United Left Alliance at a Crossroads - Socialist Party statement

[Seán Ryan]

It's not my intention to wade into an ongoing debate and change its focus. But I'm curious. I'm more than curious, if the truth be told. I'm outraged and have been so for as long as I can remember. I've known Joe Higgins for years and have known Richard Boyd Barrett for quite some time too. I like both gentlemen and am on friendly terms with both. Both have been very cooperative with regard to participating in interviews and have been helpful in various campaigns where I've sought assistance. I'm still angry and I'm confident that this anger is not rooted in some personality clash.

As I said, it's not my intention to wade into an argument on the nuances of some political theory. That'd be dishonest in the extreme as my disagreement with the theory itself would endure whatever the results of such a debate. Both the SWP and the SP speak of the "revolution" and the need for the "revolution." Yet, both parties capitulate and seek election to the Dáil, to become that which inspires the need for a revolution in the first instance. Even if, by some unfathomable miracle, both the SWP and the SP ascended to the throne of rule, they'd still prefer to chew the fat of theory than spend energy in acting. Multiply that by infinity when you add the theories of the other constituents of the ULA.

Aside from historical forensics, aside from rhetoric, someone, anyone, please define what is meant by "revolution" in terms that illustrate a plan for Ireland.

[Sam Lord]

Some of our former Stalinists have jumped more then one ship and set them on auto destruct before they went. :

The Workers Party, to my knowledge, developed links with the Soviet Union and parties which supported it about two decades after the 20th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union which denounced Stalin and embarked on the road of restoring capitalism in the Soviet Union. I would be astonished if you could find a single thing in any Workers Party literature defending Stalin or the Soviet Union of his time. Yet you refer to them as "Stalinists". It is typical example of how the word has just become a general term of anti-communist abuse.

[Greengoddess]

The Workers Party, to my knowledge, developed links with the Soviet Union and parties which supported it about two decades after the 20th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union which denounced Stalin and embarked on the road of restoring capitalism in the Soviet Union. I would be astonished if you could find a single thing in any Workers Party literature defending Stalin or the Soviet Union of his time. Yet you refer to them as "Stalinists". It is typical example of how the word has just become a general term of anti-communist abuse.

I use the word Stalinists as a metaphor of a kind. There is a book called the Lost Revolution. You will find an photo of various people on the steps of the Soviet embassy.......

[Sam Lord]

There is a book called the Lost Revolution. You will find an photo of various people on the steps of the Soviet embassy.......

Did you actually read my post to which you responded with the above?

[Greengoddess]

Did you actually read my post to which you responded with the above?

Sam, I don't feel comfortable talking about this anymore. For all sorts of reasons.

[C. Flower]

Sorry CF but I became bored of the constant bickering over non-relevant theories back in the early 1980s.

I also noticed, from my time hanging around with the Democratic Socialists, that the nuisances were sociology lecturers.

Pol Pot had that part right.

Pol Pot has his own dubious theoretical base, picked up in the universities of Paris that spawned him.

Everyone does have a philosophical outlook. It is only non-mainstream that need to discuss it much, because the mainstream share the same establishment groupthink.

[C. Flower]

It's not my intention to wade into an ongoing debate and change its focus. But I'm curious. I'm more than curious, if the truth be told. I'm outraged and have been so for as long as I can remember. I've known Joe Higgins for years and have known Richard Boyd Barrett for quite some time too. I like both gentlemen and am on friendly terms with both. Both have been very cooperative with regard to participating in interviews and have been helpful in various campaigns where I've sought assistance. I'm still angry and I'm confident that this anger is not rooted in some personality clash.

As I said, it's not my intention to wade into an argument on the nuances of some political theory. That'd be dishonest in the extreme as my disagreement with the theory itself would endure whatever the results of such a debate. Both the SWP and the SP speak of the "revolution" and the need for the "revolution." Yet, both parties capitulate and seek election to the Dáil, to become that which inspires the need for a revolution in the first instance. Even if, by some unfathomable miracle, both the SWP and the SP ascended to the throne of rule, they'd still prefer to chew the fat of theory than spend energy in acting. Multiply that by infinity when you add the theories of the other constituents of the ULA.

Aside from historical forensics, aside from rhetoric, someone, anyone, please define what is meant by "revolution" in terms that illustrate a plan for Ireland.

A post worthy of its own thread, as it might get lost on this one.

But I don't think the SP and SWP suffer from a surfeit of theory. On the contrary, they seem to have little interest in it. In terms of the ULA, the SP and SWP cancelled the ULA Summer School, which could have debated the issue you raise about parliamentarianism, and continue to advise ULA members to stick to activism on the household charge campaign.

Joined up theory and practice, thinking and action, with people learning from what they do, and doing something they have properly thought through, is a good approach.

[C. Flower]

I've split off a number of posts that contain a discussion on the crushing of the Left Opposition in the Soviet Union in the 20s and 30s - they can be found in this new thread -

http://www.politicalworld.org/showth...495#post283495

Just reminding that this thread is for discussion of the Socialist Party's statement on the ULA.

