PDA

View Full Version : internal difficulties and resignations in SP



eejoynt
25-07-2013, 02:54 PM
from britain

http://www.cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-worker/972/socialist-party-ireland-not-for-the-public-domain

shows the laziness of the irish media that it hasnt already been picked up on

Captain Con O'Sullivan
25-07-2013, 03:24 PM
Thanks eejoynt- that was a hilarious trip down memory lane for me. Not much has changed on the revolutionary left in Ireland- even that crack about the 'anarcho mood that is out there' made me burst out laughing at the self-important antics of this lot.

The notion that this bunch are anything like them are going to organise the workers makes me howl with laughter. It is all there- the control freakery of the committees, the passing self-important nod to theoretical marxism, the attempted gombeenery around the copies of the resignation letters. These people are the PDs of an outdated sociology lecture circa 1978.

But it did bring back fond memories and the living museum of the Irish revolutionary left is the same as it was when I was 17.

C. Flower
25-07-2013, 03:35 PM
from britain

http://www.cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-worker/972/socialist-party-ireland-not-for-the-public-domain

shows the laziness of the irish media that it hasnt already been picked up on

Thank you. It purports to be by a member of the SP (Ireland) who says


One is forced to conclude that the SP will never be the party of the Irish working class.

I can only assume it was his last act before resigning.

The problems of the SP that he refers to have been discussed here at length (and apply equally to the SWP, the two having grown closer together over time) - a "transitional programme" that would never lead to social revolution, tail ending behind the working class instead of leading, the disastrous adventures of the ULA and CAWHT (still no analysis of what was wrong with the latter), the slate system of electoral leadership, lack of internal democracy, and last but by no means least lack of analysis and theoretical development. One resigning member says he is not a Trotskyist. I hope he sets out his full position for debate, now he has left the party.

It is amazing that only 4 have resigned.

It would be pointless for any group on the left to indulge in any pleasure in the SP's pains. I don't see anyone else doing much better.

More to the point to admit to a general and deep crisis and get stuck in to exploring and overcoming it.

Captain Con O'Sullivan
25-07-2013, 03:39 PM
Oh well- look on the bright side. It was the comrades in Britain who had to report this as the native Fianna Failism meant that it was never going to be openly reported by the SP in Ireland. All rise for a few machine-gun bursts of the Internationale.

C. Flower
25-07-2013, 04:06 PM
Oh well- look on the bright side. It was the comrades in Britain who had to report this as the native Fianna Failism meant that it was never going to be openly reported by the SP in Ireland. All rise for a few machine-gun bursts of the Internationale.

The SP in Ireland does very little reporting of anything. The total membership at the meeting in Wynns was apparently around 60. Given the numbers of people who have moved into some form of political action or another over the last five years, that is quite an achievement.

Fine Gael and Labour also do a nice line in dealing with resigned members by ignoring them.

Captain Con O'Sullivan
25-07-2013, 04:07 PM
They are going to change the system from the outside.

C. Flower
25-07-2013, 04:23 PM
living museum of the Irish revolutionary left

Hard to see that there was anything revolutionary about it, at any stage.

Just a niche somewhere a few inches left of Labour.

Sam Lord
26-07-2013, 01:45 AM
4. In contrast the SP, with its transitional method, aims to tailor its demands to the present consciousness of workers as they are, not as the future ruling class, in the erroneous belief that participation in working class struggle of any kind will generate a socialist consciousness.


Absolutely correct.

Interesting to discover that there are some thinking people in the SP, even if on the way out.

Dr. FIVE
26-07-2013, 01:54 AM
What is your take on some the criticism in the article eejoynt?

bolshevik
26-07-2013, 07:25 AM
My view on the issues raised in the article - http://revolutionaryprogramme.wordpress.com/2013/07/25/sp-dissident-speaks-out-readable-version/

One wonders how long Craig will be allowed to remain a member of the SPI given that he has openly published what is a highly critical article about the SP in the journal of an opponent organisation. But the fact that he has done so, along with the 4 resignations his piece reports on, does indicate that we might be seeing the start of a significant revolt against the SP’s curious blend of bureaucratic centralist organisational form and left-reformist practical political programme.

