Dutchspeaking list. Because of the weakness of the
Frenchspeaking far-right they can reach a number of far-right
Frenchspeakings. So there was a threat that the Vlaams Blok would obtain
half of the Dutchspeaking seats and like that make the Brussels system
impossible. Therefore the SP!Aga list was formed as a Dutchspeaking list.
The USFI supported it, not because of its politics but because of
an electoral calculation.
That is not how we think the Vlaams Blok can be stopped.
Geoff Collier
for the European parliamentary elections and I voted for the Socialist
Labour Party list. There was no opportunity to vote for anybody as an
individual. Is your system different ?
Geoff
Geert Cool <gc...@eduserv2.rug.ac.be> wrote in message
news:80bubh$oja$2...@inf6serv.rug.ac.be...
Tim Vanhoof
> In article <stephend15-0811991120150001@user-
> 38ldnp1.dialup.mindspring.com>,
> steph...@mindspring.com (Stephen R. Diamond) wrote:
> > In article <1e0xbfn.138nzapenpp1mN%timva...@gmx.net>,
> timva...@gmx.net
> > (Tim Vanhoof) wrote:
> > >
> > > >Politics is no longer defined by the struggle between the Left and
> > > >the Right.
> >
Don't quote so sloppily. I never wrote any such thing.
mmcdon
<80hpjr$8at$2...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>...
> Sorry comrade but I still don't understand this system. We had a list
system
> for the European parliamentary elections and I voted for the Socialist
> Labour Party list. There was no opportunity to vote for anybody as an
> individual. Is your system different ?
The system used in Britain for the European elections was a "closed list"
system, while the one used in Belgium is an "open list" system. The
difference essentially boils down to being able to choose individual
candidates from a list, without endorsing the entire slate. Large political
parties mostly hate "open list" electoral systems, as the electorate have a
nasty habit of choosing candidates the party would rather quietly sideline.
I'm sure somebody on uk.politics.electoral will give you a fuller
description if you're really interested.
Is mise le meas,
Brian Cahill
Geoff Collier
political advantage of joining a list when you oppose the rest of it.
Geoff
mmcdon <mmm...@iol.ie> wrote in message
news:01bf2d88$7f35d5e0$5391cbc1@default...
mmcdon
> I see your point about open/closed lists. I still don't understand the
> political advantage of joining a list when you oppose the rest of it.
There are numerous possible reasons for joining an open list with another
left party, even if you don't necessarily call for a vote for that party.
Financial ones, most obviously.
Geoff Collier
dependent on the state and the CP. What are the real political reasons for
participation in a CP list.
Geoff
mmcdon <mmm...@iol.ie> wrote in message
news:01bf2dfb$782512c0$0c91cbc1@default...
Geert Cool
: The financial reasons cannot be paramount. Otherwise it would make Militant
: dependent on the state and the CP. What are the real political reasons for
: participation in a CP list.
The presentation of open CP-lists was a step forward. The CP stood on a
reformist basis, but it was able to have a lot of good independent
union activists on their list, as well as political activists from
other organisations. Therfore we found it important to be part of this
list, even though we do not support the program of the CP. If we
wouldn't have had our candidates on the CP-list we probably would
have called for a vote on the CP-list (they obtained about 2% of the
total vote in Brussels and Wallonia).
For the Euro-elections we called NOT to vote for the CP-candidates
as we had a candidate on an other list, Debout, a joint list
of union activists and leftwings organised around the popular
steelworkers leader Roberto D'Orazio. This list got 45,000 votes
(our candidate on the list had 893 votes).
The financial reasons don't really play, we don't have to pay to
be able to stand in elections. You just need a certain amount of signatures
and then anyone can stand in the elections.