A critique of the Socialist Party

national | worker & community struggles and protests | opinion/analysis Thursday August 12, 2004 15:51 by John Belfast

A critique of the socialist party and its organisation and in general the failure of the left to address the issue of power politics.

This is a serious thread so no trolling or sectarian abuse please.

I have been recently been reading an article on the socialist party site (www.geocities.com/socialistpaty) in reply to the politics of the SSP, and I cant believe the arrogance and shere fancyfullness of its content.

Indeed I could go so far and argue that the CWI is no controlled by "Walther Mitty".

Let me first begin. Kevin Williamson of the SSP has argued that many Trots, particulary of Militant have jumped ship in favour of power and privilige - Indeed this is somewhat very true. Williamson lists a number of former leading Militant activists who are now engaged in "New Labour" or big business.

It is a fact that Militant lost huge numbers of people, from its hayday in the eighties, many of whom have gone to the right or are dissolutioned with the undemocratic SP brand of politics. This can hardly be denied, although im sure it will be.

What is the SP's answer to this accusation of the huge loss of membership - as if scribed by Walther Mitty himself and I quote:

" Kevin deliberately ignores the vastly greater number of members of the Militant and the CWI who are or have fought and sacrificed for the cause of socialism and the working class...... The CWI has been extremely successful in being able to build real roots among the working class in a number of countries including leading mass struggles"

Since 1990, where have been these "Mass Struggles?" It can be argued that the Bin Tax was a struggle, but it was hardly on a "Mass" scale, while it did attract popular working class support, a significant majority of the working class didnt get involved, further to this the SP in way led the anti bin tax movement, it played a leading role with other groups, the same can be said for the anti war movement.

In the Anti war movement the SP couldnt gather over 100 demonstrators at any demonstration, where is its mass appeal to workers and youth?

Interestingly and correctly the SSP talks about power politics and the absolute failure of the SP for example, in this we must include other trot groups such as the swp etc, to come up with solutions to prevent the "Vanguard" leadership from lording it over the people and the dependence of such groups on mere propaganda cries:

"There is a theory (of sorts) that future socialism will mean committees, or councils of actions, elected in workplaces and local communities and these will then elect representatives to bigger councils and these will then elect representatives to regional and then to national councils and these will then elect representatives to an all-European Council and then from each continent to a future World Socialist Government.

And somehow by regurgitating a few glib phrases about accountability and rotation of delegates this will somehow not inevitably end up as the totalitarian nightmare of centralist control that we witnessed in the former Soviet Union, China and Eastern Europe.

Such fanatical, narrow-minded concepts of what socialism might look like don't stand up to even the most gentle of examinations.

Even in our own movement of parties, organisations and platforms, we see that those in elected positions rarely put job rotation into practice and regularly step down to make way for someone else, but instead continually put themselves up for re-election.

Would it be any different in a post-capitalist society?"

In equal reply the SP have argued history:

"These delegates were accountable, took no extra privileges and were subject to the immediate right of recall and replacement by the workers they represented.

They were established by the working class in the white heat of revolutionary struggle as a conscious expression of their desire to build a new society under their control. It was for this reason that Trotsky described the Soviets as the most democratic form of organisation in human history."

For some reason I wouldn't trust anyone who goes by democratic centralism. Can you really envisage a leadership of a vanguard giving up or rotating it power - it wouldnt happen.

I am interested to hear what others have to say on these two issues, Firsty the failure of the left to address the issue of power and the absolute fancefullness of the Socialist Party.

Please dont ruin this thread with sectarian abuse or trolling.