The bulk of Craig’s article outlines details of the lack of a real democratic life inside the SP that parallel similar reports I have heard from other former members of the CWI, both here in Ireland and in Britain. Anyone with experience of the SP will recognise the ring of truth of the criticisms.

Of more interest to me is the political critique Craig makes in the article.

Craig contrasts the SP’s “transitional method” to the idea of a Marxist programme. Of course the reality is, as Craig himself points out, “the SP’s ‘programme’ is nothing more than an eclectic, incoherent mess of demands that could never advance the cause of socialism” and that their programme of demands are “transitional to nothing, save sowing illusions”.

This is a thousand miles away from the actual transitional method that underlined the politics of the healthy period of Bolshevism and was codified by Leon Trotsky as the political methodology of the Fourth International. Actually that real transitional method shares much more in common with the framework of a Marxist programme that Craig begins to outline in the article than it does with the SP’s bastardised version.

To the extent this article represents an attempt to seriously grapple with the issue of developing a programme capable of leading the working class to power it is to be welcomed and I look forward to any opportunities that may arise to discuss this with Craig and the other comrades.

Saoirse go Deo
26-07-2013, 01:45 PM
They take themselves awfully seriously don't they?


There is nothing in that which has not been said by many others on this site, especially in discussions about the CAHWT but it is good to see it come from someone who is a member of the party (for now).

Dr. FIVE
26-07-2013, 04:32 PM
transitional to nothing

can we make this the PW tagline or something, I love it.

C. Flower
01-08-2013, 08:26 PM
My view on the issues raised in the article - http://revolutionaryprogramme.wordpress.com/2013/07/25/sp-dissident-speaks-out-readable-version/

One wonders how long Craig will be allowed to remain a member of the SPI given that he has openly published what is a highly critical article about the SP in the journal of an opponent organisation. But the fact that he has done so, along with the 4 resignations his piece reports on, does indicate that we might be seeing the start of a significant revolt against the SP’s curious blend of bureaucratic centralist organisational form and left-reformist practical political programme.

The bulk of Craig’s article outlines details of the lack of a real democratic life inside the SP that parallel similar reports I have heard from other former members of the CWI, both here in Ireland and in Britain. Anyone with experience of the SP will recognise the ring of truth of the criticisms.

Of more interest to me is the political critique Craig makes in the article.

Craig contrasts the SP’s “transitional method” to the idea of a Marxist programme. Of course the reality is, as Craig himself points out, “the SP’s ‘programme’ is nothing more than an eclectic, incoherent mess of demands that could never advance the cause of socialism” and that their programme of demands are “transitional to nothing, save sowing illusions”.

This is a thousand miles away from the actual transitional method that underlined the politics of the healthy period of Bolshevism and was codified by Leon Trotsky as the political methodology of the Fourth International. Actually that real transitional method shares much more in common with the framework of a Marxist programme that Craig begins to outline in the article than it does with the SP’s bastardised version.

To the extent this article represents an attempt to seriously grapple with the issue of developing a programme capable of leading the working class to power it is to be welcomed and I look forward to any opportunities that may arise to discuss this with Craig and the other comrades.

A programme can't lead the working class to power. A party / organisation is required for that, one with a solid base in the working class, that can develop programmes, tactics, and continually develop a deeper grasp of what is happening in the world, what are the driving forces, how all the classes are moving etc.

C. Flower
01-08-2013, 08:28 PM
They take themselves awfully seriously don't they?


There is nothing in that which has not been said by many others on this site, especially in discussions about the CAHWT but it is good to see it come from someone who is a member of the party (for now).


