New European Left party founded

by Reality Checker Fri Jan 23, 2004 02:13

It's just the various Stalinist parties linking up to get some EU readies. It isn't a real "European Party", and it is "left" only in so far as any Stalinist can be considered left.

by Reality checker watch Fri Jan 23, 2004 11:06

Rifondazione isn't Stalinist!!

by BigMac Fri Jan 23, 2004 11:27

I'd have problems with some of the member and observer parties but not all of them are Stalinist, which is why I provided weblinks to English language versions of their websites to help people inform themselves about the nature of these parties.

The Greek party SYM is certainly not Stalinist. It emerged from a split from the Stalinist KKE (Communist Party of Greece) in 1968 and was never interested in being a cheerleader for the decrepid policies of Moscow.

Neither is the Spanish UL Stalinist, nor is the German PDS.

The Czech parties still retain the title Communist but judging by their websites and content seem to have little truck with nostaligic Stalinism.

by leftwatcher Fri Jan 23, 2004 11:50

They are all stalinist, reformed stalinists, maoists or ex-maoists. The German PDS are ex stalinists, the Dutch SP is a former Maoist sect, the Greek SYM may not have been cheerleaders of the USSR but they are very close to stalinism. The Italian RC are also reformed stalinists that did not sell out completely like DS.

They are coming together to get a European party recognised for the elections, it will allow them to get a bit of cash off the EU and set up a parliamentary group after they win a few seats.

The reason the CPI or the Workers Party in Ireland were not included is because they are probably not standing in the Euro elections. I can't see why anyone from Ireland would want to join this 'party', if you want to join a stalinist group head down to connolly books.

by Citizen Joe Fri Jan 23, 2004 12:03

Fair play to you Big Mac. This is a good, comprehensive and interesting report. Just the type of thing that is needed on Indymedia. Ignore the saddos who post one-liner comments. This report should stimulate interest and debate among anyone serious on the left in Ireland.
Is there room on the Irish left for a regrouping to align with this new European alliance/party?
Where do groups and developments such as the Scottish Socialist Party stand in relation to the new European alliance/party?

by stalinsairbrush Fri Jan 23, 2004 12:06

It is a stalinist party they did not want the SSP or the LCR/LO list or the SP involved even though these parties/lists have a good chance of winning seats in the parliament.

by Leninist airbrush Fri Jan 23, 2004 12:36

"It is a stalinist party they did not want the SSP or the LCR/LO list or the SP involved even though these parties/lists have a good chance of winning seats in the parliament."

Stalinist-Trotskyist = Leninist.
Much the same really.

by truth Fri Jan 23, 2004 12:42

No they aren't really. Your crude analysis forgets that Trotsky and his co-thinkers were probably the harshest critics of Stalin and the Russian leadership from a left wing perspective. Trotsky called for a political revolution in Russia to overthrow the bureacrats and for genuine workers democracy to be established. It even lead to his assasination and the murder of thousands of his co-thinkers in Stalins gulags.

by Trotskyairbrus Fri Jan 23, 2004 12:45

Right up until 1928 Trotsky allowed Stalin get away with murder. Talk about meek.
Perhaps because he was responsible for a lot of murder himself. Eh?

by truth Fri Jan 23, 2004 12:54

You can't handle the truth that Trotsky was a princlpled opponant of stalinism from a workers perspective. At least he never used the warped logic of 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' like many so called 'anarchists' and 'communists' did so as to justify their collusion with the ruling classes against workers.

by Trotskyairbrush Fri Jan 23, 2004 13:02

That's why Trotsky said:
'Sometimes,' I said out of fear of an imaginary danger, people are capable of bringing real danger down upon themselves. Remember, and tell others, that the last thing I want is to start a fight at the congress for any changes in organization. I am for preserving the status quo. If Lenin gets on his feet before the congress, of which there is unfortunately little chance, he and I will discuss the matter together anew. I am against removing Stalin, and expelling Ordzhonikidze, and displacing Dzerzhinsky from the commissariat of transport. But I do agree with Lenin in substance.''

Perhaps Trotsky will inhereit the earth because before he was expelled there was none meeker than he when it came to Stalin.
Don't forget the declaration of the 121.

by pat c Fri Jan 23, 2004 13:05

"we will fight with all our power against the idea of two parties, because the dictatorship of the proletariat demands as its very core a single proletarian party." 1927 Platform of the Left Opposition.

"i have never recognised freedom for groupings inside the party, nor do i now recognise it." Trotsky

"the english have the saying'my country, right or wrong'. with much greater justification we can say: my party right or wrong." Trotsky

by Fannie Kaplan Fri Jan 23, 2004 13:12

Trotsky was one of the leaders of the dictatorship that was already murdering and imprisoning its enemies (most of them other socialists and anarchists by the way) before Big Bad Joe Stalin managed to outperform them. Trotsky was the leading proponent of War Communism which was the excuse for appalling deprivation not to mention the random executions of Red Army troops of which Trots still wet themselves over a few pints to prove how tough they are.

So enough of this sentimental crap about Saint Leon. There is a particularly touching part in "My Life" where he describes going bear hunting (that would get him thrown out of the SP or SWP!!!). Remember reading that as a teenager and thinking "Hold on a minute. The fucking country is starving to death. This fucker has probably signed 100s of death warrants this week, and he's off shooting bears"!!! If its okay to be a Trotskyist, then it ought to be okay to be a Satlinist, or a Hitlerite or Pol Potist for that matter.

by defendsocialism Fri Jan 23, 2004 13:18

So what if trotsky killed a few capitalists. They were plotting to overthrow the revolution by force. If they were not met with force Russia would have returned to the days of the Tsar. If for example Chavez went further and brought in socialism and there was a US inspired coup against him, wht do you think should be done? Lie over and let it happen or oppose the capitalists and imperialists with force?

Much of the so called 'excesses' are deliberate lies by the western pro capitalist media of the time, yet the anarchists still choose to believe them. Recent revelations about Krondstadt prove this. Have a read of the article below.
_________________________________
Kronstadt:By A Kramer

For many years the capitalist press, erudite
professors and bourgeois analysts have been going on
about the "secrets in the Soviet archives". There was
much speculation about the "terrible secrets of the
communist regime" that would finally confirm the "evil
character" of communism.

After the events that took place in the late 1980s and
early 1990s, historians were finally allowed access to
the Soviet archives. So one would expect a flow of
terribly indicting facts. However the results for the
bourgeois historians have been really disappointing.
Of course, they did find a large amount of new
evidence that confirms the shocking crimes of
Stalinism. But we never had any doubt about this.
Trotsky and his followers condemned these crimes long
before any archives were opened. Trotsky's supporters
in Soviet Russia in the 1920 and 1930s had first hand
knowledge of these crimes because they were among the
first to suffer the consequences of the Stalinist
degeneration. Thousands of them died at the hands of
Stalin's henchmen.

What the bourgeois historians were hoping for was a
mass of evidence that they could use to show that
there was no difference between Stalinism and the
healthy regime under Lenin and Trotsky in the first
period after the revolution. But they met with real
problems in trying to find documents that could be
used to discredit the leaders of the Russian
Revolution - Lenin and Trotsky. The most difficult
documents to get to in the past were those concerning
the leaders of the Left Opposition. It is now clear to
any historian why this was. The archives show that
these leaders played a key role in the 1917 revolution
and in establishing the Soviet state.

During the last ten years many new interesting sources
about critical moments of the Russian Revolution have
been published. Among them are two books about the
most tragic act of the Russian Revolution – the
so-called Kronstadt rebellion.

It is not necessary to describe here all the aspects
of this well-known event. At the beginning of March
1921, in one of the most critical periods of the
Soviet Republic's existence, in the naval base of
Kronstadt near Petrograd, there was an attempt at a
military coup against the Soviet government. The
critical state that the Soviet Union was passing
through in that moment meant that Lenin and Trotsky
were forced to deal with the rebels very quickly.
After rejecting the government's ultimatum to
capitulate, Kronstadt was stormed and captured in the
second attack. The rebel leaders escaped to Finland.

At the end of the 1930s a group of former Trotskyists,
including Victor Serge, Max Eastman, Souvarine and
some others, attacked Trotsky for his behaviour during
the rebellion. (In doing this Serge contradicted his
own earlier views expressed at the time of the
rebellion). They described the Kronstadt events as a
workers' and sailors' rebellion against the "Bolshevik
dictatorship", and saw the crushing of the rebels as a
"first step towards Stalinism". Later on, this
criticism was adopted by other anti-Communist
ideologues and propagandists. Trotsky answered these
people in 1938 in his article "Hue And Cry Over
Kronstadt" where he analysed the petit-bourgeois
nature of this putsch.

There is no need to repeat Trotsky's arguments here,
as anyone can read his article by linking to it above.
Anyone who wants to know the truth can read Trotsky
for themselves. What I intend to do here is to
highlight some of the new information published in
these recent documents - a collection of material on
Kronstadt.

The first book was published under the strange title,
"The Unknown Trotsky: the red Bonaparte" (Krasnov
V.G., Moscow, 2000). This attempts to describe the
role of Trotsky during the Russian civil war. The
second book – "Kronstadt 1921" (Moscow, 2001) - is a
collection of documents about the Kronstadt rebellion.
It is important to stress that neither of the two
books have been written by Bolshevik sympathizers.

The popular image that anti-Bolshevik critics try to
portray is that there was widespread sympathy among
the then Red Army soldiers towards the rebels. There
has been a lot of speculation about the mass of
soldiers refusing to take part in the attack for
political reasons and also stories of mass desertions
among the Red Army soldiers with many of them passing
to the side of the Kronstadt rebels. This, however, is
a myth.

What really happened was absolutely different. There
was one case where one unit moved to the side of those
defending Kronstadt. This was during the first
unsuccessful attack. It was a battalion from the 561st
Red Army regiment. This regiment was recruited among
former Machno, Wrangel and Denikin prisoners. It is a
well-known fact that during the civil war in Russia
some peasant units changed sides even several times as
a result of military failures.

