Audio: Debate on Labour at CS conference
At the 2011 conference of Communist Students a debate was held on the attitude of communists to the Labour Party. This was in response to criticism of the CS executive’s decision to affiliate to the LRC, which led to a lot of discussion online- see below for the articles which started the debate.
James Turley argued that while Labour has always been a party of the union bureaucracy, it could be transformed into a united front of all working class organisations. But Chris Strafford thought we did not have the forces to make engaging with Labour worthwhile, and that the idea of a united front was illusory.
1. James Turley opens the debate
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
2. Chris Strafford speaks
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
3. Chris Strafford responds to points from the floor
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
4. James Turley responds to points from the floor
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
Background articles
Opposition Statement to LRC Affiliation: ‘No Support for Labour – No Support for the LRC’
Statement by CS members which started the debate
Against the politics of purity
James Turley takes issue with comrades who oppose our affiliation to the LRC
Getting our priorities right – a statement on the LRC affiliation debate
Another statement by a different group of CS members
Labour dead end and our strategy
Chris Strafford takes issue with the CPGB’s aim of transforming the Labour Party
Intervention, not incoherent abstention
James Turley responds to more criticisms