Democratic centralism in Britain has always operated on a hammer and anvil culture; the three men expelled from the Socialist Workers’ Party this weekend are only the latest victims.
The number of serious socialists in Britain kicked out of small political parties they have loyally devoted themselves to building - simply for their temerity of disagreeing with the dominant line - must surely number tens of thousands since the model was first introduced into this country.
It is difficult to think of any voluntary organisation in all of civil society under the sway of a leadership more secretive and with less democratic legitimacy than that of the SWP.
Many party members do not even know the names of those who sit on the body, far less get any say in the matter. Even the United Grand Lodge of England publishes a list of its top brass these days.
It is one thing to submit to the ‘party discipline’ of an elected leadership with a proven track record of actual leadership in the class struggle and/or as serious Marxist thinkers. It is quite another to have to obey the every whim of this particular crop of fourth-rate British Lenin wannabes.
In any case, to function properly, a democratic centralist party also needs a specific mass, giving it a size sufficient to be able to generalise from the experiences of the class, not just the one or two pockets were a given current may have some degree of implantation.
The treatment of Wrack, Hoveman and Ovenden underlines once again that democratic centralism is not an appropriate model for socialist organisation in the current period. It’s not as if we are working under illegality or something, is it?
Respect itself is not based on democratic centralist, of course. But it still bears obvious traces of the modus operandi. It was hatched in secret, its internal democracy is purely formal in nature, and since its inception it has had no broad support in the labour movement, even from the awkward squad or the Labour left.
It’s difficult to conceive of anything that could fairly be described as a step backwards from the Socialist Alliance. But Respect has proved that, and more.
Comments (46)
Great stuff Dave - a tremendous contribution to this most tricky of issues.
It is always useful to know that you, a self-proclaimed 'libertarian Marxist', would be happy to 'submit to the "party discipline" of an elected leadership with a proven track record of actual leadership in the class struggle and/or as serious Marxist thinkers.'
I have just one question. Since when have the leadership of New Labour, last seen trying to tell striking postal workers to 'get back to work', been either serious Marxist thinkers or leaders in the class struggle?
Sorry Dave, but expulsions for not following 'the line' has been a feature of all socialist organisations in Britain from the SDF onwards. Even the anti-Leninist SPGB has been known to chuck people out. I remember you being on the sharp end of the witch-hunt in the non-democratic centralist SLP.
You write that democratic centralist organising is not appropriate for Britain at the present time. I would argue its never been more pertinent. I would agree SWP-style *bureaucratic* centralism has no place, but it's hard to envisage how any organisation can organise effectively without some notion of party discipline.
Freedom of discussion, but unity in action is the only sensible way.
It is quite another to have to obey the every whim of this particular crop of fourth-rate British Lenin wannabes.
excellent post, and it explains why, in part, the working classes are so often put off socialist politics, they find that those organisations are run my middle-class ex-students with power complexes
so why would the working classes willingly want to be bossed round by yet another set of middle-class nonentities again , after having suffered, in work, at the hands of such replicas?
They don't and they won't.
Democratic centralism suits the middle classes, the attitudes that they learnt growing up, to be pushy assertive and get their way, is indispensable when they are in such organisations, but is one of many off putting aspects which limits the involvement of the working classes.
Until such groupings change their organisational models they won't reach that critical mass to become self-sustaining, and have real roots in the working class, as their European counterparts have found.
Yes, modernity spot on mate.
Down with these middle class bureaucrats!
Up with the champions of the working class - the proletarian triumvirate of Gordon Brown, Alistair Darling and Digby Jones !
Victory to the Brown Revolution!
The point, Snowball, is that I don't have to submit to 'the discipline' of the Labour Party. I say what I damn well like.
Two points:
1) The SWP leadership, for the all that democracy is fairly strictly limited in that organisation, have more democratic legitimacy than the head honchos of the vast majority of "civil society" organisations. Few NGOs have any sort of elected leadership for instance or any form of democratic structure. Much the same can be said for many of the organisations thrown up the anti-globalisation movement.