There is still a resounding silence in terms of analysis of the CAHWT debacle.

In 2009 a government tax was put on electricity - the "Public Service Obligation Levy" of €100.00 a year.

Not a word about that, but the household tax was meant to have us all on the barricades.

C. Flower
03-08-2013, 07:43 PM
There is still a resounding silence in terms of analysis of the CAHWT debacle.


...

The reluctance of the Irish left to engage in any real debate on policy, programme or organisation is more reminiscent of the "valley of the squinting windows" than a healthy and vigorous exchange of views. There seems to be a belief that we all have to get along because the left is so small numerically. The left will never grow when nothing is analysed and every issued is fudged over in the interests of a completely unprincipled unity of convenience.

Dr. FIVE
03-08-2013, 08:02 PM
+1

bolshevik
09-08-2013, 12:31 PM
Anne McShane on the response to Craig Murphey’s article in Weekly Worker (with a preface by me) - http://revolutionaryprogramme.wordpress.com/2013/08/09/anne-mcshane-on-the-response-to-criag-murpheys-article-in-weekly-worker/

Jolly Red Giant
09-08-2013, 03:23 PM
Anne McShane on the response to Craig Murphey’s article in Weekly Worker (with a preface by me) - http://revolutionaryprogramme.wordpress.com/2013/08/09/anne-mcshane-on-the-response-to-criag-murpheys-article-in-weekly-worker/

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha - I'm famous - I have made the pages of the WW - this is like getting on Spitting Image in the 1980s.

In all honesty - if Anne has nothing better to be doing with her time than writing this nonsense about an internet forum discussion on cedarlounge than she really should be looking at where her political priorities lie.

I take it bolshie - that your offer to 'educate' those poor deprived members of the Socialist Party has been taken up by droves of people as they flood out of the ranks of the SP and into your and Anne's arms (I am sure they won't be confused about the mixed messages from a supporter of the IBT and the CPGB). Make sure that the room that is booked for this meeting to discuss a new 'democratic revolutionary party' is big enough to accomodate all those who will want to attend (a phone box should suffice).

I have got an occasional laugh from stuff I read from the WW - but this one really takes the biscuit - it will keep me going for weeks.

bolshevik
09-08-2013, 03:30 PM
JRG - you keep on with the bluff and bluster, I'm sure it helps you sleep at night.

As usual nothing at all to say about the substance - and you like to think of yourself as some kind of Marxist...

Jolly Red Giant
09-08-2013, 03:45 PM
As usual nothing at all to say about the substance - and you like to think of yourself as some kind of Marxist...

What bloody substance? - Anne's article take a few selective quotes (mostly) out of context and uses them in the normal CPGB/WW fashion to stir the sh*t - it is useful for nothing more that a good laugh. I was having a rather stressful day but it has raised my spirits enormously and for that I send my thanks to Anne (and your good self for going to the effort of pushing it on here). As they say - laughter is the best medicine.

bolshevik
09-08-2013, 04:26 PM
What bloody substance? - Anne's article take a few selective quotes (mostly) out of context and uses them in the normal CPGB/WW fashion to stir the sh*t - it is useful for nothing more that a good laugh. I was having a rather stressful day but it has raised my spirits enormously and for that I send my thanks to Anne (and your good self for going to the effort of pushing it on here). As they say - laughter is the best medicine.

Want to back that up with examples or are we just expected to take your word for it - not that anyone on this forum has had that kind of experience with you before...

bolshevik
09-08-2013, 11:59 PM
And so, as usual, when challenged to provide some substantive evidence to back up his casual slurs our friend JRG suddenly goes quiet. What a surprise...

Jolly Red Giant
10-08-2013, 06:01 PM
And so, as usual, when challenged to provide some substantive evidence to back up his casual slurs our friend JRG suddenly goes quiet. What a surprise...

bolshie - you (and Anne) may have the time and inclination to engage in this nonsense - I have neither - (trawling through a thread to take selective quotes from a rank-and-file SP member in order to concoct a story really is not worth the effort) - the article is available and the thread is up on cedar lounge - I am happy to let people judge for themselves.

