Portsmouth 10th May TUSC meeting
On the 10th of May TUSC held a post-election meeting in Portsmouth to look at how the organisation should move forward. In the end there were about 20 comrades in attendance including Mick Tosh and Tim Cutter (the candidates for Portsmouth North and Southampton Itchen who received 154 and 168 votes respectively)
Discussion was mainly focused on winning unions like the PCS and FBU over to the TUSC project and organising the working class in a broad coalition in order to fight against cuts. Comrade Cutter talked briefly on efforts to unite unions across Hampshire in order to conduct and effective fight back campaign.
Sadly, and unsurprisingly, discussion rarely went further than discussing the fight back and winning unionised workers from labour. In a sense this is understandable given the impact that the public sector cuts to come will have on the living standards of ordinary people, especially ideologically driven Tory cuts that will be targeted on the most vulnerable sections of the working class. Given the sorry situation of the left in Britain it is easy to get stuck on defensive, short term demands in an attempt to pose an alternative to the labour party and cushion the blows of the capitalist class in a time of economic crisis.
However what is required if the working class is to fight back effectively and go on to secure for itself real liberation and lasting gains for itself as a class, is a party for socialism. This is a necessity if students, workers, pensioners and the unemployed are going to have a coherent and coordinated struggle against the attacks of the capitalist class and go on to restructure society.
Despite TUSC receiving feeble votes on May 6th those that turned up, for now at least, seem like they want to give it another go. It was proposed by one comrade that the next candidate be elected soon in order to start winning support in the area right away. Also, it was discussed whether a candidate should be stood in the south of Portsmouth instead next time round (in the hope that people living down the road will be more sympathetic) although the meeting hoped that eventually they’d stand in both Portsmouth constituencies.
Despite the shortcomings of the organisation it is at least an attempt at uniting our class and one that many comrades are taking seriously. This is why it is the task of communists to take part in such an organisation even when it seems doomed to become at best a ‘mini-me’ of the labour party. It is vital to win over comrades to our politics and play as much of a part as we can in such attempts at left unity.
Hi Callum,
Good write up, I hope you can attend future TUSC meetings.
The only thing I’d disagree with is the idea that we weren’t talking about building a party for socialism.
Indeed as an SP member of the ‘TUSC Portsmouth’ coalition I can certainly testify that the call for a new mass worker’s party has always been our, openly stated, position. I see TUSC as being one more step towards such a party, with the European election in June being one of the first steps.
You could argue that the votes for both were small, but for understandable reasons, and I’d certainly say that those votes were not representative of the contacts made, the links forged and indeed the historic steps taken. Don’t forget the RMT became the first union to stand against the Labour party in the June election, that’s a historic step in itself.
Of course we need to keep a sense of perspective and recognise this is a transitional task. There is no doubt that TUSC, in its current form, represents a core group of socialist activists and what I’d call ‘the best’, i.e the most politically conscious elements, of the trade unions. It remains a coalition of such activists and is yet to establish a mass base of support, but that will come.
To build on these first steps we have to understand the position we are in, the forces around us, the steps that have been taken and the steps which still need to be taken before we can develop into a mass party. The key step has to be winning over the trade unions, and yes that does meaning winning them away from Labour. To build a mass party of the working class we have to orientate towards the working class and even though class consciousness and union activity remains historically low, the trade unions still represent large numbers of organised workers.
So, the task before us must be to build a fight back to the coming cuts by strengthening the links between workers and socialists and supporting trade unionists in struggle. Really this is only a continuation of our work throughout the last year. As more and more workers go into struggle, as we’ve seen at Lindsey, Vestas, Linimar, the BA workers, and the postal dispute, the question of a new party will be posed time and time again. The question will be raised, ‘when the cuts came, who supported us?’
The labour-affiliated union membership will continue to recognise that by supporting the Labour party they are supporting a party of the bosses and the call to disaffiliate will continue to gain strength. It’s a historical truth that when workers experience union militancy it is a small transitional step for them to start looking for, and building, political representation.
A new party will only be built from bringing these unions together, and as socialists it will be our task to call for a Marxist programme to take that party forward to fight for Socialism. This is the lesson taken from the formation of the Labour party at the start of the last century. We will not become a ‘mini-me’ of the Labour party, rather we will cast it aside and replace it as the true party of the working class. Run by, and for, the working class.