2) The term "democratic centralism" has been used to refer to such a wide variety of different organisational forms that it is almost meaningless at this stage unless some kind of additional description is given. The SWP refers to itself as "democratic centralist" but its structures have little or nothing in common with the also "democratic centralist" LCR to given an obvious example.
The SWP's interpretation of "democratic centralism", with its ban on factions for most of the year and ban on womens, ethnic minority or gay caucuses and so on is fairly idiosyncratic to say the least. It is, ironically enough, rather closer to the structures of the Stalinist parties than it is to the structures of Lenin's party.
Not that apeing precisely the structures of Lenin's party should be our goal either. The broad principle of "freedom of discussion, unity in action" is much more flexible than that.
'The point, Snowball, is that I don't have to submit to 'the discipline' of the Labour Party. I say what I damn well like.'
Ah, the joys of Labour Party democracy. You can say what you like and the leadership just ignore you completely and carry on regardless.
Unless of course you say something really which gets their backs up - and then you expelled like Galloway was.
I love the way Snowball isn't really addressing the points made by Dave's excellent original post. But rather just indulging in a bit of childish 'tu quoque' mudslinging about Gordon Brown and Digby Jones.
Come on mate, there's been some important critiques of the shortcomings of democratic centralism, and indeed how Leninist modes of organisation relate (or fail to relate) to working class people on this thread. I would at least expect a bit more of a robust defence of it than this "well, your mum smells" level of riposte.
a very public sociologist wrote:
"Sorry Dave, but expulsions for not following 'the line' has been a feature of all socialist organisations in Britain from the SDF onwards. Even the anti-Leninist SPGB has been known to chuck people out. I remember you being on the sharp end of the witch-hunt in the non-democratic centralist SLP."
The major difference being that the SPGB require membership consultation and a party poll in order to expell members. Can't imagine the SWP, or Respect for that matter, going that far . . .
The idea that democratic centralism has anything to do with operating in an 'illegal' circumstances is politically illiterate. The point about DC is that it has to be open and public for it to work properly. The maximum possible discussion in the organisation - which means in public unless under conditions of police repression - and the maximum possible unity in action once a decision has been reached. The SWP is the reverse of both of these. Members simply opt out if they don't like a line which has been foist upon them by a leadership that does not tolerate real debate. See their annual rallies, sorry, 'conferences'. A sub stalinist abortion.
“The treatment of Wrack, Hoveman and Ovenden underlines once again that democratic centralism is not an appropriate model for socialist organisation in the current period.”
Has democratic centralism (an oxymoron surely) ever been necessary for the advancement of socialist ideas? My heart will always tend towards the libertarian – swaying towards some kind of anarcho-socialism; but recently my head has overruled me and has pushed me more towards Marxist ideas. Underpinning both Marxism and anarchism is the idea of liberation. The concept of socialism is nothing if not the liberation from economic tyranny and the accompanying social, cultural and philosophical oppression that springs forth from capitalism. We know the democracy capitalism espouses is illusory. True democracy can only spring from socialism. This is axiomatic, is it not?
So why would you join an organisation that does not practice true democracy and give their comrades freedom of action and, most importantly, freedom of thought whilst struggling to otherthrow capitalism? How would a society based on democratic (bureaucratic) centralism look? Oh yes, like a great big fucking gulag! A party’s structure and organisation says a lot of how they may structure a future society, too.
Sorry to be so utopian at this current juncture. But the left in this country leads one only to one destination – despair.
I’m off for a lie down.
with respect a dead end cdes may be interested in my blog - last post arguing for the left-led unions, the rmt and pcs, to take a lead in creatiung a new party...
http://foranewleftparty.blogspot.com/
"The point, Snowball, is that I don't have to submit to 'the discipline' of the Labour Party. I say what I damn well like."