C. Flower
10-08-2013, 09:17 PM
bolshie - you (and Anne) may have the time and inclination to engage in this nonsense - I have neither - (trawling through a thread to take selective quotes from a rank-and-file SP member in order to concoct a story really is not worth the effort) - the article is available and the thread is up on cedar lounge - I am happy to let people judge for themselves.

One group with a programme and no organisation, the other with an organisation and no programme.

Would be funny if it wasn't so serious.

bolshevik
12-08-2013, 11:20 AM
bolshie - you (and Anne) may have the time and inclination to engage in this nonsense - I have neither - (trawling through a thread to take selective quotes from a rank-and-file SP member in order to concoct a story really is not worth the effort) - the article is available and the thread is up on cedar lounge - I am happy to let people judge for themselves.

Except that is not what you have done.

You have intervened in the discussion to make unsubstantiated allegations and when I challenged to back those up you come up with more evasions.

Pathetic.

Dr. FIVE
19-12-2013, 04:31 PM
Same resignations but lengthy post-mortem

http://spiritofcontradiction.eu/guest-author/2013/12/19/socialist-party-resignation-statement

C. Flower
19-12-2013, 06:14 PM
Same resignations but lengthy post-mortem

http://spiritofcontradiction.eu/guest-author/2013/12/19/socialist-party-resignation-statement

Good: a lot of valid criticism and analysis, and offering useful insights to those outside the SP on the issues being debated (or at least thought about) by SP members. It is clear that the extraordinary wayward and opportunistic path being followed by the SP leadership was not what all of the members wanted.

The groups says it opposes Trotskyism, but I'm not sure that any of the things it criticises were espoused by Trotsky as opposed to any other Marxist. It is unclear where the members of the group will themselves go politically.

But it is a good start in a debate that I hope will prove a constructive one.

C. Flower
19-12-2013, 06:16 PM
You may well disagree that my programme is insufficient or wrong to greater or lesser degrees but it is simply not true that "it doesn't come out of an analysis of the situation". My contribution to the discussion on developing a programme is premised on the more general political analysis available on the IBT web site as despite no longer being a member I still consider their analysis and related political method to be the best available.

In terms of general approach I think I am in the right ball-park based on that IBT international analysis however I accept that my programme is weak in detail regarding Ireland as it is premised on a relatively short time living here and the problems that being an individual rather than part of a collaborative organisation impart of doing the level of analysis requried.

But what do you propose in terms of overcoming that problem rather than simply pointing it out?

I actively seek out all opportunities to engage in broader political discussions (the Left Forum, various study/reading groups in Cork etc). I present the general programmatic framework I think is required and seek collaborators on that basis.

It is only by comparing programmes that sensible decisions about making the commitment to engaging in collaborative research and analysis can be made. So I engage in programmatic critique on the left and invite critical engagement with my contributions in return in an attempt to find such collaborators.

What else do you suggest I should do?

And do you consider yourself a potential collaborator or does my programmatic framework as outlined on my blog seem so off-beam as to indicate that would be a waste of time.

Apologies for the delay, Bolshevik. I would like to discuss this but an SP thread doesn't seem the place for it. Would you mind if I moved the posts to the thread on your work on programmme (I'm pretty sure there is one) and reply there ?

bolshevik
20-12-2013, 12:10 AM
That makes sense.

Will also have some comment on this statement by the ex-SPers shortly.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

Sam Lord
20-12-2013, 06:07 AM
As the SP is divided into two regions across Ireland, these structures are replicated at regional level too.


What are the two regions?

Ceannaire
20-12-2013, 09:37 AM
What are the two regions?