Obviously I’m simplifying a little, due to time, but what I am saying is that building a fight back to the cuts and supporting workers in struggle isn’t a separate issue to the need for a new party – it is the steps towards building such a party and a step towards socialism.
I believe the task before us is a historic one and I hope you are involved, fighting for your ideas and your programme alongside us.
Fraternally,
Ben
Ben Norman
TUSC Portsmouth
Socialist Party Portsmouth
Ben,
Thanks for this. A few points:
1. Why do you think the “historic” tasks of Marxists is to act as “the midwives of history” for another formation not programmatically delimited between reform and revolution? The history of the last 13 years is littered with the corpses of such ‘halfway house’ formations that were unable to offer anything qualitatively different to Labour: SLP, SA, Respect, CNWP etc.
Is there any analogy you can draw between what you are doing and, say, what Marx and Engels, or Lenin and Kautsky/Bebel, did in fighting for a political party of the working class? When did they say it was necessary, at least for a time, to “not fight for a party of socialism?” but to set up a reformist haven which could be gently prodded in the direction of Marxism?
2. You partly relate to this, saying that “as Marxists it will be our task to call for it to have a Marxist programme”. Indeed. But why not do that NOW? Were the SP to take the daring step of calling for political unity around revolutionary politics (not the left labourite perspectives of Tusc) then this would be a huge step forward. With open democratic channels, lively political discussions in branch meetings and a lively, open press, instead of bureaucratic trade union vetos we could really start to make a start at attempting to cohere the far left and push it into a partyist direction. You might reply ‘ah yes, but there are other people on board other than the SP’ – but this simply belies the fact that the SP is at the centre of this project and more than holds the reigns of it.
3. On the unions. This perspective is a worrying one. Trade union tops like Woodley, Crow, Simpson et al, are only going to be interested in a Marxist formation that by its ver definition stands for:
-the self-liberation and rule of the working class
-demands that all trade union and parliamentary representatives take a workers’ wage
-proposes class political unity as opposed to sectional narrowness
We need to win over the membership of the unions. Yes. And we also need to win over the mass of society. Those like Crow can be useful allies in this struggle, and we should seek to win comrades to our vision of socialism and democracy. But allowing ‘trade union vetos’ on the Tusc Steering Committee is simply to give political carte blanche to the bureaucracy and to turn any political alternative into a ‘safe pair of hands’ for these people, which will naturally come at the cost of revolutionary politics. (And has already, in the exclusion of Workers Power and CPGB).
This, in essence, was and always has been the project of the Labour party and Labourism. In other words it was Party – unlike, with all their problems, the communist parties founded around the Comintern etc – born out of the bowels of the trade union bureaucracy.
Why look to repeat such a failed experiment now? Indeed, Crow himself has been an extremely half-hearted supporter of Tusc, and given that a left shift in Labour is certainly on the cards, trade union leaders are likely to be even more reticent to switch over to some LP mk II project than they have been in the 13 years of a viciously anti-working class Labour government.
4. It is all well and good arguing for those who are to your left like Callum to fight for their ideas alongside you, but how does this fit with the policy to exclude those like the CPGB or Workers Power? Do you not think that these groups’ ‘lack of social weight’ as a premise for these exclusions is somewhat farcical given:
a – Tusc’s vote share and number of candidates is well down on even the Socialist Alliance, when most of the left was able to unite around (admittedly poor) politics?
b – The fact that one of the supporting groups behind the Tusc election projection was that oh so socially bulky formation that goes by the name of the Lanarkshire Socialist Alliance?
Communist greetings
Ben, CPGB and CS Exec
Hi Ben,
I think you raise some good points, there’re certainly some questions there that I think quite a few on the left will be asking, so I’ll do my best to answer them with my own thoughts. (Of course, as we’re a coalition I can’t promise these are the thoughts of all TUSC supporters.)
1.. You are right, the last 13 years has been more then problematic for socialists to say the least. The nineties and early 2000’s were grim. The labour movement struggled to organise following the union defeat of 1984 and the disorientation and defeat of 1989, while the New Labour abolition of clause 4 only added to this. While comrades in all left parties bravely battled to ‘hold the line’, socialism was widely seen to be ‘off the agenda’ as we entered a period of historically low class consciousness, where many big flashpoints of protest were seen as ‘anti-capitalist’ rather than pro-socialist. Projects born during this period always had to battle those objective facts, and they clearly struggled.