Yes very true, but whatever you say, makes no difference at all in the LP ;)
@ Dave - "Many party members do not even know the names of those who sit on the body, far less get any say in the matter."
So who exactly are these secretive people ?
Could you perhaps list them here, with some brief biographical notes ?
Why does the Monty Python "Life of Brian" film sketch involving various "Popular Fronts" and "splitters" come to mind ?
@ Mark P - "Few NGOs have any sort of elected leadership for instance or any form of democratic structure.Much the same can be said for many of the organisations thrown up the anti-globalisation movement."
There are usually obvious and fundamental differences between political parties and NGOs, many of which are explicitly "non-party-political".
Tom, perhaps you are right.
Dave argues that 'to function properly, a democratic centralist party also needs a specific mass, giving it a size sufficient to be able to generalise from the experiences of the class.'
There is an important grain of truth here. But at the same time, there is a need to always have the end goal of building a revolutionary party firmly in sight at all times however small the organisation you are in - in keeping with the perspective of what Lukacs in his little work on Lenin called 'the actuality of revolution' as an inevitablity in late capitalism.
How to balance building a revolutionary party on the one hand with living in a non revolutionary period is a very difficult thing. It is easy to fall into revolutionary purity (eg Workers Power, Spartakist League) on the one hand and denounce others on the Left and fail to relate to any outside or new forces. Or you simply comfortably adapt to the status quo and agree with the dominant ideas of the movement and build up a cosy friendly organisation which avoids tricky issues and difficult arguments (eg the International Socialist Group). The latter option certainly seems more attractive - but the reality is that neither strategy is acceptable to anyone who takes revolutionary Marxism seriously.
Serious revolutionaries have to always try and fight to lead and shape the movement and class struggles whereever possible while not being patronising and always understanding that it is the class which drives things forward - not the revolutionary organisation. The SWP in Britain is really the only political organisation which has the size and the politics to take a lead on a national scale - and so it was central to helping to set up the Stop the War Coalition and then Respect.
The SWP does not claim to always get things right, but the success so far of both Stop the War and Respect show that it is unfair to claim that it puts its own interests before the wider interests of the movement. However, the SWP's understanding of the 'actuality of revolution' and the need to build a revolutionary organisation means that there will always be moments when it appears to those outside the organisation who do not have any understanding of revolutionary politics whatsoever that it is acting illogically or in a crazy fashion.
"Once while walking, Leo Tolstoy spotted in the distance the figure of a man squatting and gesturing strangely; a madman, he thought – but on drawing nearer he was satisfied that the man was attending to necessary work – sharpening a knife on a stone. Lenin was fond of citing this example."
Ygael Gluckstein (Tony Cliff ) - Lenin Vol 1.
"the SWP doesn't always claim to get things right?" When does it claim it hasn't got things right?!
As for the vindication of this position being the success of Respect. Well... give it a month.
Snowball: Ah, the joys of Labour Party democracy. You can say what you like and the leadership just ignore you completely and carry on regardless.
Whereas the leadership of the SWP listen avidly to the views of the members???
In fact we know that they change the line capriciously and then lionise those comrades whose political practice hapens to match the latest wheeze, or get some newly recriyted 18 year old to gush at how exciting the opportunites are, etc etc. (I have nothing agaist 18 year olds or those new to politics, but neither do I find their evidence necessarily convincing, due to lack of a frame of reference)
What makes even the dogs in the street laugh is that hardly any of the SWP leaders have even ever had a job outside the full time fantasy land of revolutinary left groups, let alomne actually led any workers in struggle. Chris Bambury has even managed to shift from being a full timer in the IMG to full timer in the SWP.
the thing in Napoleon, your "party" is supposed to be having a two way relationship with the most advanced workers, etc. But no one trusts you or believes you - do you think that might be cause for reflection that mistakes might be being made by the leadership, and that the ay you work might be self destructive?
