United Left Alliance - Convention / Forum - Liberty Hall 25th June

[Sam Lord]

Members of the party who don't agree with that should be called on to jump ship and join a genuine socialist party. Some already have left and joined the ULA.

Leave new Labour to join old Labour.....

[bolshevik]

But you are happy to sign up to their reformist mass party.

The ULA is not a party yet - it is aa electoral pact in the early stages of transition to a party - the exact programme of which is still to be decided.

Given the politics of the main players and that it started life as a reformist electoral platform the most likely outcome is of course a reformist programme - but that is a question of political struggle and it would be sectarian to stand aside from the process in my opinion.

That no-one uses the phrase because it is discredited is just some concoction on your part. Do you actually think that there are some communists sitting around in Tunisia or somewhere else saying "We will have an alliance with the progressive bourgeoisie but we won't use that term because it is discredited." It is an absurdity. The problem is that you have some formualic positions that you have learned off by heart and try to impose them on the world irrespective of whether they actually corespond or not. Because someone says that socialism is not an immediate possibility in their country does not mean that they have a view that there is some "progressive bourgeoisie" that will solve some problem for the working people.

I accept the correction. My comment did imply some conscious decision not to use the term which would be, as you point out, just silly.

I no more have "formulaic positions" than you do - it is just the content of the programme and perspective that we put forward that is different.

Trotskyites are always so defeatist. They had hardly had the revolution in the Soviet Union when they were throwing their hands up in the air and declaring "Socialism in one country - Impossible. Bring in the bourgeoisie."

Nothing like a bit of re-writing of history to fill out the day - the politics of Trotsky were to defend the Soviet Union against capitalist restoration despite the bureaucratic degeneration - including the imprisonment and murder of many Trotskyists and other oppositionists.

The story is far from over in Tunisia or Egypt. There are many chapters yet to be written.

That is true - I just hope the politics of popular frontism only fill some footnotes.

And in any case what would you have people do? It is impossible for anyone to impose their ideas on the world just like that. Because socialism is the only thing that will solve the problems of the working class does not mean one can just wave a magic wand and impose it somewhere. I was watching a video last night of a group of communists making an appearance in Tahir square on May Day and being told by the people there that they did not want any of that godless stuff. Yet, CF would have me believe that Egypt is ripe for socialist revolution.

Who is saying "wave a magic wand"? If anyone it is you with your fantasy about a "democratic national revolution" that maintains capitalism but allows a "breathing space" for working people.

What is your point? That people should not have opposed apartheid? Get a grip ...

The question wasn't whether apratheid should have been opposed but on what programme that opposition should have taken place. My point is that what should have been opposed was capitalism as limiting the struggle to a "democratic revolution" against apartheid meant that nothing fundamental changed.

[antiestablishmentarian]

Why would anyone want to analysise the Labour Party? There is nothing there to act on. The only difference between it and FF or FG is that it has some ties with the trade unions. Big deal. It is certainly not based on the working class and would not see itself as such. FF has more of a working class base and has always had. Should we be trying to do something with FF because of this? And why anyone would describe Labour as "reformist" is beyond me. It is quite happily implementing the programme of the international capitalist class. No different from FG or FF. To suggest that Labour is somehow different only serves to create illusions.

+1

They grew prior to the election because they weren't FF and they weren't FG, and because of populist rhetoric on a number of issues ('we won't shut any hospitals', 'fairness', etc).

[Sam Lord]

Nothing like a bit of re-writing of history to fill out the day - the politics of Trotsky were to defend the Soviet Union against capitalist restoration ..

Far from it. The "impossibility of socialism" in one country was an oppositional theory put forward to undermine the revolution.

One really can't win with you trotskyites. You have a democratic revolution somewhere and this is leading the working class to slaughter because it is not a socialist revolution. You have a socialist revolution and this is terrible because you can't have socialism in one country and we need world revolution. If there is world revolution you will have some other excuse to oppose it ... I don't know what .. something about some other universe perhaps.

Who is saying "wave a magic wand"? If anyone it is you with your fantasy about a "democratic national revolution" that maintains capitalism but allows a "breathing space" for working people.

Well the proof of the pudding will be in the eating.

And actually, the "breathing space' I referred to had nothing to do with the conditions of the working class...... it was to do with the communists having a period to work in in which they were not being constantly thrown into jail and tortured. It is very hard to organise when you are locked up somewhere and your body is shattered and your health destroyed.

The question wasn't whether apratheid should have been opposed but on what programme that opposition should have taken place. My point is that what should have been opposed was capitalism as limiting the struggle to a "democratic revolution" against apartheid meant that nothing fundamental changed.