There was the other case of the 236th and 237th
infantry regiment which refused to go attack. Their
position was: "We'll not go on the ice", "we'll go to
our villages". These peasant units were terrified at
the idea of having to attack across the ice this first
class fortress defended by battleships. There are
other reports about refusals to carry out orders on
the part of different units, but in all these cases
the causes were such things as the poor quality of
food and clothing, the bad quality of the camouflage.
No political reasons were given. This is easily
understood if we remember how the young Soviet regime
inherited a backward economy and, on top of that, had
been forced to use its scarce resources to defend
itself against the White armies backed by the
imperialists who were trying to crush the revolution.

The situation inside Kronstadt also appears different
to the myth. There was no solid mass of soldiers,
firmly behind the rebellion. Even bourgeois historians
such as Krasnov have had to recognize this fact.
Inside Kronstadt there were clashes between the old
revolutionary sailors and the new recruits who came
from peasant and petit-bourgeois families. This fact
can be confirmed by the fact that some ships declared
their neutrality, while others moved against the
rebels.

Here it is worth quoting from some of the statements
issued by the crews of a number of ships, among them
the mine-sweepers "Ural", "Orfei" and "Pobeditel":
"The men of the White guards that are leading the
rebels can do a lot of damage to the Republic, and
they may not even hesitate to bomb Petrograd".

The same situation was to be found behind the rebel
battle lines. From the 7th Army intelligence report we
learn that many rebel sailors and soldiers wanted to
move over to the side of the Bolsheviks, but they were
terrorized by their commanders.

However, the final nail in the coffin for the
anti-Bolshevik mythology built up around Kronstadt
comes later. According to documents published in these
two books new facts emerge about what happened in the
town around Kronstadt. During the attack on Kronstadt,
the workers of the town moved against the putschists
and liberated the town even before the main forces of
the Red Army arrived. So in reality what we had was
not a workers' and sailors' rebellion against
Bolshevism, but a workers' and sailors' Bolshevik
uprising against the "rebels"!

In the proclamations of the Kronstadt sailors we see
the words that refer to "the men of the White guards
that are leading the rebels ". These were not mere
words. The real command over the rebels was
concentrated not in the Kronstadt soviet, as some
naive individuals may think, but in the so-called
"Court for the Defence of Kronstadt Fortress". One of
its leaders was rear-admiral S.H. Dmitriev (who was
executed after the fortress fall), the other was
general A. H. Koslovsky, who escaped to Finland. Both
of these senior officers were very far from having any
kind of sympathy for Socialism "with Bolsheviks" or
"without Bolsheviks".

There is also much talk about S. M. Petrechenko - the
sailor and anti-Bolshevik leader. What is really
interesting is to note that in 1927 this man was
recruited by Stalin's GPU and he was one of Stalin's
agent until 1944 when he was arrested by the Finnish
authorities. The following year he died in a Finnish
concentration camp.

So, the real story is that the Kronstadt workers and
sailors actually understood the real nature of these
rebels far better than any of the later intellectuals
who have tried to build up the myth of Kronstadt. The
same can be said of the counterrevolutionary forces
that were operating in Kronstadt. The former Tsarist
prime-minister and finance minister, and in emigration
the director of the Russian Bank in Paris, Kokovzev,
transferred 225 thousand francs to the Kronstadt
rebels. The Russian-Asian bank transferred 200
thousand francs. The French prime-minister, Briand,
during the meeting with the former ambassador of
Kerensky's government, Malachov, promised "any
necessary help to Kronstadt".

As Trotsky explained, the so-called Kronstadt
rebellion was not the first petit-bourgeois,
anti-Bolshevik movement to take place during both the
civil war and the revolution. There were a lot of
other movements that were lead by people raising the
slogan of "Soviets without Bolsheviks", etc. There
were such movements in some factories in the Urals and
among the Aries Cossacks. But from these experiences
we can see clearly that in the conditions of
uncompromising class war this kind of slogan can lead
straight into the camp of Mediaeval reaction and
barbarism. There cannot be a revolution without a
revolutionary party. And again, the ordinary Russian
workers and soldiers of the time understood this very
well. They understood it far better than some people
today, among them even some people on the left.

The fact is that many ordinary members of the
Anarchists, Mensheviks, Social-Revolutionaries and
others parties took part in the Soviets with the
Bolsheviks, but not without them. There was a huge
difference between the ordinary rank and file members
of these parties and their leaders who were completely
anti-Bolshevik in their feelings. In the early 1920s
the local Soviet authorities in some Jewish areas of
the Ukraine were totally recruited from members of the
Bund. Many Anarchists took part in the Revolution and
in the Civil War on the side of the Bolsheviks against
the White reaction. They also cooperated with the new
power until the rise of Stalinism. To this day, those
courageous people are considered by some modern
anarchists as "traitors". Some people never learn!

We have nothing to fear from the publication of more
material from the Soviet archives. We hope that over
the next few years more documents will be found in
these archives about the long and glorious struggles
of the Russian proletariat. They will surely provide
more information on the revolutionary traditions of
the Russian workers.

December, 2003

by Trotskyairbrush Fri Jan 23, 2004 13:39

So they were all capitalist then?
Fucking hell - such simplistic nonsense.
I suppose the Workers Opposition, Workers Group and Workers' Truth were all capitalist as well.

by truth Fri Jan 23, 2004 13:42

Please read the article. The leaders of the Krondstadt rebellion were White Army generals that were against workers rule in any form. The population of the town of Krondstadt also rose in rebellion against the sailors BEFORE the Red Army arrived on the scene.

by Trotskyairbrush Fri Jan 23, 2004 13:49

Good to see that you are using Grant's lot as a point a reference. Probably because the CWI's theoreticians are piss poor.
Still no reply on the meekness of Trotsky before his expulsion.

by truth Fri Jan 23, 2004 13:56

Nobody else would bother to write articles about Krondstadt because the issue is just brought up by a few gobshites who chose to swallow capitalist propaganda rather than look at the facts.

Trotsky's wrtings on the develpment of the bureacracy prior to 1928 are published and easy to get your hands on.

I see you chose not to deal with some of the issues raised by the facts of Krondstadt, ie White Army generals leading the rebellion and the ordinary workers living in Krondstadt rising up against the sailors before the Red Army reach the city. And what about the majority of anarchists at the time that supported and even took part in the putting down of the Krondstad rebels. Of course being a dogmatic fool you will choose to bury your head in the sand evebn when presented with irrifutable facts

by William Millar Fri Jan 23, 2004 14:02

Nobody mentioned Kronstadt but I suppose 'truth' is trying to get his jollies.
What a muppet.

by Trotskyairbrush Fri Jan 23, 2004 14:07

Please stand up.

Is this the same Trotsky who denounced the 'Democratic Centralists' in 1926 for their allegations that Thermidor was a fact. And then in 1935 said that Thermidor was in its tenth anniversay.
He was nearly as good at maths as truth is with history.

by truth Fri Jan 23, 2004 14:09

"Leninist airbrush" started the trolling with the post put up on at 11:36am. He says that Stalin was the same as Trotsky, he is the troll starter. he then brought up Krondstadt first by mentioning the so called crimes of Trotsky.

by Gobshite watch Fri Jan 23, 2004 14:11

"Nobody else would bother to write articles about Krondstadt because the issue is just brought up by a few gobshites who chose to swallow capitalist propaganda rather than look at the facts."

Well spotted gobshite. (As you brought it up)

by truth Fri Jan 23, 2004 14:12

What about your support for pro capitalist White Army Generals in Krondstadt? What about the workers in Krondstadt that rose up BEFORE the Red Army got to the town? What about the Anarchists that fought alongside the Red Army at Krondstadt?

by truth Fri Jan 23, 2004 14:14

Actually 'leninist airbrush' brought it up first by claiming that trotsky butchered workers and dissidents. Go back up the thread and have a look. He was trying to make points about Krondstadt, I was right to show the facts of what actually happened there.

by Trotskyairbrush Fri Jan 23, 2004 14:14

I never mentioned Kronstadt.

by truth Fri Jan 23, 2004 14:18

"Fannie Kaplan" did claim that Trotsky "was already murdering and imprisoning its enemies" and then went on to compare Trotsky to Hitler and Pol Pot. I think it was right to bring up Krondstadt as a clear example of where the pro capitalist media misrepresent the facts to suit themselves this is then jumped on by many on the so-called 'left'.

by Trotskyairbrush Fri Jan 23, 2004 14:19

What about Trotsky's meekness up to his expulsion?

by Badman Fri Jan 23, 2004 14:21

If this is true (which I don't know and barely care) then history has decisively shown these anarchists to have been acting foolishly and I don't thint that you'd find any anarchist who'd defend them. As for Trotsky, was he ever wrong?

But what the hell has this all got to do with an alliance of European ex-communists anyway?

by fanny kaplan Fri Jan 23, 2004 14:25

Trots respond to facts by cutting and pasting a lenghty article about Kronstadt by some idiot who wasn't there, never read the archives and never interviewed any of the participants. Try doing that in a history essay!

Kronstadt is irrelevant except as one of the better known examples of Trotsky's savagery when his position was threatened and he had others to do his dirty work. At least Stalin robbed a few banks and killed a few informers while Leon was off in Vienna drinking coffee and writing rubbish.

So truth, how many "capitalists" were victims of the terror between 1917 and 1928? How many were there in the whole of the USSR? Even if they were all killed it would not amount to a fraction of those killed by the Bolsheviks while Trotsky was still in power.
Read some real history. Solzhenitsyn's "Gulag" provides a start and demonstrates how "Stalinism" had begun long before Stalin had gotten rid of his rivals.

Arguing over this is like debating which of the Kray twins was the biggest bastard.

by truth Fri Jan 23, 2004 14:25

Its got nothing to do with the Stalinist European coalition at all. But tell that to the trolls who brought this thread down to their level with accusations that Trotsky=Stalin=Hitler.