Hell no! That is introspection, forget about realtionships with established militants in the class, recruit some more students quick!
billj said: When does [the SWP] claim it hasn't got things right?! As for the vindication of this position being the success of Respect. Well... give it a month.
Disgraceful impudence! As Snowball was trying to explain, the SWP is always right, even when it's wrong. Got that? (I think that's called Dialectics, but I'll have to get my District Organiser to explain it again.) And everyone knows Respect is a vibrant and brilliant mass ... um, coalition kind of thing. Anyway, doesn't change come through internal contradictions? (as I'm sure Snowball can affirm). Respect has plenty of those, so it must be a good thing.
Andy, remind me: Hegel, Marx, Engels, Lenin, Plekhanov, Trotsky, Bukharin, Gramsci, Lukacs were all workers weren't they?
The SWP is certainly no worse than other left groups, but in my experiece, they are most definitley far better.
Other than Gerry Healy (piss be on his soul), have we ever had a 'leader', or set of 'leaders' on the far left who was a worker?
Of course, we need to understand the psychological and ideological pressures that turn these comrades into control freaks (what was that about 'being' determines 'consciousness'?).
But there is little sign that we are prepared to do this, in order to prevent yet more of it.
Roll on another 150 years of failure, then...
Rosa, it is not a question of whether people who are not workers can be great political leaders, it is a question that you would expect there to be rather more than one or two workers in the leadership.
And yes, did we ever have leaders who were at one time workers? Duncan Hallas and Jim Higgins spring to mind. James p cannon. wasn't Zinoviev originallly an engineering worker? And a fair few of the leaders of the early CPGB.
"Other than Gerry Healy (piss be on his soul), have we ever had a 'leader', or set of 'leaders' on the far left who was a worker?"
Jock Haston?
In their ones and two's.
That rather makes my point, eh?
I strongly suspect that most of the leading figures in British or Irish left groups are both from working class backgrounds and spent time as workers (although of course many of them are now employed by the left groups they lead).
Few groups have the necessary size to offer people the much maligned student - fulltimer - party leader career path, even if they were so inclined. And while it certainly happens in every group big enough, only the SWP seem to make a particular habit of it, and they too have had plenty of workers in leading positions.
Unless you are only counting people who came from traditional manual jobs as "workers", of course. Even then I suspect that the likes of Alan Thornett or Bill Mullins would be surprised to be told that they are really middle class dilletantes.
Comrades might be interested in hearing about a major news item in
Scotland, about the brutal murder of a 51 year old council worker who
had the audacity of being sexually attracted to members of his own
sex. This latest, sickening example of homophobic hate crime proves
just how essential it is for socialists to have the guts to take a
stand in defence of gay rights. This is every bit as essential as it
is to defend Muslims from their all too obvious oppression. George
Galloway and his toadies on the Respect national council take issue
with this. George called for John Rees' removal as national secretary
specifically on the basis of his instructing Respect's councillors to
abide by one of the Es in the name of their party. In other words to
attend Gay Pride! Salma Yaqoob and others have mobilised against the
SWP for daring to tell non-gays to make gay rights a priority! Just
imagine how she would react if Rees criticised her for insisting on
atheists having the right not to attend anti-Islamophobia demonstrations!
Socialists should use the example of James Kerr's brutal murder (which
is the tip of the iceberg of homophobic hate crimes) to explain why
sticking your head in the sand is not an option. If we don't challenge
the tide of bigotry that has been sweeping "civilisation" for
centuries, which still has the power to kill, then we are complicit in
these deaths. Galloway got his free vote at Westminster to deprive
women of their right to control their fertility, which was a
disasterous error of judgement on the part of the SWP central
committee. He must not get away with appealing for votes on the basis
of lacking "strong support for gay rights". Thanks to Peter Tatchell,
we now know why Galloway does not attend Gay Pride. It is because he
is in fact proud of his LACK of "strong support for gay rights!"
Tower Hamlets councillors either stand for equality or they do not.
