ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
One of the articles there, on the campaign for free transport in London, is by Simon Pirani, an ex-Trotskyist (WRP) who has written a couple of good books about how the workers fared under the Bolsheviks when Lenin was still alive. Here’s his free transport article:
https://theecologist.org/2024/mar/19/fair-free-fares-london
And our reviews of his books:
Book Reviews: ‘Armed Madhouse’, ‘The Shock Doctrine’, & ‘The Russian Revolution in Retreat, 1920-24’
Yes, the editorial committee received something similar, but from a group calling itself the “Contemporary Marxist Trend”. An ex-comrade says they are a breakaway from the “Worker-Communist Party” of Iraq. He points (which we’d never have guessed) that their site is in Kurdish as well as Arabic:
On checking we found that, despite the pictures of Marx and talk of revolution, they were invited to the founding conference of the Your Party and were, apparently, very impressed:
https://www.facebook.com/gona.saed/
They did ask for our comments but presumably those of everybody else on their mailing list.
Unrevised AI translation from a post on Trotsktyism on one of our Spanish-language Facebook pages, based on a pamphlet issued by a group in Spain in 1984).
The Trotskist conception is that of a “Revolution in stages”. In fact, for Trotskists we must first make a “political revolution” (takeover of power) which will then allow for an “economic revolution” to then carry out a “transitional society”, the “social revolution” – which is never addressed –. In effect, for Trotskists, the “takeover” – prepared by mobilizing the masses around transitional demandss – would serve to expropriate the bourgeoisie, stabilize the means of production, establish labor control, planning, the monopoly of foreign trade (all of which would constitute the “economic revolution”) in order to guarantee jobs, salary, money, goods, etc. , for all proletarians, and so a “transitional society” would start that would lead to socialism and communism (“social revolution”).
But, for us, leaving the social revolution “for later” means that, in fact, the Trotsky approach is that of capitalist reform. Trotskism emphasizes sharply: it says not a word of the “social revolution”, almost nothing of the “economic revolution” and much of the reforms of social relations, – of production and life – of capitalist.
This false vision of the communist revolution that Trotskism has
– which makes them present as revolution what is nothing but capitalist reform, is based (and, according to Trotskist ideology, justified) on a also completely false understanding of what capitalism is. It affirms that the consequent struggle (and defense) for the claims (and conquests) of the proletariat as variable capital, i.e., the claims (and achievements) of capitalist content that do not question capitalist social relations would force the proletariat to “take power” i.e. would force the proletariat to do what the Trotskists call a revolution.The totally false understanding by Trotskism:
– reduces the communist revolution to a technique for capitalist power taking. Their alleged radicalism, their demagogy, their trap is to claim that conquering a minimum program of capitalist claims leads to the proletariat having to take power. And so “the proletariat in power” – or, more precisely, “the revolutionary labour party” mounted on the proletariat – would be responsible for guaranteeing jobs, wages, goods…. that is, exploitation— to all proletarians. And, of course, this technique also needs technicians: the party…. especially, clear are their leaders, candidates for new ministers, new organizers of the exploitation – that is, fair and scientific – of the proletariat. This is why “transitional society” is also an instrument for training these technicians of capitalist takeover.
– it manifests what is the starting point of Trotskism and backbone of all Trotskist ideology: “the crisis of direction of the proletariat”. The lack of revolutionary party is the balance and explanation of everything. And that even more so as Trotsky states that “the economic premise of the proletarian revolution has long reached the highest point it can reach under capitalism,” In other words: the “objective conditions” are ripe…. but the “subjective conditions”, i.e. the party is missing. A weighty argument for a power-taking technician looking to manufacture the instrument necessary for it. This is why the party must direct the masses. And for the masses to follow the party, the carrots are the “transitional demands.”
All of the reprint, with a new title, having now been distributed. North West members report:
“Our leaflet was called ‘YP – Labour 2.0?’ and argued that even if Your Party was ever able to form a government, it would inevitably suffer the same fate as the original Labour Party, meaning that YP would not change capitalism, capitalism would change YP. It’s quite possibly no coincidence that we handed Zara Sultana a leaflet in person, after which a YouTube video appeared in which she specifically denied that Your Party would turn into Labour 2.0.”
Others had been handing out leaflet about the YP becoming like the Labour Party, but they – in fact like our first leaflet – wrote of “Labour Mark 2”.