BTW
Most anarchists did support the revolution. Only a minority supported the whites.

by truth Fri Jan 23, 2004 14:27

Hang on a second Fannie Kaplan, the article is quite short actually and was written by someone who actually researched the archives that were released recently as well as alot of other sources. It is FACT that White Army generals lead the rebellion in Krondstadt and it is FACT that that Anarchists fought alongside the Red Army and it is FACT that the people of the town rose up against the sailors and their White generals BEFORE the Red Army arrived in Krondstadt.

by Fanny Kaplan Fri Jan 23, 2004 14:39

He is quoting from two books written in Russia. If that's "researching the archives" in your eyes, well and good.

Now, forget about Kronstadt. Do you or do you not accept that the terror began long before Stalin was in power. Parties were banned, the Soviets were emasculated, political, intellectual and cultural opponents were imprisoned and executed, soldiers were shot at random "as an example to the others", there was corruption and so on.

That is the real point; that "socialism" could only function in such circumstances. And that has been proven time and time again.

by truth Fri Jan 23, 2004 14:51

No it has not been proven. The only parties that were banned were parties that openly through arms tried to overthrow the revolution. The soviets were always made up of members of the SRs, Anarchists and many other parties.

i'll go back to my point about Venezuala. If Chavez went and brought in socialism and there was a US lead coup do you think it would be right to defend the revolution and respond against the imperialists with arms? Do you think it would be right to imprison the leaders of the coup? Of course it would!

Ultimately Socialsim did not floursish in Russia because of material conditions. Russia at that time was a country like india is today. It was not a very rich country, because the revolutions failed in Western Europe the wealth in the world could not be used to develop real socialism in Russia. This lead ultimately to the formation of a corrupt bureacracy that controlled the limited resources. the rise of the bureacracy lead to the death of democracy in Russia. Stalinist Russia prives nothing about the viability of socialism. All it proves is that the revolution must be international.

by Trotskyairbrush Fri Jan 23, 2004 14:55

And why was Trotsky so meek in his opposition between 1923 and 1928?

by hackwatch Fri Jan 23, 2004 15:05

You are a troll shit stirrer, 'truth' don't waste your time, you made your points

by Trotskyairbrush Fri Jan 23, 2004 15:07

What's wrong.
Can't answer the question or is it against the 14 commandments to question the 'one great leader'?

by truth Fri Jan 23, 2004 15:13

I could just as easily say to you that you are refusing to raise the issues raised.

You are not interested in real dialogue. You are a shit stirrer.

As I mentioned earlier if you are really interested Trotskys writings pre 1928 on democracy as the rise of bureacracy they are easily available.

BTW
It's 10 commandments in the bible, not 14.

by Fanany Kaplan Fri Jan 23, 2004 15:28

Just a few facts;

Jan 1918 - Bolsheviks dissolve Constituent Assembly after losing elections in which they got about 22% - majority were other left wing parties.

April 1918 - Bolsheviks attack and close Moscow HQ of Anarchists

May 1918 - Workers shot by Bolsheviks at Kolpino during protest

July 1918 - Left Social Revolutionaries suppressed (these were the Bolsheviks allies!!)

July 1918 - 350 prisoners murdered at Jaroslavl - more than 1,000 more executed that month

September 1918 - "Red Terror" begins. Tens of thousands murdered

December 1921 - 259,000 purged from RCP (B)

June - August 1922 - show trial of the SRs

And that is only part of it. Long before Stalin ousted your hero.

As for the theory that socialism depended upon revolutions in the west so that the wealth there could be used to build socialism in the USSR!!!! I reckon the Psoadist trots theory of aliens coming from space to build socialism is possibly a bit more realistic.

by truth Fri Jan 23, 2004 15:45

SO you think the prospect of revolution in WesternEurope at the time was out of the question?! If you think this you don't know your history. There were massive revolutionary events in Germany, Hungary, Finland and accross all of Western Europe in 1818-1920. ther could have easily been revolutions in these countries which would have meant what happened in Russia would have been totally different.

Elements of the SR's, Mensheviks and some anarchists did go over to the side of the whites and did organise armed opposition to the soviets. This is FACT. Most ordinary members did not and remained active participants of the soviets.

on the constituent assembly. The elections to the assembly took place in a different political climate and did not represent the real political opinion in Russia. The soviets were far more representative, all the delegates were subject to recall and elected more frequently. Are you claiming that the Dail is a true and accurate representation of Irish opinion because we voted in those elections 2 years ago?

Now what about the Whites in Krondstadt? What about workers of the town rising up agianst the sailors BEFORE the red army arrived in the town? What about the anarchists that participated alongside the Red Army?
These are all FACTS

by BigMac Fri Jan 23, 2004 15:46

The news posting was about the foundation of the EL party and I was seeking out opinions on it. Could those who have nothing better to do on a Friday afternoon other than to rant and rave about lost battles and dead heroes continue there cyber spats elsewhere?

Also to "leftwatcher". Could you please back up your asertion that the Greek party SYM are "close to Stalinism".

Also

by Fanny Kaplan Fri Jan 23, 2004 15:54

And for the person who asked the relevance of this debate, just read the last posting from Truth. Because if people persist in beleiving in the myth of the Russian Revolution the same horrors will take place again.

Just one example. Truth asks whether I beleive the Dáil to be representative of the people. Yes. Just as Joe Higgins being elected in Dublin West is representative of the people who elected him.

However, the logic of your argument is that Joe Higgins ought to be allowed suppress the Dáil because it is not full of Socilaist Party TDs. Is that what you beieve?

by Fanny Kaplan Fri Jan 23, 2004 15:56

This is relevant to the founding of that party because they also share that myth. Indeed the PDS and the Czechs in their old guise were responsible for some of the barbarities that emanated from it.

In my opinion their launching this party is akin to a group of paedophiles coming out of prison, telling everyone they are cured, and trying to start a creche.

by truth Fri Jan 23, 2004 15:57

What I am saying is that if there was a body such as the soviets that was regularly elected with all the delegates subject to recall, it would be a far more democratic body and it would far more accurately represent the views of the population than a parliament that was elected every 4-6 years. Such a body would have more legitimacy than the Dáil.

Are you contending that the Dáil is always representative of the people of Ireland? What about Nice? the No side only had about 6 TDs but there was a 54% majority agianst it.

by Trotskyairbrush Fri Jan 23, 2004 16:05

If there was such a body as the soviets the trots would do away with them ala Trotsky and the rest after 1917.

by indy head Fri Jan 23, 2004 16:08

You are a shit stirrer. Please stop your trolling, there are plenty of places on the internet that you can have this endless pointless slanging match. This thread is about the European elections.

by truth Fri Jan 23, 2004 16:10

If there was such a body the Anarchists would go into league with the 'progressive bourgeois' as they did in spain.

this is a dialogue with the deaf. Unless you are willing to actually discuss the points raised I see no point in further 'debating' with you.

by Fanny Kaplan Fri Jan 23, 2004 16:10

Sounds great doesn't it? Pity the poor bastards who elected their delegates in 1917 or 1918 never got the chance. The only difference between Marxist elected assemblies and bourgeois democratic ones is that the latter have more than one party and hold elections. Not perfect but one hell of a lot better than the alternative.

by truth Fri Jan 23, 2004 16:13

You are completely distorting reality. Soviets were democratic bodies up until the stalinists hijacked them and crushed all democracy in the USSR.

You may like to live in a 'democracy' that means that councils and parliaments are elected every 5 years and totally unaccountable to the people between elections but I don't. I want real democracy.

by iosaf Fri Jan 23, 2004 16:22

I almost break out in to a sweat,
when I hear/read the phrase-
"From the Atlantic to the Urals".

even if it's such a nice sentiment as "no WMD From the Atlantic to the Urals".
Like most of the WMD in the world are positioned between the Atlantic and the Urals.

the line "From the Atlantic to the Urals" used feature in greater germany speeches in the 1930s and then De Gaulle used it lots too.

read a piece from Spring 2003 by then UK minister for Europe Denis Mc Shane on
Turkey, Islam, Democracy and Europe "from the atlantic to the urals".
http://www.times-publications.com/publications/ERSpring03/ER_87.htm




from the urinal to the atlantic!

by Trotskyairbrush Fri Jan 23, 2004 16:23

"this is a dialogue with the deaf. Unless you are willing to actually discuss the points raised I see no point in further 'debating' with you."
translated into the vernacular means
this is a dialouge with a deviant. Unless you are willing to agree to all the pointed raised I see no point in further indoctrinating you.

by truth Fri Jan 23, 2004 16:26

I am not expecting you to agree with me all I expect is a reasoned debate about what actually happened in Russia at the time of the revolution. You refuse to deal with Kronstadt, you refuse to deal with the nature of the soviets, and the isolation of the Russian revolution, you continually stir shit and just splert out dogmatic inaccuracies.

by Fanny Kaplan Fri Jan 23, 2004 16:28

You obviously havent grasped the point have you? There was no democracy in the Soviet Union. Not in 1917, not in 1919, not in 1929, or any other year until the whole rotten thing collapsed leaving tens of millions of victims of the great experiment begun by Lenin and Trotsky.

Nor is there internal democracy in any Marxist party, whatever "ist" they attach to themselves.

Marxism doesnt work. Human history is not an experiment on laboratory hamsters. Of course this is not perfect but it is better than any alternative produced by Marxism.

And irony of ironies it is the only system that allows Trotskyists to organise and debate - and rightly so. How do you think you would get on in one of the "deformed workers states"? We'd probably be having this debate digging the foundations for a nuclear plant!

by Andrew Fri Jan 23, 2004 16:32

Its pretty amusing how SP members bring up Kronstadt and then complain about it being brought up. But the piece above is hilarous (and as far as I can tell contains nothing 'new' but a repetition of some rather old lies.)

For example that was indeed an (ex) Czarist general in Kronstady at the time of the rebellion. He was indeed called A. H. Koslovsky. The interesting question is how did he get there?