The SLP became a top down pet project of Scargill and the SA broke up due to sectarian interests. With Respect I think many saw another opportunity for left unity, but it was built on the poor foundations of the anti-war movement. Sure, in 2003 it looked like it had a strong base, but as the antiwar movement inevitably began to ebb Respect declined into communalism, and became further discredited by the antics of Galloway and the inevitable split with the SWP. The fact it had to be financed by a wealthy benefactor shows it wasn’t exactly a worker’s party.
TUSC differs from all these because this historical period is different, or it is at least changing, and it orientates to the working class in a way Respect never did. TUSC, or the new party I am advocating, will be no halfway house. We are emulating the LRC in 1900, building a party firmly rooted in the organisations of the working class and born out of struggle, with the lessons of the past firmly kept in mind.
There is an analogy between the historic call for a new worker’s party. Indeed Frederick Engels had been advocating the creation of a Labour party in England since 1881, while Trotsky’s call for an American Labour party also mirrors this struggle. Perhaps just as importantly we are seeing the beginnings of new parties forming across the world, Germany, Brazil and Greece would be the examples I’d give. (Although none are perfect.) Of course I’m not advocating a political party which isn’t a ‘party for socialism’, as I’ve said any mass worker’s party needs to have a strong Marxist programme at it’s very core, and that programme needs to be debated, challenged and fought for within the party. They’ll be no ‘gentle prodding’ in this party, but it must acknowledge where political consciousness is at the moment.
2. The “why not have a Marxist programme now” debate may well be a window to a wider difference between our views. As a note I’d say that yes, the SP is a key player in this coalition, but it isn’t a front. I think it’s going too far to say we ‘hold the reigns.’
Class, and political consciousness, isn’t like flicking a light switch. While events can hurry things along, often at quite a rapid pace as we’re seeing in Greece, we have to acknowledge that it must be gradually built. This of course is Trotsky’s transitional programme. If this wasn’t true then both our organisations would be mass organisations themselves and there would be no need to go through the ‘stage’ of having such a party on the lines I am suggesting.
Again I’m simplifying, but even the Bolsheviks had to start with the transitional slogan of ‘bread, peace and land’ before getting to ‘all power to the Soviets.’ If you like the Anti-cuts message is our line in the sand, it’s where we are drawing the class distinction, it’s our ‘bread, peace and land.’
As I said before, this is another reason why the Unions are so fundamental; it is a short transitional step from workers looking to militant representation within their work place, to looking for political representation (or indeed direct participation.) We’ve seen that time and time again.
I think the TUSC programme was pretty good, insofar as it put down clear socialist policies in an open and engaging way. People on the street who read it were able to engage with it, when they may never have even heard of socialism, never mind revolutionary socialism, while it remained relevant for trade unionists and experienced socialist activists. Ultimately the point of it was to put a marker down for socialism, to draw a clear line between us and every party of the bosses. Who else called for a repeal of the anti-trade union laws, renationalisation of the railway and no to cuts in public services? It was a good foundation to build something upon and the fact it had a clear ‘socialist clause’ was quite a victory for our comrades I feel.
Of course it was criticised for not being ‘Marxist enough’, for ‘not being a full programme’ and I think the AWL said it ignored immigration, but I think those criticisms rather miss the point of the document.
So we need to be serious in our method, but very open in our politics. We, that is the SP in Portsmouth, have made no secret in what we’re calling for and the TUSC meetings have been quite lively, with debates on UAF/BNP, and our collective stance on other issues. Indeed Callum may remember we spent a fair amount of the meeting he came to debating our perspectives of the Labour party following this election, and also the UNISON elections.
3. The Unions.
I think there is clear difference between the Union rank and file membership, who we are orientating towards, and the bureaucracy at the top. I don’t imagine Woodley and Simpson will be joining a new worker’s party any time soon!
As you say, those type of leaders aren’t going to back the three points you’ve mentioned, but their membership will and as you, I think correctly say, it’s the membership we’re looking to win over, as well as wider sections of the class who aren’t unionised.
As I’ve said I think the foundation for a new worker’s party will be built by unions disaffiliating from Labour and coming together. So on any steering committee the trade unions will have to have a say, they after all represent the majority of organised workers.
It is my belief that we are entering a period of industrial struggle. True, we are not Greece, but It is highly likely that the Union membership will increasingly seek to fight the cuts and it is likely that the Labour led bureaucracy will try to stifle this and keep a lid on militancy. While again, it won’t happen overnight, I think the leadership will be ignored and over turned, and the Unions can rebuild to be the democratic fighting organisations they should be. It’s the task of socialists within the unions to campaign for this. With the bureaucracy cast aside there isn’t an issue of dealing with them at the table of a new worker’s party steering committee. We’d be dealing with an elected, accountable leadership, or perhaps we’d be dealing with branches at a local level.