North and South, I presume?

bolshevik
20-12-2013, 08:02 PM
Same resignations but lengthy post-mortem

http://spiritofcontradiction.eu/guest-author/2013/12/19/socialist-party-resignation-statement

My response (http://revolutionaryprogramme.wordpress.com/2013/12/20/response-to-the-socialist-party-resignation-statement/)

Earlier this week 6 recently resigned members of the Socialist Party published a statement providing their common assessment of the problems with the SP that led to their resignations.

It is available at http://spiritofcontradiction.eu/guest-author/2013/12/19/socialist-party-resignation-statement and http://www.irishleftreview.org/2013/12/19/socialist-party-resignation-statement/

These kinds of statement are useful as they are an opportunity to assess what lessons have been learned by resignees and what political direction they are heading in. A document by a group of revolutionaries leaving the SP/CWI would start with an analysis of the genuine method of the Transitional Programme and how far it departs from the alternative minimum-maximum programme put forward by the SP/CWI and would move onto a detailed critique of the reformism in practice that results from this.

Unfortunately the bulk of the document is instead spent outlining details of the bureaucratic practices of the SP. As a result it is of some limited interest; however as a rounded political critique of the SP/CWI it is very weak.

The purpose of this particular document is described as:


“After our recent resignations it became clear to us that whilst differing on some issues there were some core reasons behind all our resignations. We hope that this document can be a contribution to the debates currently taking place around what kind of mass Party is needed to rebuild the workers’ movement and play a crucial role in overthrowing Capitalism. While not claiming to have the answer to this question we feel it is important for us to offer our criticisms not just of the Socialist Party or the Committee for a Workers International but Trotskyism as an ideology.”

Though the writers go on to explain that:


“…for the purposes of this statement we will discuss mainly Trotskyism as practised by the dominant Trotskyist parties in contemporary polity and especially the version of Trotskyism dominant in the Irish and British left; that is the Committee for a Workers’ International, the Internatonal Socialists and the Workers’ Revolutionary Party. These parties and international groupings share tendencies discussed below that we believe point to serious issues with the ideology of contemporary British and Irish Trotskyism itself.”

Indeed their discussion of “Trotskyism” is completely limited to “contemporary British and Irish Trotskyism” and almost exclusively the SP/CWI. A real critical analysis of “Trotskyism as an ideology” would have to encompass far more than that and would presumably include at least some reference to the political perspectives actually outlined by Trotsky himself.

The reader is rightly left disgusted by the details of the SP’s bureaucratic internal practice the writers outline but we are left wondering what exactly is being suggested as an alternative.

On the SP’s main project In Ireland for the next 6 months or so (the 2014 council and European elections) the writers appear to be in basic agreement with the SP’s approach:


“Whilst being in favour of standing anti-austerity candidates, we feel that in some areas where CAPTA/AAA is standing, the number of candidates being run and the balance between SP and independent candidates raises serious question marks over the genuine nature of these campaigns.”

The implication being that the writers favour presenting a similar sub-reformist platform to CAPTA/AAA as the supposed “real alternative” to the policies of austerity – just with more democracy and a different balance of SP and independent candidates.

They would also like to see a more organised intervention into the trade union movement and the ending of setting up front groups, like ROSA, to intervene in wider campaign movements.

A more democratic internal culture for the SP would perhaps open up the possibility of the development of a revolutionary current against the prevailing reformist practice of the current leadership. But by limiting their critique of the SP to organisational issues alone the writers give no indication they are interested in developing such a revolutionary alternative.

Indeed what seems to be the direction of political development of the writers (towards liberal Menshevism) comes to the fore in a couple of places where they give hints of their ideas on what might replace the SP’s bureaucratically bastardised version of “democratic centralism”.


“The structure of the Bolshevik Party in the lead-up to the October Revolution revolved around a dynamic internal atmosphere that prided itself on debate through the publications of the Party and at its meetings, at all times public.”