Was he parachuted in by British planes? Was he smuggled across the ice from Finland? No.

He was in fact appointed by a certain Trotsky. That the self same Trotsky could then use his presence as 'proof' of white involvement just shows what a crass liar he was. The the SP today could use his presence of 'proof' of white involvement just shows how little they understand of why socialism failed in the 20th C. And how stupid they think their readers are.

Duh!

by truth Fri Jan 23, 2004 16:35

He was a white general that may have been allowed stay in the army by trotsky. But that does not take away from the fact that he was opposed to any kind of workers rule and was fighting to return Russia to capitalist rule.

How do you explain the FACT that the workers of Krondstadt actually rose up against the sailors BEFORE the Red Army arrived on the scene. And how do you explein Anarchists fighting alongside the Red Army ?

by Trotsky Fri Jan 23, 2004 16:37

"We have been more than once accused of having substituted for the dictatorship of the soviets the dictatorship of our own Party. . . In this substitution of the power of the party for the power of the working class there is nothing accidental, and in reality there is no substitution at all. The Communists express the fundamental interests of the working class..." (p. 107, Terrorism and Communism)

"They [the workers' opposition] have come out with dangerous slogans. They have made a fetish of democratic principles. They have placed the workers' right to elect representatives above the party. As if the Party were not entitled to assert its dictatorship even if that dictatorship clashed with the passing moods of the workers' democracy! . . The Party is obliged to maintain its dictatorship . . . regardless of temporary vacillations even in the working class . . . The dictatorship does not base itself at every moment on the formal principle of a workers' democracy." (March 1920 at the 9th party congress)

by sk8r Fri Jan 23, 2004 16:42

Anarchists entered government with capitalists in Spain and refused to close off the railways; allowing the stalinist butchers murder workers.

Anarchists are partially responsible throught their mistaken tactics for what happened in Spain. Along with the stalinists you have the blood of the Spanish workers on your hands.

by Andrew Fri Jan 23, 2004 16:44

Famously when the Red Army invaded Hungary in 1956 they did so in 'support' of some factory workers who had 'already risen' and requested their aid. You'd wonder where Stalin got that idea from.

And if your so stupid to continue to claim that a czarist general sent by **Trotsky** to the fortress proves anything about the make up of the rebellion you really don't get it do you! Here is what one ex-trotskyist, Ida Mett had to say about this lie and its consequences.

"Lenin, Trotsky, and the whole Party leadership knew quite well that this was no mere 'generals' revolt'. Why then invent this legend about General Kozlovsky, leader of the mutiny? The answer lies in the Bolshevik outlook, an outlook at times so blind that it could not see that lies were as likely to prove nefarious as to prove helpful. The legend of General Kozlovsky opened the path to another legend: that of the Wrangel officer allegedly conspiring with Trotsky in 1928-29. It in fact opened the path to the massive lying of the whole Stalin era."

by Andrew Fri Jan 23, 2004 16:50

sk8r you seem to have got you history assways as your claim above makes no sense.

It would seem you must be talking of May 1937 when there was an anti-stalinist anarchist insurrection in Barcelona. The workers involved in other words were mostly anarchists. But there were no significant train movements of troops.

So I suspect you've got this mixed up with the 1934 insurrection in Asturias when troops from the right wing government we're shipped in by train to put it down. However in that case a number of anarchist train workers were executed in order to force others to drive the trains involved.

So sorry all you have shown is a lack of knowledge about history and a despiration to say 'so what if we killed workers, you did too, sort of'.

by Kronstadt rebels Fri Jan 23, 2004 16:54

No trotskyist group have ever dared publish the proclamation that the rebellion was based on. It is below

RESOLUTION OF THE GENERAL MEETING OF CREWS OF THE 1ST AND 2ND BATTLESHIP BRIGADES, OCCURING 1 MARCH, 1921

Having heard the report of the crew representatives, sent to the City of Petrograd by the General Meeting of ships' crews for clarification of the situation there, we resolve:

1. In view of the fact that the present Soviets do not express the will of the workers and peasants, to immediately hold new elections to the Soviets by secret ballot, with freedom of pre-election agitation for all workers and peasants.

2. Freedom of speech and press for workers and peasants, anarchists and left socialist parties.

3. Freedom of assembly of both trade unions and peasant associations.

4. To convene not later than March 10th, 1921 a non-party Conference of workers, soldiers and sailors of the city of Petrograd, of Kronstadt, and of Petrograd province.

5. To free all political prisoners of socialist parties, and also all workers and peasants, soldiers and sailors imprisoned in connection with worker and peasant movements.

6. To elect a Commission for the review of the cases of those held in prisons and concentration camps.

7. To abolish all POLITOTDELS, since no single party should be able to have such privileges for the propaganda of its ideas and receive from the state the means for these ends. In their place must be established locally elected cultural-educational commissions, for which the state must provide resources.

8. To immediately remove all anti-smuggling roadblock detachments.

9. To equalize the rations of all laborers, with the exception of those in work injurious to health.

10. To abolish the Communist fighting detachments in all military units, and also the various guards kept in factories and plants by the communists, and if such guards or detachments are needed, they can be chosen in military units from the companies, and in factories and plants by the discretion of the workers.

11. To give the peasants full control over their own land, to do as they wish, and also to keep cattle, which must be maintained and managed by their own strength, that is, without using hired labor.

12. We appeal to all military units, and also to the comrade cadets to lend their support to our resolution.

13. We demand that all resolutions be widely publicized in the press.

14. To appoint a travelling bureau for control.

15. To allow free handicraft manufacture by personal labor.

The resolution was passed by the Brigade Meeting unanimously with two abstentions.
PETRICHENKO, President of the Brigade Meeting
PEREPELKIN, Secretary

The resolution was passed by an overwhelming majority of the entire Kronstadt garrison.
VASILIEV, President
Together with Comrade Kalinin, Vasiliev votes against the resolution.

by Fanny Kaplan Fri Jan 23, 2004 16:55

That is the whole point of this, as encapsulated by the quote from Mett. There were no nice guys. They all shared the same nasty outlook which was ironically based on the notion that there could be some form of socio-economic system that would ensure that all the nasty traits of human beings would disappear.

That is what socialists should be asking themselves. How could this benign - albeit mistaken - vision end up in the awful brutalitities of the 20th century and which are unfortunately continuing into the 21st in places like North Korea.

They were caused NOT because Trotsky lost the internal feud in the CP, but because Marxism-Leninism is a totalitarian dogma that can only be enforced, as Trotsky himself admitted, through mass terror. Now terror sounds lovely when you are debating it over a few pints. Not so nice when you are the victim of the random arrests and find yourself at the hands of some torturer acting in the interests of the revolutionary proletariat.

by sk8r Fri Jan 23, 2004 16:59

Andrew you are the one who was bunking off during history class.

I am not mixed up at all, I knwo exactly what I am talking about. You seem to be declaring youself the only person capable of commenting correctly on Spain, that is very arrogant.

I am refereing to the Asturias insurrection. Anarchists through the unions had control of the railways but chose not to get involved as they saw it as careerists manoevers between different 'authoritarians'. Because of this ultra left stance workers were butchered. Soe anarchists may have been executed but this was probably because they wanted the railways shut and were in a minority among the anarchists.

by Andrew Fri Jan 23, 2004 17:08

So in the first manifestation of your great train story when you wrote of "stalinist butchers murder workers" you actually meant "right wing governement butchers murder workers". Re-writing history is pretty silly when its nearly 70 years ago. But its very, very, stupid when you try and rewrite what you said 30 minutes ago when anyone can scroll up and check what you wrote for yourself!!!

Your realise this is an example of cult follower behaviour don't you.

by sk8r Fri Jan 23, 2004 17:11

I am not re writing anything. It was not anarchists that actually did the butchering, they stood back and allowed it happen.

It seems all you can now reply with is crap about tiny 'inaccuracies' that I might have made. What about the substantive questions. Anarchy is undemocratic, you are unaccountable to your membership, why do yu have a pope? What about the role of the White Army generals in Krondstadt?

by Andrew Fri Jan 23, 2004 17:15

The funny thing here is that this myth is one of the standard examples used by anarchist of trotskyist lies in relation to Spain. Here is what was actually happening.

"During October, apart from Catalonia (where the Catalan government arrested CNT militants the night before, then tried to declare Catalan autonomy), and Madrid (where a general strike was supported by the CNT), the only real centre of resistance was in Asturias (on the Spanish north coast).

Here, the CNT had joined the Socialists and Communists in a 'workers alliance'. But, against the alliance's terms, the Socialists alone gave the order for the uprising - and the Socialist-controlled Provincial Committee starved the CNT of arms. This despite the CNT having over 22,000 affiliates in the area (to the UGT's 40,000).

Morrow (trot) states that "The backbone of the struggle was broken...when the refusal of the CNT railroad workers to strike enabled the government to transport goods and troops" (12). Yet in Asturias (the only area where major troop transportation was needed) the main government attack was from a seaborne landing of Foreign Legion and Moroccan troops - against the port and CNT stronghold (15,000 affiliates) of Gijon. Despite CNT pleas the Socialists refused arms, Gjon fell after a bloody struggle, and became the main base for the crushing of the entire region. This Socialist and Communist sabotage of Anarchist resistance was repeated in the Civil War, less than two years later."

Bit of a different story don't you think!

by sk8r Fri Jan 23, 2004 17:15

Why do you have a Pope?

Why do you not critisies the anti woman agenda of the Catholic Workers?