If apartheid had been opposed on the basis that they should have socialism instead we would still have apartheid. Personally I am glad it is gone even if the conditions of the massses in South Africa have not dramatically improved.

[scrawledincrayon]

Far from it. The "impossibility of socialism" in one country was an oppositional theory put forward to undermine the revolution.

I can never decide if this sort of thing is genuine paranoia or cynical dishonesty. The mind of a Stalinist is a dark and confusing sewer.

[Sam Lord]

I can never decide if this sort of thing is genuine paranoia or cynical dishonesty. The mind of a Stalinist is a dark and confusing sewer.

[C. Flower]

Far from it. The "impossibility of socialism" in one country was an oppositional theory put forward to undermine the revolution.

Stalin wrote as much himself, in 1917. It was Bukharin mainly who put theory of socialism in one country forward. I'm not aware of Stalin being a proponent of the theory himself.

I can't understand how socialism, that objectively must depend on the most advanced technology and social development, could possibly have been fully developed in a backward and isolated mainly peasant state, surrounded by hostile, more advanced, enemies who kept attacking it. It was imo a workers' state, in terms of ownership of the means of production, in a process of transition towards socialism. There were always shortages and thus a role for bureaucrats, in managing inequalities and imbalances.

One really can't win with you trotskyites. You have a democratic revolution somewhere and this is leading the working class to slaughter because it is not a socialist revolution. You have a socialist revolution and this is terrible because you can't have socialism in one country and we need world revolution. If there is world revolution you will have some other excuse to oppose it ... I don't know what .. something about some other universe perhaps.

The most toxic and wrong headed variety of thinking on this is the kind which welcomes set backs for the working class on the grounds that that they will force workers to become militant. This flies in the face of history and reality and puts the idea out there that defeats are a good thing for revolutionary politics. On the contrary, victories, and pushing forward to build on and extend those victories, is what mobilises people.

Nobody who calls themselves Trotskyist, of any variety, opposes socialist revolutions. What are you thinking of ?

What do you mean by a "democratic revolution" ? I'm not sure that reinstatement of democracy after a putsch counts as a social revolution, although of course its a thoroughly good thing. When did we last see a successful democratic revolution ? In the event of one, do you think it would be wrong for the working class to push forward to take power?

And actually, the "breathing space' I referred to had nothing to do with the conditions of the working class...... it was to do with the communists having a period to work in in which they were not being constantly thrown into jail and tortured. It is very hard to organise when you are locked up somewhere and your body is shattered and your health destroyed.

Go and tell that to Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxembourg.

If apartheid had been opposed on the basis that they should have socialism instead we would still have apartheid. Personally I am glad it is gone even if the conditions of the massses in South Africa have not dramatically improved.

Letting the control of the economy stay in the hands of the right was a very peculiar decision. Do you have any idea what the political thinking behind that was ?

[C. Flower]

The SWP does not want socialism mentioned at all in the ULA and supporters of the SP have written clearly on this board that the ULA is being extablished as a "reformist" party because the consciousness of the workers is not ready for socialism. And this in an advanced capitalist country with a highly developed working class.

You are happy to support this but want to criticise the communists in an underdeveloped Islamic country where there is a small working class because they say that socialist revolution is not an immediate possibility.

You are the only one who writes about a "progressive bourgeoisie." I have not seen anything written by the Tunisians that indicates that they have any belief in a "progressive bourgeoisie". They do have to take into account, however, the social composition of their society ... the large peasantry, the middle strata, etc.

I think a democratic revolution would be great in Tunisia. The commmunists have spent decades being thrown in jail and tortured. A little breathing space for them to be actually able to organise would be a good thing.

I'm not following Tunisia as closely as in Egypt. In Egypt, there is no question of breathing space. The Military Regime is still there, people either accept it, or they push on. A good few of them seem to want to push on.

http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?...4&jumival=7048

[C. Flower]

Another report on the Convention, from the Socialist Democracy website.

http://www.socialistdemocracy.org/Re...ionReport.html

[C. Flower]

Just cross these links to videos of the latter half of the Forum, posted by We Only Want the Earth on the ULA blogging network thread.

http://weonlywanttheearth.blogspot.c...um-part-2.html

Speeches From The ULA Forum (Part 2)
The recent United Left Alliance forum in Liberty Hall (25/6/2011) was the first real opportunity for the different factions within it to debate a possible future programme that the ULA should adopt. Following on from my previous post containing videos of the first plenary session, below are the main speeches from the debate from the floor on the first plenary session "The left response to the crisis" and the speeches from the second plenary session of the day from Seamus Healy, Declan Bree, Richard Boyd Barrett and Joe Higgins.

Debate from the floor (1st plenary session)
Seamus Healy TD
Cllr Declan Bree
Richard Boyd Barrett TD
Joe Higgins TD