Clearly they do not. Clearly George Galloway does not. And neither
does Salma Yaqoob. There are already reports that the Respect fraction
on Tower Hamlet's council has split into an SWP group and a
businessmen group. The Tower Hamlets businessmen have joined forces
with the supporters of the SSP and George Galloway to impose a
non-elected national organiser, in defiance of the democratically
elected national secretary, and the majority of the elected officers!
They have done this without any democratic vote of the membership, and
without giving ALL Respect members a right to apply for the job.
Clearly, Galloway et al are petrified that if there was an election,
or an interview process, an SWP member who actually agreed with John
Rees might end up with the job. And that would never do. All these
"democrats" have handed the job to expelled SWP member Nick Wrack.
Wrack's qualification for the job? Well, he agrees with Galloway that
homophobes should be allowed to do their own thing.
I hope this is the last straw for the SWP central committee. They
should not waste their time fighting on for the soul of what is now a
corpse. They should cut their losses, pack their bags and go. Without
the SWP foot soldiers, subs, weekly paper promoting Respect, Galloway
will be reliant not only on the votes of the anti-abortion, anti-gay,
anti-union, businessmen, but on their cash as well. And who pays the
piper calls the tune. All those "socialists" and "democrats" who
opportunistically attached themselves to Galloway's anti-SWP bloc will
rue the day the started down this path. The SWP should apply
immediaely for negotiations with the CNWP/NSSN.
*************************************
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/tayside_and_central/7047671.stm
Last Updated: Tuesday, 16 October 2007, 17:18 GMT 18:18 UK
Killers boasted about park attack
James Kerr
Mr Kerr died later on the day of the attack
A schoolboy who triggered a murderous attack on a gay man in a Perth
park joined the killers in bragging about the assault later, a court
has heard.
They left James Kerr, 51, dying to join friends at a party after the
attack.
David Meehan, aged 19, admitted murder, while 21-year-old Martin
Soutar admitted culpable homicide. The 15-year-old boy pled guilty to
assault.
Meehan, Soutar and the schoolboy, who can not be named for legal
reasons, will be sentenced on 9 November.
Mr Kerr, a Perth and Kinross Council worker of George Street, Perth,
was attacked in the South Inch public park on 22 April.
Advocate depute Vinit Khurana said: "This case relates to an assault
by the accused on the deceased. There appears to have been a
homophobic element to the assault."
All the accused were heard to be talking about having just assaulted
someone
Vinit Khurana
Advocate depute
Mr Khurana said the schoolboy, from Perth, had been taking a shortcut
home in the early hours of the morning across the South Inch public park.
He said the teenager was involved in a confrontation with Mr Kerr and
another man and was heard to say: "If I ever see you again I am going
to kick your head in."
Mr Kerr then briefly left the park, but returned and was spotted by
the schoolboy, who used his mobile phone to call Soutar.
Soutar and Meehan were then dropped off at the park and the trio went
to the boating pond in search of Mr Kerr.
Mr Khurana said the schoolboy hit him, then tripped him up and while
Mr Kerr was on the ground Meehan and Soutar began kicking his head and
upper body.
"The three of them then walked away leaving him lying on the ground
bleeding heavily," Mr Khurana told the High Court in Perth.
Quickly traced
He said the gang left a trail of bloody footprints and made no attempt
to help Mr Kerr, who was struggling to breathe.
Mr Khurana said: "All three then made their way to a house party. At
that party all the accused were heard to be talking about having just
assaulted someone on the Inch."
Later, they walked past where the victim was lying as they went to
visit friends. A woman walking her dog discovered Mr Kerr, who died
later.
The trio were quickly traced by police and all eventually made
confessions about the role they had played in the attack.
Tribute paid
Meehan, 19, Glengarry Road, admitted murder and Soutar, 21, Darnhall
Drive, both Perth, admitted culpable homicide midway through a trial.