Surely you should use your publications to explain that the anti women and religious agenda persued by the catholic workers is wrong? Surely you should find it repulsive that the Irish Anarchist movement have no problems with appointing a Pope?

by sk8r Fri Jan 23, 2004 17:18

The fact is that Anarchists went into government with capitalists in Spain. Spain is a shining example of where were anarchy fucked up. When anarchy was the dominant force in the workers movement it lead to defeat. At least in Russia in 1917 the workers came to power.

by sk8r Fri Jan 23, 2004 17:20

Anarchy is a middle class individualist doctrine at the end of the day. That is why you oppose workers coming to power.

by Trotskyairbrush Fri Jan 23, 2004 17:22

"The fact is that Anarchists went into government with capitalists in Spain. "

Militant went into government with Fine Gael.

by Puppy watch Fri Jan 23, 2004 17:24

Three mails in the space of five minutes. Any chance you might take time to compose yourself and put all those thoughts into one mail.
Somebody get the leash.

by benjy Fri Jan 23, 2004 17:24

No Militant never had a TD when in the Labour Party. Militant always opposed government with capitalist parties. Stop trying to re-write history.

by Ray Fri Jan 23, 2004 17:25

(At least we have a good thread to point to whenever Trots complain about anonymous trolls who only attack the SP.)

Were Trotsky and Lenin democrats?
No. Not in practice - they abolished soviets that voted for the wrong people, abolished parties that weren't the Bolsheviks, abolished independent trade unions, and abolished factions within the Bolshevik party. This is all a matter of historical recod, easy to check up on.
What puzzles me is why anybody even makes this claim, because Lenin and Trotsky didn't. Trotsky said, and its quoted above, that if the party and the class disagree, the class will just have to lump it. These are not the words of a democrat.

Was Kronstadt a White plot? Or led by a White general?
As has already been pointed out, the only White general on the scene was one appointed by Trotsky. But as a moment's research will show you, he had nothing to do with the revolt. A quick look at the kronstadt manifesto should be enough to demonstrate that this was no right-wing revolt. And a look at the context - the meeting that drew up the demands met in response to strikes in Petrograd and the Bolshevik imposition of martial law - would make it clear to all but the most blinkered that this was a revolt from the left.

Did the anarchists allow Stalinist troops in Spain to massacre workers?
Sk8r is confused here.
If he's talking about 1934 in Asturias, then the troops weren't Stalinists.
If he's talking about 1937 in Catalonia, then the workers being shot were anarchists.
Its a little rich for him to give out about anarchists not doing enough to prevent the transport of troops, and at the same time defend Trotsky and Lenin, who ordered troops into combat against workers. But whoever said Leninism makes sense?

As for Andrew being the leader of the WSM, and free to represent it as he wishes -
I'm sure everyone else has noticed that Andrew has at no point claimed to be speaking for the WSM. The WSM is represented by its public statements, publications, and positions. Andrew has a hand in preparing them, but anyone in the WSM will tell you that he's outvoted as often as he's supported, and most of the time he isn't on the editorial committees that prepare the publications. But why am I bothering? Even if I managed to prove that Andrew wasn't in charge of the WSM, some idiots would then just start looking for the 'real' leader. Its amazing how people who can't think for themselves can't understand how others manage it...

by Trotskyairbrush Fri Jan 23, 2004 17:26

Where Militant members in a party that went into government with Fine Gael?

by Fanny Kaplan Fri Jan 23, 2004 17:29

Did they indeed?? Those horny handed sons of toil like Lenin and Trotsky and Bukharin and Kamenev!! Wouldn't like them to be putting in an extension for me.

by Old Timer Fri Jan 23, 2004 17:29

It was really a party within a party so not really. Militant were always distinct and had its own structures

Only a fool would say that Militant supported the Labour Leadership that went into government. Militant always based themselves on the ordinary membership not the TDs

by Andrew Fri Jan 23, 2004 17:31

"What about the substantive questions."

What follows is what skr8 considers "substantive questions." Oh dear, well here are answers

"Anarchy is undemocratic, you are unaccountable to your membership, why do yu have a pope?"

The two statements are untrue. The WSM have no leaders. This may be hard to imagine for those who cannot imagine life without someone telling them what to do and them in turn telling others what to do. But for anarchists its easy.

Each of us are accountable to the organisation as a whole although unlike trots we don't claim to own every word that comes out of every members mouth. Which is why I can post using my name while you have to call youself 'democrat' or 'skr8' or whatever. Only your leaders seem to be allowed to post here, the rest of you have to be anonymous.

And hilarously we don't have a 'pope' not even a 'black pope'. The 'black pope' is a nickname Eoin adopted at some point in time, maybe for the very reason of taking the piss out of idiot trots. It's not a title he was given. In fact the idea that anarchists might favourably call someone a 'pope' suggests you got dropped on your head at birth. Its a bit like suggesting trots might choose to call their leader 'mein fuher'!! (Hey Eoin if your reading this maybe you could explain the nick name - I'm curious)

"What about the role of the White Army generals in Krondstadt?"

This would be the white general Trotsky sent to the base then. (as already pointed out, twice!). In other words he's YOUR white general rather then MINE so you can expalin why you sent him there.

Oh and here is one free one on the subject of the Catholic Workers.

A lot of anarchists (myself included) while respecting their committment don't get where they are coming from. They are doing their own thing. But your wrong in assuming they are some sort of leninist organisation with a fixed line on questions like abortion, divorce etc. Some of them hold reactionary viewpoints on these questions, others don't. I can see how this might be a hard concept for one so deeply buried in the borg mind but for anarchists its easy enough to deal with.

As I said I don't get them but a find sharing the label of anarchist with them a lot less embarrassing then sharing the label leninist with the likes of the Sparts or the Shining Path!

(Anyone else still reading this mad thread?)

by sk8r Fri Jan 23, 2004 17:32

Andrew you refuse to answer why you refuse to critisise the anti woman agenda of CW, you also refuse to answer your refusal to put your leadership before the membership of WSM in a vote, you also refuse to comment on the fact that Anarchists have appointed a POPE!!!

by sk8r Fri Jan 23, 2004 17:36

Why does 'Workers Solidarity' not challenge the idea of appointing a Pope? ASAIK he is called the pope because he wanted to be. Why does workers solodarity not challenge the backward ideas supported by most people in the CW?

by Puppy watch Fri Jan 23, 2004 17:36

You really are a muppet. And an impatient one at that.

by Andrew Fri Jan 23, 2004 17:36

Hey I'm a fast typist but I'm not that fast. I think you may have had too much coffee for lunch, you wanna lay off that stuff!

by Ray Fri Jan 23, 2004 17:37

Who is it really? Chekov? Alan? Dermot?
This guy's just too funny to be true.

by mystery man aka sk8r Fri Jan 23, 2004 17:39

Had you going there?!

by Fanny Kaplan Fri Jan 23, 2004 17:39

Does not the SP reasoning in this thread remind one of the sort of "argument" that Vishinsky might have made while prosecuting at the show trials?

by Andrew Fri Jan 23, 2004 17:45

"Why does 'Workers Solidarity' not challenge the idea of appointing a Pope?"

Err because we try and get people to take us seriously and if we were to do so people would point at us and laugh.

Why don't the SP challenge the idea of the tooth fairy. It obviously contradicts the labour theory of value!

"ASAIK he is called the pope because he wanted to be."

What does ASAIK stand for?

Do you think we should challenge all nicknames then? How about forming a united front against nicknames. You call a meeting and I might turn up.

"Why does workers solodarity not challenge the backward ideas supported by most people in the CW?"

I'm not sure about your 'most people' but actually you'll find that far from simply publishing articles demanding a right to choose or divorce or whatever we have been at the forefront of campaigns for these rights.

by kickthepope Fri Jan 23, 2004 17:46

1. Eoin's e-mail address - the only way anyone round these circles knew him before he appeared in Erron on March 1st - contains Blackpope
2. It is a reference to the writings of nostradamus who said that a black pope would be elected in the Vatican immediately before the end of the world.
3. Some of us windup merchants who he met took Eoin at his word and adopted it as a nickname for him.

Nothing to do with anarkos/commies/socialists etc - sorry to disappoint

by Chekov Fri Jan 23, 2004 17:50

"[Andrew] is allowed to have a complete free reign in how he represents the WSM...Black Pope...Catholic Workers"

The leaderism of the led is very amusing. The anarchists MUST have secret leaders because without leaders it's impossible to do anything. The idea that people might be free to make up their own minds and express their own opinions is unthinkable.

Andrew is allowed to have a complete free reign in how he represents HIMSELF. When he comments on indymedia, unless he explicitly says so, he is speaking for himself, not the WSM. The WSM has a long list of policy documents and position papers that define the agreed collective positions of the organisation, which are publically available on our internet site (incidentally, I'd love to see any other political organisation having the bravery to do this). The difficult thing for the crazily centralised organisations to get is that we don't demand that everybody agrees with everything and simply regurgitates the party line as a substitute for thinking for themselves. People can express their own opinions on forums like this without it getting passed by some central committee. They can, shock horror, even publically express opinions that go against the organisation's policies.

As it is with the WSM, it is even more so with the wider anarchist movement. Individuals like the BP (who I don't think identifies as an anarchist btw) and groups like the CWs might disagree with me and the WSM on lots of positions, but such disagreements are healthy and a prerequisite to any healthy political movement. We can work together on things that we agree on and disagree when we don't. Because there are no positions of authority and nobody can order anybody to do anything, anarchists can follow the most convincing arguments, regardless of their source. A political movement where everybody expresses the same opinion on everything is a cult, pure and simple.

Regarding the whole Kronstadt affair, I think that this debate was somewhat relevant before 1989 when a good number of people thought that the whole Bolshevik experiment was a good idea which had fatally gone astray. In that period it was a valuable thing to do to point out to people that the rot went the whole way back to the beginning and wasn't just the fault of one evil man (which always struck me as a piss-poor excuse since a political system which can be so fatally undermined by just one baddy is not really that good an idea). However, nowadays I really don't think that there is more than a few handfuls of indoctrinated relics who think that the whole Boshevik episode was anything other than an unmitigated disaster on a grand scale. Therefore I don't think there is much point in arguing the pros and cons of the Bolsheviks at Kronstadt. Anybody who thinks that it's important to vindicate their crushing of the rebellion as a way of proving that they were righteous revolutionaries until the time of Stalin might as well be living on the moon. You're just not going to get through to them.