In any event, as far as we know, only our reprinted leaflet wrote of “Labour 0.2”.
https://x.com/zarahsultana/status/1994692841554247979/photo/1
Our leaflet was handed out yesterday in Liverpool and also on the Palestine March in London. Today it will be in Liverpool again and also at a trade union event in Frome in Somerset.
The SWP are reporting that they have been expelled from the new party:
Meanwhile the choice of names has been announced:
https://www.urban75.net/forums/attachments/img_7748-png.510594/
Are they serious? At least they won’t be mistaken for socialists.
They will fail at the first question “what is socialism?” as they will define it as a transitional society with wages, market, money, etc between capitalism and “communism” as a society of common ownership, democratic control, production directly for use and distribution according to needs, with no market, wages, money, etc — which is the correct answer to the question. The best description of what they call ”socialism” is “state capitalism”.
Distribution of our leaflet has been continuing. At a Corbyn meeting in Manchester on Tuesday and another in Oxford yesterday.
More have been printed, with a different heading — “Labour Party 0.2?” Instead of “Same Old Same Old?” — ready for handing out to those attending the founding of the new party this weekend in Liverpool. The first of these were distributed in Manchester on Tuesday.
The text of the leaflet remains the same arguing that as the new party will be pursuing reforms “it will become a Labour Party Mark 2”.
Others have been taking up this theme, with the SWP in Oxford handing out a leaflet saying “Your Party must not be Labour Mark 2” but a meeting on “Why Lenin Matters Today” advertised on the leaflet suggests that their alternative is a Bolshevik Party Mark 2. Or maybe it’s to outbid their main Trotskyist rival, SPEW, which has been calling for years for a Labour Party Mark 2.
For the record, our Corbynite reformist opponent in the local by-election in Islington Junction Ward a year ago has just defected to the Greens:
Wild speculation. Judging by her recent statements she’d be more likely to join the SWP than the Greens!
But it does seem that the Greens have won the left of Labour electoral franchise. If there’s any deal between them and the new Corbyn party they are in far the stronger bargaining position. We’ll see next May but I imagine they will reserve the council sears with the best prospective for themselves leaving the Corbyn party to take on Labour in the council estates and Muslim areas.
One straw in the wind is this defection from Corbyn to the Greens in his own fiefdom
https://x.com/jackson_caines/status/1991890532172452065
Jackson Caines stood as an “independent” candidate with Corbyn’s endorsement and support in a council by-election almost exactly a year ago:
https://www.islingtontribune.co.uk/article/mp-backs-independent-challenger-to-labour
We stood in that council by-election too:
https://www.islington.media/news/junction-by-election-result
The cautious position towards the new party of the CPB (the pro-China grouping that runs the Morning Star):
Zara Sultana says it again. This time in Durham on Saturday:
“What I’m saying is, we need socialism. We need to be explicitly socialist.
“That is not tweaking here and there. It’s not just lowering a few bills and a wealth tax just sprinkled on top, but it is a fundamental transformation of our society: the working class controlling the wealth that they produce and the means of production in their hands.” (Zarah Sultana, Durham, 15 November).Of course, as we say in our leaflet the new party is highly unlikely to pursue socialism as its aim but rather only sprinklings and end up a Labour Party Mark 2.
London branch leafleted two meetings this weekend. The SPEW annual weekend school and rally on Saturday at which Sultana was billed to speak and the East London member-only assembly to discuss the documents for the YP founding conference at the end of this month.
Not sure why Sultana is hobnobbing with them. Also there was one of the more way-out Trot groups, the Spartacist League and their paper “Workers Hammer”.
The East London meeting was held somewhere in the Olympic Park in Stratford that was not easy to get to and the venue management (not the organisers) did not allow leafletting outside the meeting place. So conditions were not ideal for leafleting those attending but we managed to hand out some though not as many as intended. The SWP suffered the same handicap.
Report from Gillingham (Kent) on meeting there yesterday:
“A fairly small meeting of about 20. I’d planned on leafleting as they went in, but I couldn’t see anyone around when I arrived so I went inside and was ushered into the meeting hall. I felt unsure if I should pretend to be there for the meeting and wait till the end to give out leaflets. I decided to come clean about my motive for attendance and they were really nice about it and offered tea and biccies and a table for my literature. So I did sit through the 90 mins of meeting and then gave them all a leaflet at the end. They had a table selling literature from the Socialist Alternative.”