In the wake of his death, the council's chief executive Bernadette
Malone paid tribute to Mr Kerr, who was often present at major civic
functions.
Sentence on all three was deferred to the High Court in Edinburgh on 9
November. The 15-year-old had bail continued while the older two were
remanded in custody.
Apologies for posting my longish contribution twice. I have never posted here before. I did not notice it had worked, so I clicked the button a second time. Sorry.
Tom
Going back to the original point ... Surely the event prove that *the way the SWP organises* is wrong, not that *democratic centralism* is wrong.
Dave, aren't you accepting the SWP's claim to be "democratic centralist" as good coin? Centralist they may be, but as others have pointed out, democratic they ain't.
And one more thing ... Haven't Wrack, Hoveman and Ovenden been somewhat hoist by their own petard? I don't remember any of them complaining about the SWP's intolerant internal regime when the intolerance was aimed at others.
And clinging on to a job with Gorgeous George is hardly a principled stand now, is it?
If democratic centralism is a bad form for this period, what is a good form?
Mark:
"I strongly suspect that most of the leading figures in British or Irish left groups are both from working class backgrounds and spent time as workers (although of course many of them are now employed by the left groups they lead)."
I do not deny there are some; but they certainly do not form the bulk of the 'leadership'.
[There were more workers, for example, in the old UK CP -- say 50 or 60 years ago. I can't speak for other CPs, but I suspect that was true there, too. The UK RCP at the time was well-entrenched in the class, too, but very small.]
And, of course, many working class comrades become de-classe because of their position as full-timers.
This is bound to affect the way they all process ideas.
SWP party notes
http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/692/swp%20party%20notes.htm
The comment by Tom Delargy (#13) is the disgraceful political technique of “amalgamation”
A terrible homophobic attack, that everyone would condemn, is without any justification linked by Tom to views which he alleges are held by certain individuals in respect. Indeed the comment contains specific libels against some leading members of Respect, and is actionable.
No attempt is made by Tom to actually substantiate that the views he attributes to these people are actually the views they hold, rather than what Tom assumes they hold. And no linkage is offered between the alleged views and the specific hate-crime mentioned, or even how the specific hate-crime is part of a pattern of homophoic hate-crimes, or otherwise.
Instead Tom is playing a disgraceful game of slurring reputations based upon innuendo
BTW
Following a complaint about Tom Delargy's comment and its libellous nature, I have deleted it from the SU blog (where it was also posted).
It is libellous because it contains untrue statements about individuals and is designed to damage their repuations.
It is made owrse n this case becasue of the innuendo associating these individuals with a horrific hate-crime.
"In their ones and two's.
That rather makes my point, eh?"
No RL,
it doesn't. I mentioned Haston off the cuff as a corrective to what I thought was a daft and patronising comment. I'm sure other people could mention others.
Would it not be true that in the early 1970s the leadership of the IS included quite a few who had been established trade union militants, Duncan Hallas and Jim Higgins have already been mentioned, but also Geoff carlsson and Frank Campbell.
"I strongly suspect that most of the leading figures in British or Irish left groups are both from working class backgrounds "
sampling might shine some light on this, eg. take the membership of the SWP's Central Committee, then analyse their class makeup, not a difficult task.
my bet is that you will find the vast majority of them are from middle-class backgrounds (with the odd ex-aristocrat), Oxbridge students or aspiring ex-University graduates.
that's not to say you don't need such people in an organisation, but when the leadership is made up of them and dominated by them then certain middle-class habits tend to come to the fore.
The working class can't got to university, Modernity?
Too thick, I guess.
In fact, the CC does include people who are both from working-class backgrounds and university graduates. I can think of several off the top of my head.
If you want a British left group whose leadership is made up of horny-handed proletarians... well, the CPGB of 50 or 60 years ago isn't available. Nor is Gerry Healy.