Finally, a note on the original subject of this thread. I don't know much about most of these parties, but I do know that the PCF are a dying party desperately trying to maintain their few safe areas in the face of onslaughts from the FN and LCR/LO. They are still stalinist in essence and have very little progressive about them. It doesn't inspire a whole lot of confidence in the future of this party.

by Kronstadt rebels Fri Jan 23, 2004 17:51

This is from issue 4 of the paper published by the rebels. Interestingly in the same issue they publish the text of Bolshevik propaganda leaflets being dropped on the fortress.

---

"SIRS" OR "COMRADES"

The Kronstadt seamen, and the workers with their toil-hardened hands, have torn the helm from the hands of the Communists, and taken their place at the wheel.  With assurance and good cheer, they will lead the ship of Soviet power to Petrograd, whence the power of toil-hardened hands must surely capture long-suffering Russia.

But be on guard comrades.  Increase your vigilance tenfold, for the path leading you to the clear channel is strewn with submerged rocks.  One careless turn of the wheel, and the ship, with its cargo of social construction which you value so greatly, may founder on the cliffs.

Guard the helmsman's bridge vigilantly, comrades, for enemies already skulk near.  A single negligence by you, and they will tear the wheel away.  The Soviet ship may go to the bottom, to the malicious laughter of tsarist lackeys and servitors of the bourgeoisie.

You, comrades, now celebrate a great and bloodless victory over the Communist dictatorship, and your enemies celebrate with you.  But your motives for joy and theirs are completely opposed.  You are inspired with a burning desire to build true Soviet power, and by the noble hope of granting the worker freedom of labor, and the peasant the right to control his own land and the produce of his work.  They are driven by the hope of raising anew the tsarist whip, and the privilege of generals.

Your interests are not the same, and you and they do not walk the same path. [sic]  You needed to overthrow Communist authority for the goal of peaceful construction, and for constructive work.  They need this for the enslavement of the workers and peasants.  You search for freedom; they wish to once again throw onto you the chains of slavery.  Be vigilant.  Do not allow wolves in sheep's clothing close to the helmsman's bridge.

by Ray Fri Jan 23, 2004 17:55

Hey! I just realised Socialist Party is an anamgram of A Sporty CIA Split. Why isn't there an article in The Voice condemning this?
(don't even get me started on the SWP)

by John Meehan Fri Jan 23, 2004 18:25

Kronstadt - so what?

The thread started with a report on the formation of a slate to contest the European Elections constructed by a group of political parties, mostly from the the ex-Communist Party tradition.

In contrast, another grouping from the left, the European Anti-Capitalist Left (EACL) has already published its platform (already available on the Irish indymedia newswire).

I am not aware that agreement about the Kronstadt events in Russia - more than 80 years ago - or, indeed, the participation/support of anarchists to one of the anti-Franco governments during the Spanish Civil War - nearly 70 years ago - is a precondition for support to either of these platforms. Anyone who suggests they should be - I suggest they have a career as a minor character in "Life of Brian II". (People's Judean Front V Popular Front of Judea)

To my mind the EACL platform is much better than the one advance by the ex-CP's.

For the record, there are many Trotskyists who do not (let me repeat - NOT - support the actions taken by the Bolshevik government against the Kronstadt garrison - read, for example Tariq Ali's excellent "Trotsky for Beginners").

Such discussions - certainly important - are best treated as potentially interesting historical debates.

Some historical matters do deserve programmatic comment relevant to current policy - one of them is the fundamentally mistaken action taken by the Bolshevik government in Russia to ban opposition parties -and, yes, Trotsky was guilty of making this mistake. Nobody's perfect.

But assessments of Trotsky's record on such matters should include reference to his political practice after expulsion from the Bolshevik party and Russia itself - from the late 1920's till he was murdered by the Stalinists in 1940.

Read, for example the programmatic document adopted by the Fourth International in 1938 -the "Transitional Programme" - and what is says about the necessity to grant unconditional freedom for all political parties in a post-capitalist state. It is an implicit criticism of the Bolsheviks' actions.

Almost 20 years ago. in 1985, the United Secretariat of the Fourth International went further and made such criticisms explicit.

It adopted a programmatic document explicitly rejecting the banning of other parties. I don't know for sure the position adopted by other significant Trotskyist parties.

In my view this question is intimately (indissolubly) connected to supporting an unlimited right to set up internal tendencies or platforms within a left wing party - that is allowed within the USFI - guaranteed by its statutes - but is only allowed in pre-conference periods by the SWP (I am not entirely sure about the SP).

Platforms flourish within the Scottish Socialist Party.

I consider such limitations bureaucratic and contrary to elementary democratic principles.

by Maratist - Hooded Idiots Fri Jan 23, 2004 18:35

Why do people think Owen Rice to be an anarchist? Never mind why he shouldn't have a nickname - likewise I don't see why the CW's are stuck into a debate as an issue for the WSM. I have a fair bit of respect for both groups - but I don't see where the connection between the two is - they don't work together to any degree that I'm aware of....me think this is paranoid trots seeing anarchists everywhere and imagining a nickname of a non-anarchist refers to a title we give to leaders in the anarchist movement. Strange mentality, very strange. ...... THEY ARE NOT ALL ANARCHISTS, THEY ARE NOT ALL IN A CABAL TOGETHER AND THEY ARE NOT OUT TO GET YOU.

by Brian C - SP (personal cap.) Fri Jan 23, 2004 18:42

I'm going to do my best to ignore the complete derailment of the thread from about the seventh comment on down.

Kronstadt and Spain are all very interesting but I'm not sure why anyone on either side of the above argument thinks that a thread about a European electoral alliance is an appropriate place to have it.

On the original subject:

The parties taking part in this European bloc announced in this thread are all Stalinist, coming out of a Stalinist tradition, or led by Stalinists. It has nothing to do with the proposals for a European Anti-Capitalist Left slate that have also been discussed here.

The latter initiative is centred around the LCR in France and discussions have included the SSP and the Socialist Party here in Ireland. The decision of Rifandazione Communista to join a pan-Stalinist bloc instead will undoubtedly have an impact on the initiative.

Finally, John, I can confirm that the Committee for a Workers International allows factions all year round and that we also support the idea of a multi-party system after the overthrow of capitalism.

by Seamus P. Fri Jan 23, 2004 18:56

I think it's a lousy thread too, but the way I see it happening is:
1. someone points out that the new party is a bunch of the same old authoritarian leftists.
2. authoritarian leftists squabble with each other and/or a troll
3. authotitarian leftists or troll strike out at anarchists
4. debate skirts around issue of how fundamental precepts determine whether one ends with a bloody dictatorship or not
5. Brian C. ends up saying that we can't learn anything from history

A pattern to be repeated ad nauseam no doubt.

by Brian C. Fri Jan 23, 2004 19:37

I have no particular interest in working out who to blame for derailing this thread. The comment that started the argument above was from an anonymous troll, claiming that Trotskyists and Stalinists were the same.

The intent was clearly to start a row between Trotskyists and Anarchists, and unsurprisingly it worked. I have no idea if the person in question was really an Anarchist or (as is more likely) just someone trying to give that impression. I don't really care either.

All of the users of this site, of whatever political persuasion, should know better than to respond to anonymous trolls with more incendiary language. It isn't as if this is the first time that it has happened.

This thread is supposed to be based around the announcement of this electoral formation by the various Communist Parties. Instead it consists of bickering about some of the old favourites. If a thread has to be derailed I find the Kronstadt/Spain/Makhno stuff marginally more interesting than some of the other regular squabbling that goes on here but I would rather that threads weren't derailed at all.

As for history, we have a great deal to learn from it. Which doesn't mean that every single thread is an appropriate place to do the learning.

On the original topic:

Does anyone know if the Workers Party or the Communist Party are signing up to above declaration?

by BigTom Fri Jan 23, 2004 20:20

I had intended to get some kind of discussion going with the news item I posted and am just disgusted at the response.

Kronstadt, Trotsky, Russian revolution - who gives a shit?

As for those who blanket label all these parties as Stalinist: the Greek party SYM left the Greek Communist Party over that very issue in 1968 and have moved on.

Am I wrong, but are there indymedia users/readers out there who are searching for something more than what's on offer in the Irish left at present?

by Fanny Kaplan Fri Jan 23, 2004 20:58

why keep calling your opponents Stalinists?

Of course all of the issues are important. For the very reason that if Marxists still persist in belieivng that they have some tablet of stone that contains the "key to history" then every socialist assumption of power will lead to the same mess.

It is clear from the responses of SP members that they have learnt nothing. They still fail to understand that the crimes of Marxism emanate from a flawed dogma NOT from the fact that particular personalities did this or that. In fact is that not succumbig to the crime of subjectivism?

It is also important that these things are aired and reiterated in the same way that fascists are continulally confronted with the holocaust. Lest we forget.

by Brian C Fri Jan 23, 2004 22:38

I'm not going to get sucked into the squabbling, Fanny, but nice try.

As you know, I didn't say that "historical stuff" is unimportant. In my view it is important.

That doesn't mean that it should be discussed on every Indymedia thread that a troll decides to derail. Loads of things are very important, but if we tried to discuss all of them all of the time we would never discuss anything properly.

The purpose of the "comments" feature on the site is to allow discussion and peer review of the original article. If everyone was to instead discuss whatever their own particular hobby horse is this week the site would quickly become unusable.

One of the long-standing problems that the site has already is that a small number of trolls think that this shouldn't apply to their particular interests/obsession.

by BigMac Fri Jan 23, 2004 23:51

FK, going through what these parties write about themselves it is clear that many have moved on, have admitted their mistakes, no longer claim to be Marxist, and have dropped all pretentions to an elevated consciousness and the locamotives of history.