[Sam Lord]

I've split off a number of posts that contain a discussion on the crushing of the Left Opposition in the Soviet Union in the 20s and 30s - they can be found in this new thread -

http://www.politicalworld.org/showth...495#post283495

Just reminding that this thread is for discussion of the Socialist Party's statement on the ULA.

Well, I appreciate you would like us left with the pejorative "crushing of the Left Opposition" but I should really clarify.

This is how the "crushing" took place ... in a general Party discussion:

In October 1927, that is, two months before the Fifteenth Congress, the Central Committee of the Party announced a general Party discussion, and the fight began. Its result was truly lamentable for the bloc of Trotskyites and Zinovievites: 724,000 Party members voted for the policy of the Central Committee; 4,000, or less than one per cent, for the bloc of Trotskyites and Zinovievites. The anti-Party bloc was completely routed. The overwhelming majority of the Party members were unanimous in rejecting the platform of the bloc.

Such was the clearly expressed will of the Party, for whose judgment the oppositionists themselves had appealed.

But even this lesson was lost on the supporters of the bloc. Instead of submitting to the will of the Party they decided to frustrate it. Even before the discussion had closed, perceiving that ignominious failure awaited them, they decided to resort to more acute forms of struggle against the Party and the Soviet Government and to stage an open demonstration of protest in Moscow and Leningrad. The day they chose for their demonstration was November 7, the anniversary of the October Revolution, the day on which the working people of the U.S.S.R. annually hold their countrywide revolutionary demonstration. Thus, the Trotskyites and Zinovievites planned to hold a parallel demonstration. As was to be expected, the supporters of the bloc managed to bring out into the streets only a miserable handful of their satellites. These satellites and their patrons were overwhelmed by the general demonstration and swept off the streets.

History of the CPSU (B)

http://www.marx2mao.com/Other/HCPSU39iii.html

[C. Flower]

Well, I appreciate you would like us left with the pejorative "crushing of the Left Opposition" but I should really clarify.

This is how the "crushing" took place ... in a general Party discussion:

Really, better on the other thread, if we are to have any hope of getting back to the ULA. The congress vote already comes up there as do the Moscow Trials.

[Sam Lord]

Really, better on the other thread, if we are to have any hope of getting back to the ULA. The congress vote already comes up there as do the Moscow Trials.

I'm happy to delet the post if you change "crushing of the left opposition" to "routing of the left opposition".

[Jolly Red Giant]

I'm happy to delet the post if you change "crushing of the left opposition" to "routing of the left opposition".

'Crushing' is correct and in a sea of blood. Thousands of members of the Left Opposition were killed in Stalin's gulags.

[Seán Ryan]

A post worthy of its own thread, as it might get lost on this one.

But I don't think the SP and SWP suffer from a surfeit of theory. On the contrary, they seem to have little interest in it. In terms of the ULA, the SP and SWP cancelled the ULA Summer School, which could have debated the issue you raise about parliamentarianism, and continue to advise ULA members to stick to activism on the household charge campaign.

Joined up theory and practice, thinking and action, with people learning from what they do, and doing something they have properly thought through, is a good approach.

I'm not so sure about the lack of theory. Neither party, the SP nor the SWP, have a lot to say on the matter publicly. But I'm positive there's lots of grease on those wheels internally. My real concern is that most of these theoretical structures are about recruitment and justification, and that it's all about building the party. It seems to me that "building the party" and "revolution" mean the same thing, when it comes to final analysis. If I'm correct...

I absolutely agree with your last paragraph. I'd go further. I'd say that it is the only approach. To do otherwise would be to attempt to produce a solution without having either analysed the problem or understood it. It would be to provide a solution to another problem, one that wasn't being examined in the first instance.

Btw - many congrats on the blog award. It's nice to see grit and determination stick its head above the parapets. Onwards and upwards! Salut.

[MediaBite]

I just want to 'like' both of Sean Ryan's posts above.

[fluffybiscuits]

A post worthy of its own thread, as it might get lost on this one.

But I don't think the SP and SWP suffer from a surfeit of theory. On the contrary, they seem to have little interest in it. In terms of the ULA, the SP and SWP cancelled the ULA Summer School, which could have debated the issue you raise about parliamentarianism, and continue to advise ULA members to stick to activism on the household charge campaign.

Joined up theory and practice, thinking and action, with people learning from what they do, and doing something they have properly thought through, is a good approach.

Can it be added you are a master of words Cass

There is a lot of theory and shouting and yelling from within party ranks that we should follow a certain line, shout enough and something will be done. That is where the buck stops with theory, action is taking to the streets, changing the way of thinking and looking to introduce or railroad legislation that is coming down the line. Is the idea here that there are too many people thinking and too many others intent on action without them working together? (Sorry if I am wrong but that is what I am reading from this post!)