I think there has been a slippage here, when i originally raised this point it was connected to them ever having had "a job outside the full time fantasy land of revolutinary left groups, let alone actually led any workers in struggle. "
This is nothing to do with their class background, and whether they put a ketchup bottle on the table, or use saucers, or however we arwe defining class sociologically.
For me the question is what actual practical experience they have of leading in the real mass movement.
splintered,
if I had been discussing the Communist Party I would have made a similar point, but I wasn't, so why not try to engage with the point that I'm making?
look at it another way, if someone criticised High Court Judges for mostly going to Eaton or public schools, then you could probably pluck out one individual judge who went to a comprehensive? that, however, would not invalidate the criticism?
I'm suggesting that in my experience of middle-class organisations (from the outside), you see very similar characteristics , not identical, not exact, but similar with those on the Left.
I don't think that it fully explains the consistency of the splits, these fractures, as they've happened for years and years, but I'd welcome an alternative hypothesis, if you've got one?
Snowball wrote "The SWP does not claim to always get things right, but the success so far of both Stop the War and Respect show that it is unfair to claim that it puts its own interests before the wider interests of the movement."
My first problem with this lies in that little word 'movement'. What 'movement' are we talking about here? Surely not the workers movement given that neither the STWC or Respect are movements based primarily on the working class. Rather both movements are multi-class in their nature.
My second problem with Snowball's comment is that in actual factthe SWP misleadership, if not the porr bloody membership, have put their own sectarian interests above those of the movement as a whole.
The real point here is that the SWP, contrary to its claims to be a revolutionary marxcist organisation, has not sought to develop the STWC or Respect in a revolutionary communist and therefore proletarian direction.
PS With regard to the class composition of the SWP's CC I note that as Andy Newman has pointed out the leadership of the IS prior to 1975 always included a majority of individuals from working class backgrounds with long records in the workers movement. The tendency after 1975, when higgins and others were unjustly expelled, has been for the leadership to be increasingly 'middle class' and to lack any record in the working class.
"Once while walking, Leo Tolstoy spotted in the distance the figure of a man squatting and gesturing strangely; a madman, he thought"
And in the vast majority of cases he would be correct.
In his long post Tom closed by remarking "The SWP should apply immediaely for negotiations with the CNWP/NSSN."
Quite how or why the SWP should apply to negotiate with the CNWP, a body controled by the SP with no life or membership of its own, or to the NSSN, a body controled by the RMT thereby limited to act only within the limits set by the trade union bureaucracy, is not explained.
It strikes me that what we have here is an attempt to draw some of the more naive pro-trade union comrades in the SWP into the orbit of the SP. I suspect that the leadership of the SP, a dull bunch, will not be as enthusiastic as Tom to recruit such comrades.
Oh go on, someone answer my points. Please.
Oh MIke what a lot of foolishness:
the NSSN, a body controled by the RMT thereby limited to act only within the limits set by the trade union bureaucracy
The NSSN has been sponsored by the RMT, but we have decided that union officials cannot be part of it.
Of course there is no room for negotiation between the SWP and the NSSN, and the NSSN is a grassroot movement of trade union activists that have all been elected to some lay postion in the movement.
Any SWP member with the credentials should be participatng, but their political organisation cannot dictate terms to the NSSN.
Oh Andy why so naive? Of course the NSN has been formed and is limited by the taks set for it by the RMT bureaucracy. And of course the SWPs trade union cadre should be seeking to be a part of it anything else is sectarianism as I suspect you will agree.
Darren:
"No RL,
it doesn't. I mentioned Haston off the cuff as a corrective to what I thought was a daft and patronising comment. I'm sure other people could mention others."
...in their one's and two's, as I said.
And, it is undeniable that all the leading Marxist theorists were non-workers, and they derived this theory (dialectics) from a coal miner..., er, sorry, from Hegel.
In addition, as I pointed out, professional revolutionaries, whether they are from the working class or otherwise, are no longer workers.
Their new 'being' determines their new 'consciousness'.
In short, our movement is dominated by non- or ex-workers.