Of course, the PDS grew from the SED, the blockhead Stalinist party that ran the GDR for forty years. 15 years on from the fall of the Berlin Wall the PDS has long dropped references to Marxist class struggle and the stale language of the past, has rehabilitated members it expelled and persecuted, and also the thousands of KPD members murdered in the Soviet Union during exile from 1933-1945. The massive party archive was handed over to the Federal Archives and are now open to historians and the public in their entirity. Of course there are still the few blockheads in the ranks, but the hardcore have either left or have been expelled and have moved to irrelevant ML splinter groups that are really Stalinist and make no apologies for it.

There is much that the PDS can be criticised for - it is now in coalition with the Social Democrats in Berlin and are party to the greatest wave of social cutbacks the city has ever experienced.

I detest Stalinists - but real Stalinists. The term is sometimes thrown around with as much ease and frequency as Stalin himself tossed around the charge of Trotskist, counter-revolutionary, petit-bourgeois sabateur and class enemy in the 1930s. Isn't it time to move on from the old slagging matches of the past and to appreciate that people and parties can change?

And wouldn't it be fantastic to see the emergence of a modern Irish party/movement of the left that that isn't a vintage association like the SWP, SP and CPI with their obcession with organisational forms, and personalities of the past?

by John Reimann - Labors Militant Voice Sat Jan 24, 2004 05:10 wildcat99 at earthlink dot net

I got a note about this thread and wanted to add my two cents.

It would be interesting to me to hear what those who believe in participating in electoral politics and who also believe in the necessity of overthrowing capitalism have to say about the idea of a united left party in Ireland. In fact, it would be interesting to hear how they see the development of a truly international anti-capitalist movement in general.

I used to be in the CWI (until I was expelled for being part of a minority faction). At that time, I used to think that the CWI, itself, would be the one and only force that would build an organized international force that would lead the overthrow of capitalism. This was the view of the CWI, and it was patterned on the rise of the Third International. I (and my present comrades) think this view is totally unrealistic. Given how fragmented and diverse the anti-capitalist movement is, and given the absolute dire necessity of the workers organizations (the unions) to collaborate internationally in a very concrete way, I cannot see how one particular grouping with one particular point of view (no matter how correct it might be) can be the force to bring all this together. I think it will be a much more diverse process. Much more like the First International.

I raise this because I think the development of new left workers' parties is inevitable and positive. This, as opposed to the postion in practice of the CWI. Their position is that any such efforts diverts from the need to build the CWI itself. What an incredibly sectarian position. I mean this term not in the sense of how the CWI relates to other left groups, but in terms of how it relates to the needs of the broader working class movement. It is so clear that this movement needs a united left movement and a united left workers' party. Yet working towards this is harmful to building the CWI sections - or so the brilliant minds in the CWI leadership say.

One last point: Brian C writes, "Finally, John, I can confirm that the Committee for a Workers International allows factions all year round and that we also support the idea of a multi-party system after the overthrow of capitalism." This is of course false. Totally aside from our own expulsion, I don't think that Brian can cite one single faction of any significance in the CWI in the last five years. What? This is because everybody is in total agreement? In this confused, complex period there are no diverse views? Then that can only mean that one or two people are doing all the thinking and everybody else is following like robots.

Sometimes I think back to my time in the CWI. If more independent thinking had been truly encouraged, then I can well imagine that some in the CWI would have started to raise - in advance - the possibility that the Soviet Union would return to capitalism. They would have started to raise in advance the possibility of a prolonged economic boom in the 80s and in the 90s. Had this happened, and had a truly comradely debate developed around this, then the entire organization would not have been taken so by surprise by these developments. Maybe it would not have been shipwrecked.

Today, the same spirit of genuine inquiry is needed more than ever. Has anybody ever heard of the peak oil theory? This is the view, pretty much established in my opinion, that world oil production will peak in the next five to ten years. After that it will enter into a prolonged decline.

We should consider the catastrophic consequences that may well result from this.

Better to take a look at such issues than endlessly debate what happened in Kronstadt.

John Reimann
Oakland, California

by ec Sat Jan 24, 2004 11:29

See www.dieoff.org for the gories

by Fanny Kaplan Sat Jan 24, 2004 13:18

Jesus, talk about grasping at straws! Yet another cathostrophic theory to attempt to save the prohpecies of Karl Marx. Great, we'll all be miserable for decades and there will be savage resource wars but....., hold on there! After all that there will be a genuine socialist revolution and whoever is left will have a mighty time.

What pathetic nonsense.

by hs - sp Sat Jan 24, 2004 16:26

This is for you because really I'm not interested in the other debates. ( The article was very interesting and well written. The PRC it must be said is not a Stalinist party it does allow factions, I'm aware of no less than 4 trotskyist factions within the party as well as a few others. So nobody in their right mind could call them Stalinist. Its by no means a revolutionary party but it wouldn't be too far too the right of the SSP. The PCI was in the end more reformist than stalinist anyway. Italian communists have always been interested in parties of the mass rather than factions or small parties and probably why they chose to go with this list.
Anyway this new party can change and open up more. It will depend on their success in the elections. In the end its another block in the european parliment rather than party.

by John Reimann - Labors Militant Voice Sun Jan 25, 2004 16:20 wildcat99 at earthlink dot net

Fanny Kaplan has clearly never read any of the material on the view that world oil production will peak in the next five to ten years, yet she is very ready to denounce this view as some lunatic revolutionary theory. Nobody said that the peaking of oil production will inevitably lead to world socialist revolution, yet she accuses those who hold this view of thinking thusly. Her knee jerk reaction is typical of so many on the left (I assume she is on the left): There is nothing new to consider; just keep going along the same path, with the same ideas, that we've always had.

This is also typical, by the way, of the CWI leadership, which for years resisted any serious consideration of the environmental crisis.

In the first place, it is a simple matter of common sense that world oil production will peak at some point or another. But most people continue living in a mental state of denial. When will this peak occur - in five years or fifty or a hundred? Those living in denial never bother to consider this. (And don't forget, in terms of the history of the human species, never mind the world as a whole, the difference between five and fifty years is negligible.) I challenge Fanny to name one major oil discovery in the last fifteen years.

As far as the peak oil view being one more crackpot view of the left, I would urge people to take a look at the Jan. 4 article by that ultra revolutionary Michael Meacher, former British Environment Minister. The article appeared in that revolutionary rag "The Financial Times." Meacher concludes that if society does not find alternatives to oil, "civilisation faces the sharpest and perhaps most violent dislocation in recent history."

I truly think that a serious discussion on such issues (rather than who was at fault for Kronstadt) will tend to bring out the more serious elements in the left. It will tend to bring us together and help build a united left that is capable of really sinking roots in working class communities and building something real.

by Roald Dahl Sun Jan 25, 2004 17:51

Is John Reimann a crank or what? He is going on about oil and stuff when everyone elese is talking about other stuff. I reckon John is like the rest of LMV's supporters- a small bunch of cranck each grinding their own axe against the "evil CWI leaders" as they didn't take they hair-brained ideas seriously!

by ec Sun Jan 25, 2004 18:20

Wasn't the left of the entire planet 'going on about oil and stuff' in the last 12 months or have I just woken up from a year long bad cold turkey nightmare.

Again I recommend www.dieoff.org for anyone who has not read about peak oil.

by Fanny Kaplan Sun Jan 25, 2004 19:24

I am familiar with the concerns over future energy supplies. However, my point is that this is just the latest such potential economic/resource crisis that is being seized on by certain Marxists to breath life into the long dscredited theories of Karl Marx and his followers. I could list at least a dozen going back to the economic crisies of the 1870s with regular cassandra like warnings ever since about the collapse of the world economic system.

While I am not underestimating the problems that the human race will face, what has been proved is that in the face of all previous such crisies we have been able to come up with solutions. I see no reason why this will not continue to be the case. One thing is certain, however, and that is that the obsolete and scitentifically proven erroneous Marxist economics will have no place in providing these solutions.

by Fantastic Mr. Crux Mon Jan 26, 2004 00:00

If LMV are such cranks why do Peter Haddock and Little Lenin spend such amount of energy terrifying the SY puppies with stories of the evil heretics? Why so much energy persecuting the heretics in their own outfit including poor Joan of Arc? Watch this space for news of a burning at the stake in Crumlin presided over by a certain gopher who answers to the name Sick Boy.

by SP (personnal capacity) Mon Jan 26, 2004 00:38

I would doubt that the comments made about LMV come from SP members so trolls leave us out of this personnal abuse please.

by Back to basics Mon Jan 26, 2004 10:53

I enjoy discussions about historical events and the Kronstadt/Spain one above is facinating. I think the Anarkids have done their homework,after all, both of these events are what Anarhists have been highlighting since the year dot. The Trots have put in the usual pathetic replies that highlight their selective reading of "approved" books. The Trot line..................


But Trots are not all of the SP/SWP vintage. JM shows that even within the Trot milleu there are progressives willing to look creatively at the current situation and the SSP is the best example of this altho the IMS faction is trotskyist.

On the euro left, Brian C dismisses all the groups in the formulation as "stalinists" I would argue that this is is typically stupid Trot bullshit. You should look at the particular groups political position and see is it revolutionary or reformist are they a new neo liberal labour party or do they have more in common with the anti capitalist movement? Luckily the people of Swords and Blanchardstown are willing to overlook the Trot nonsense and vote for Joe & Claire as fighters voicing their needs.

The CWI and the ISO and all other comentern style internationals would benifit greatly by soiling their purity and isolation and working with all forces that seek to end murderous capitalism. And that includes our holier than thou anar-christs.

by Pablo Mon Jan 26, 2004 12:01

Just a few facts;

Jan 1918 - Bolsheviks dissolve Constituent Assembly after losing elections in which they got about 22% - majority were other left wing parties.
By this time the Soviets were considered the legitimate government of the Soviet Union. The CA was an irrelivant talkshop for the Mensheviks and Right SR's.

April 1918 - Bolsheviks attack and close Moscow HQ of Anarchists
These were minority Anarchists who were plotting to overthrow the soviet democracy. Other Anarchists were actively involved in defending same democracy

May 1918 - Workers shot by Bolsheviks at Kolpino during protest
Its a revolution. These things happen.
July 1918 - Left Social Revolutionaries suppressed (these were the Bolsheviks allies!!)