“Furthermore, the belief that the Party’s small organisation is potentially the nucleus of a revolutionary Party and that every strategy or tactic implemented is in the best interests of the workers movement as a whole is flawed, in particular if those decisions are taken without the participation of working class people outside the SP.”

The implication would seem to be that the debates and decisions of the alternative “revolutionary” party the writers would like to see created (or the SP transformed into) will all be open to the wider working class in general.

They claim earlier in the document that they do not want to “diminish the importance of leadership within Socialist organisations” but any organisation, socialist or otherwise, that makes no distinction between members and non-members in its discussions and decision making processes is no leadership of any kind.

Such an approach also ends up denying the strategic differences in political perspectives across the reform to revolution spectrum that leads to the necessity of revolutionaries organising separately from the reformists and their centrist apologists.

The primary problem with the SP/CWI is not that it presents a distinct programme (generated via bureaucratic internal processes) to the working class.

The problem with the SP/CWI, for revolutionary Marxists at least, is the programmatic content of the reformist socialism they present to the working class.

A more democratic culture that improved the “quality” of the SP’s reformist message is of little use to anyone committed to the actual overthrow of capitalism.

A genuine revolutionary Marxist organisation will of course have an *internal* political culture that truly reflects the *democratic* basis of the organisational method known as “democratic centralism”. But that democratic internal culture must be seen as part of a wider internal political culture that places development, and constant refinement, of a revolutionary programme for the overthrow of capitalism at its heart.

It is the SP/CWI leadership’s opposition to that revolutionary programme that is the cause of their bureaucratism not the other way around.

C. Flower
20-12-2013, 08:14 PM
My response (http://revolutionaryprogramme.wordpress.com/2013/12/20/response-to-the-socialist-party-resignation-statement/)

Earlier this week 6 recently resigned members of the Socialist Party published a statement providing their common assessment of the problems with the SP that led to their resignations.

It is available at http://spiritofcontradiction.eu/guest-author/2013/12/19/socialist-party-resignation-statement and http://www.irishleftreview.org/2013/12/19/socialist-party-resignation-statement/

These kinds of statement are useful as they are an opportunity to assess what lessons have been learned by resignees and what political direction they are heading in. A document by a group of revolutionaries leaving the SP/CWI would start with an analysis of the genuine method of the Transitional Programme and how far it departs from the alternative minimum-maximum programme put forward by the SP/CWI and would move onto a detailed critique of the reformism in practice that results from this.

Unfortunately the bulk of the document is instead spent outlining details of the bureaucratic practices of the SP. As a result it is of some limited interest; however as a rounded political critique of the SP/CWI it is very weak.

The purpose of this particular document is described as:
“After our recent resignations it became clear to us that whilst differing on some issues there were some core reasons behind all our resignations. We hope that this document can be a contribution to the debates currently taking place around what kind of mass Party is needed to rebuild the workers’ movement and play a crucial role in overthrowing Capitalism. While not claiming to have the answer to this question we feel it is important for us to offer our criticisms not just of the Socialist Party or the Committee for a Workers International but Trotskyism as an ideology.”

Though the writers go on to explain that:
“…for the purposes of this statement we will discuss mainly Trotskyism as practised by the dominant Trotskyist parties in contemporary polity and especially the version of Trotskyism dominant in the Irish and British left; that is the Committee for a Workers’ International, the Internatonal Socialists and the Workers’ Revolutionary Party. These parties and international groupings share tendencies discussed below that we believe point to serious issues with the ideology of contemporary British and Irish Trotskyism itself.”

Indeed their discussion of “Trotskyism” is completely limited to “contemporary British and Irish Trotskyism” and almost exclusively the SP/CWI. A real critical analysis of “Trotskyism as an ideology” would have to encompass far more than that and would presumably include at least some reference to the political perspectives actually outlined by Trotsky himself.

The reader is rightly left disgusted by the details of the SP’s bureaucratic internal practice the writers outline but we are left wondering what exactly is being suggested as an alternative.