AFTER LSR's ORCHESTRATED A FAILED COUP TO OVERTHROW THE SOVIET DEMOCRACY (See Victor Serge, Revolution in danger)

July 1918 - 350 prisoners murdered at Jaroslavl - more than 1,000 more executed that month
Again, in a time of Civil War and Revolution these things happen.

by Fanny Kaplan Mon Jan 26, 2004 12:32

Well, aren't you the rough tough revolutionary Pablo. Easy to sleep on another man's wounds, as they say.

by Fanny Kaplan Mon Jan 26, 2004 12:40

Your "facts" are falsehoods. The Constituent Assembly never got a chance to become a "talking shop" because the Bolsheviks dissolved it in a huff when they lost the elections.

As for the workers being shot at Kolpino just being part of the cut and thrust of revolution!! Pathetic. Correct me but wasn't the revolution supposed to be run by the sort of poor bastards who were shot?

"Soviet democracy". I do beleive that is what is known as an oxymoron.

Having said that, your "these things happen" could be the new key to history. Let me see;

"Nazis exterminate six million Jews... there was a war on TTH...

"Trotsky gets ice picked ... wrote boring books TTH

by Civet Cat Mon Jan 26, 2004 16:36

Why did he lie about faction rights existing in the CWI all year round? He knows its a a lie, all CWI members know its a lie. Anyone reading this thread who is involved in the left knows its a lie. Who is trying to fool. Perhaps he is simply self deluded.

by Brian C Mon Jan 26, 2004 17:25

Just to confirm a point I made earlier:

Members of the Committe of a Workers International are entitled to organise for their point of view within the CWI and its sections. In the Marxist tradition, doing so is known as forming a faction. There is no time limit on the existence of such factions.

Those are simple facts and I have no interest in debating them with either John (who at least uses his real name and makes clear what axe he has to grind) or various anonymous trolls.

by John Meehan Mon Jan 26, 2004 21:11

Thanks to Brian for repeating and clarifying his comment on internal democracy within the CWI - and also for using his real name.

Readers of this thread can see that Brian and John Reimann do not agree on the relevant simple facts.

Perhaps others could clarify?

by libertarian Wed Jan 28, 2004 17:40

Treat a Trot like you treat a facist.

by Ray Wed Jan 28, 2004 17:50

Unless and until Trots physically attack anarchists/other groups, they should have the same freedom of speech as anyone else.
Do not battle with monsters, lest you become a monster.

by john throne - labors militant voice Thu Jan 29, 2004 00:03 loughfinn at aol dot com

I am interested in just about all the issues brought into this thread, new workers parties, Kronstadt, peak oil, stalinism, trotskyism, the phenomenon of the many people who won't give their name but who are determined to inflict their sectarianism on any thread etc., etc. However i would like to suggest that there is a relatively simple way to determine what issues are the priorities that we should try and focus on. This is to start from what is the situation facing the working class at this time and what are the needs of the working class at this time.

I suggest that the decisive feature in the class struggle internationally at this time is that the capitalist powers are on the offensive on a world scale and are driving the working class back on all fronts. Flowing from this in my opinion the decisive need of the working class in this time is to halt this capitalist offensive, throw it back and as part of this process open up a new offensive of the working class itself. From this working class offensive new mass forces would be engaged in great mass struggles and within this process there would be a much greater chance of sorting out some of these issues which have been raised on this thread.

In this context it is of interest to see the development of a new european left party, to hear about other developments such as the SSP etc. In my opinion how we approach these depends on our starting point. And for me the starting point is do these parties openly address the capitalist offensive, the need to halt and throw back this offensive and do they see their task as building an organization to carry out this task. If they do not then the likelihood is that they will build a new party that will go along with the capitalist offensive as the mass stalinist and social democratic parties have been doing . If they do not then they are more likely coming together for shelter from the capitalist offensive rather than coming together to organize to fight and defeat this offensive.

I am in favor of building a new mass anti capitalist fighting movement which declares itself and prepares itself to be against and to actively oppose capitalism and its offensive. This new left party that has been announced here does not seem to me to take this position. I think this is the most important point to discuss concerning this development. Is there a discussion in this party on this issue that would give some hope that this party would evolve in a more healthy and combative direction. Are there mass rank and file forces in this party which would give some hope that such a discussion could have a chance of leading this party towards taking up the kind of battles and policies that are necessary.

I do not believe that new workers parties have to agree on the entire revolutionary program and perspective. However i do believe that it is essential to fight for these new parties to base themselves on outright opposition to the capitalist offensive and to base themselves on tactics that confront the attacks of capitalism, that is direct action fight to win tactics, and to base themselves on opposition to capitalism as a system.

I also believe that such new parties have to have an internal life that allows for different groups to organize for their views. However I believe there should be limits to the views that can be organized for in such parties. Many are obvious, facism, racism, sexism, but I also add that there should be no room in these new parties that we are in favor of building for organizations that think that capitalism is the best system and that the working class and the workers parties should seek to cooperate with capitalism.

I would be interested in hearing some more information and discussion concerning these aspects of this issue.

Finally a comment to Brian C. Brian I have no desire to damage the SP or the CWI. I do not want to see the resources of these organizations wasted. I wish to assist the SP and the CWI to break from their mistaken internal life so that they can develop as mass forces. I wish to help the SP to see that its focus on building the SP to the detriment of building a united anti capitalist front is damaging to the SP and to the struggle of the working class. I know that I am criticised by many leading members of the SP for making comments that are critical of the SP and therefore they claim damaging to the SP.

Brian it is hard to think of anything that is more damaging to the SP than your claim that the CWI and the SP allows factions and your assertion that the internal life of the SP is entirely open and democratic. Why this is so damaging Brian is that nobody believes it because there is no evidence to support it and in fact all the evidence is to the contrary, and this being the case how is it possible for you to make the claim that you do. What kind of internal life is there in the SP and the CWI that can make you make this statement which is so clearly not true.

Brian I would like to suggest that the SP and the CWI would have a much healthier future and they would be able to assist the working class struggle to a much greater extent if they openly stated that their internal life has not been what you claim it has, if they openly raised the issue of building a united anti capitalist movement/party in Ireland and discussed how they have not approached this issue properly in the past. Brian this is what would be in the best interests of the SP and the CWI but more importantly in the best interest of building a fighting workers movement within which all anti capitalist working class orientated forces could fight together against the capitalist offensive while at the same time clarifying their own ideas and debating them within the movement.

I will not go on here Brian but if you wish to again make the statement you did above about the CWI and the SP and its internal life then please give some evidence of the internal factional life that the CWI has had. And also consider that it is yourself by making such a clearly incorrect statement that is damaging the SP in the eyes of activists and workers who are seriously thinking about building a revolutionary movement.

John Throne.

by Observor Sat Jan 31, 2004 19:27

Johns contribution to the debate is welcome and (mercifully) concise one.Unity cannot be built on foundations of sand or lies. Brian is doing his own credibilitydamage by spinning fairytales about faction rights being available in the SP. I ask what Brian could possibly believe he is acheiving. The case of Dermot Connolly is just the latest in a long line of CWI leaders who were forced out because they would not toe the line. This has sjown that differences of opinion are not allowed in the SPlet alone faction rights.

Much more disturbing though is the way that families of dissidents are treated. Stalin used to make the families of his opponents pay collectively.Here, we see Dermots partner, Joan Connolly, being removed as a party candidate because of Dermots "transgressions". What confidence can anyone have in the interest of the SP in Left Unity when such a thing is visited upon party members. Such a Stalinist internal regime allows for no dissent.

by hs - sp Sat Jan 31, 2004 19:44

Joan can canvess the members if she wants to run. She is popular and would easily get support. It would be impossible to push joan out for this reason but entirely possible she doesn't want to run. But if observour is prepared to stand in an election (let alone take off the mask he's wearing now) he would have every right to critise her for it. If not I'm afraid not. Also on the party selection of candidates. You have to be a member of the party to take part in the selection. I don't think any other party would allow masked anons to choose their candidates for them.
And comparing the treatment of people in the SP to stalin couldn't be more ridiculas. People have been expelled from the cwi at times (like every other political movement in the world!!!) but I'm not aware of any secret cwi gulags knocking around! Or any family members being arrested. This comparison is at best childish (and probably why you are masked). As I have said many times if you want to take part in the selection of sp candidates, if you want to change sp policy. you must join to. If you are so concerened about the lack of factions in one of the smallest socialist parties in europe. again your only option is to join and set one up. I'm not going to do it for you.

by N Lynch Sat Jan 31, 2004 19:49

Whatever else John's latest contribution is, it is certainly not "concise". It is 1,123 words long. Surely he could have said the same thing in 200 - 250 words (or less).

by Observor Sat Jan 31, 2004 20:13

At least he admits that faction rights do not exist within the SP.But he could expand just a little on why the internal regime has treated Dermot and Joan in such a manner. He perhaps has not noticed that many of the CWI regulars on this site do not use their real names.

Brevity is relative but the above compares well with the more long winded pieces by JT.

by vb Sun Feb 01, 2004 16:22

"At least he admits that faction rights do not exist within the SP."

Because there are no factions currently in the SP does not mean they are not allowed or that there is no internal democracy.

"But he could expand just a little on why the internal regime has treated Dermot and Joan in such a manner."

It did and does not treat them badly at all. Dermot resigned from the party he was not pushed out, i don't think there was anyone in the SP that were sad to see Dermot go but it was his choice. Dermot still retains great respect among SP members and always will.

" He perhaps has not noticed that many of the CWI regulars on this site do not use their real names."

i used to use my own name but gave up after I was continually slandered.

by ViBorg watch Mon Feb 02, 2004 12:38

"It did and does not treat them badly at all." (referring to Dermot and Joan)

Dumping Joan is hardly fair treatment.