On the SP’s main project In Ireland for the next 6 months or so (the 2014 council and European elections) the writers appear to be in basic agreement with the SP’s approach:
“Whilst being in favour of standing anti-austerity candidates, we feel that in some areas where CAPTA/AAA is standing, the number of candidates being run and the balance between SP and independent candidates raises serious question marks over the genuine nature of these campaigns.”

The implication being that the writers favour presenting a similar sub-reformist platform to CAPTA/AAA as the supposed “real alternative” to the policies of austerity – just with more democracy and a different balance of SP and independent candidates.

They would also like to see a more organised intervention into the trade union movement and the ending of setting up front groups, like ROSA, to intervene in wider campaign movements.

A more democratic internal culture for the SP would perhaps open up the possibility of the development of a revolutionary current against the prevailing reformist practice of the current leadership. But by limiting their critique of the SP to organisational issues alone the writers give no indication they are interested in developing such a revolutionary alternative.

Indeed what seems to be the direction of political development of the writers (towards liberal Menshevism) comes to the fore in a couple of places where they give hints of their ideas on what might replace the SP’s bureaucratically bastardised version of “democratic centralism”.
“The structure of the Bolshevik Party in the lead-up to the October Revolution revolved around a dynamic internal atmosphere that prided itself on debate through the publications of the Party and at its meetings, at all times public.”



“Furthermore, the belief that the Party’s small organisation is potentially the nucleus of a revolutionary Party and that every strategy or tactic implemented is in the best interests of the workers movement as a whole is flawed, in particular if those decisions are taken without the participation of working class people outside the SP.”

The implication would seem to be that the debates and decisions of the alternative “revolutionary” party the writers would like to see created (or the SP transformed into) will all be open to the wider working class in general.

They claim earlier in the document that they do not want to “diminish the importance of leadership within Socialist organisations” but any organisation, socialist or otherwise, that makes no distinction between members and non-members in its discussions and decision making processes is no leadership of any kind.

Such an approach also ends up denying the strategic differences in political perspectives across the reform to revolution spectrum that leads to the necessity of revolutionaries organising separately from the reformists and their centrist apologists.

The primary problem with the SP/CWI is not that it presents a distinct programme (generated via bureaucratic internal processes) to the working class.

The problem with the SP/CWI, for revolutionary Marxists at least, is the programmatic content of the reformist socialism they present to the working class.

A more democratic culture that improved the “quality” of the SP’s reformist message is of little use to anyone committed to the actual overthrow of capitalism.

A genuine revolutionary Marxist organisation will of course have an *internal* political culture that truly reflects the *democratic* basis of the organisational method known as “democratic centralism”. But that democratic internal culture must be seen as part of a wider internal political culture that places development, and constant refinement, of a revolutionary programme for the overthrow of capitalism at its heart.

It is the SP/CWI leadership’s opposition to that revolutionary programme that is the cause of their bureaucratism not the other way around.

I read something recently that quoted Connolly saying that fighting spirit, class consciousness, was more important than ideological correctness.

It is certainly part of the equation. Programme, party organisation, development of scientific analytical methodology, practical involvement in the day to day issues affecting the lives of the mass of people and fighting spirit and class consciousness, are all important. Any one without the others will not go far.

The SP is long devoted to building its own position and is not focused on wider perspectives of social revolution.

Glen Clifford
06-06-2014, 10:03 PM
Linked is a response to the resignation statement above by a member of the Socialist Party which refutes much of the distortions about the party's democratic culture:

http://perosocialist.wordpress.com/

C. Flower
06-06-2014, 11:52 PM
Linked is a response to the resignation statement above by a member of the Socialist Party which refutes much of the distortions about the party's democratic culture:

http://perosocialist.wordpress.com/


Thanks for posting that. I will certainly comment on it as soon as I have time to digest it, and to re-read the resignation statement.