We certainly have no intention of being ‘born out of the bowels of the bureaucracy.’ Again, the fight for having democratic, fighting unions and the fight for a new worker’s party are one in the same.
I don’t believe the Labour party is likely to move towards the left. It’s likely that they may start to use a bit of fighting language to give themselves left cover, but workers in struggle know that words are not deeds and I’m not expecting to see Milliband on a picket line anytime soon.
Indeed the union leadership will be very reticent to leave Labour, but events will either force their hand or leave them trampled underfoot.
4) I don’t believe TUSC has an active policy of blocking the CBGB , Worker’s Power or any other group for that matter (the AWL said we’d also excluded them.) In Portsmouth we are yet to turn anyone away, in fact we’ve had a former communist party member come and debate his position, and we’ve also had a member of Socialist resistance be active within the campaign. I’m certain that if there was any other active socialist groups within the city we’d welcome them as well. So yes, while currently the coalition here is led by SP, RMT and SWP members we’re certainly not a closed door. (Of course you can say “Yes, but that isn’t the national approach”, and to that I can only say each campaign is being run on a local level so I can only answer for Portsmouth. So I’d say that if Callum wants to be involved he is of course more than welcome. )
Regarding the ‘social weight’ arguments you put forward I’d say it’s very hard to compare the Socialist Alliance election with this one. The vote was certainly more squeezed in this election through fear of the conservatives, who weren’t a real electoral threat in 2001, and overall the objective situation is quite different.
I don’t know who the ‘Lanarkshire Socialist Alliance’ is, but I’d imagine they joined as there was a level of political agreement with their local TUSC campaign. (Again, there is a difference between local branches acting together and national agreement between left parties.)
So yes, I’m confident that if built correctly we are on the road to creating a mass worker’s party, with a Marxist programme at its core. It will not be straightforward and it’ll invariably be politically frustrating, but it’ll happen. Quite simply, it has to.
I look forward to reading your thoughts,
Fraternally,
Ben
Ben,
Thanks for this.
1.
I agree with your general assessment of the 90s and 00s – it is quite clear that we are living in a period of general reaction following the historic defeats our class went through in the twentieth century – the crippling of the Russian Revolution, fascism and the so-called ‘workers’ state’ of the USSR to name but three. I would also add that this has to be seen in the context of a period where the social democratic consensus has been undone and Stalinism has gone through crisis: both have been revealed to be dead-ends for working class liberation. (This is also important for my later argument). Quite how this fits with Peter Taafe’s prediction of the “red 90s” is however beyond me….
Your analysis of the failure of the other halfway house projects does not really get to the core of the problem. Indeed, were it to then you would immediately see that Tusc is, in fact, no different to many of these projects. Some things they have in common:
1.
Labourism. All of the projects avoided high politics, the need to “win the battle of democracy” (Marx and Engels) and restricted working class politics to economic demands, pay and conditions, pensions, free education etc – all within the framework of the capitalist state. Sure, there was talk of ‘socialism’ here and there, but all this amounted to at best was the ‘socialism’ of the Labour Party’s Old Clause 4: ie distribution-based socialism in Britain via nationalisation etc – ie utilising the capitalist state instead of a struggle to overcome it. (Back in the SLP days, Bob Crow was seriously arguing for the nationalisation of fish and chip shops!)
As such, is the highest manifestation of bourgeois ideas within the working class movement. I know that often on the left we speak in language which is sometimes incomprehensible to each other, so for more on labourism, what it is and why it is a thoroughly pro-capitalist, reactionary ideology counterposed to Marxism, see my recent article on the LRC here: http://communiststudents.org.uk/?p=4316. The point here is that, instead of articulating a revolutionary alternative to labourism and the Labour left, for the last 13 years the left has had nothing to offer but warmed-up, smaller versions of the existing Labour party and its left wing. For this reason it is understandable that it has been able to build anything. It is even less likely now Labour is in opposition and already making noises to the left.
2.
Scargill, Galloway and Tommy Sheridan. All of these projects were limited by the fact that there were no real democratic avenues to pursue accountability and recallability of leaders. The SWP gave Galloway a free reign and opposed CPGB motions at Respect conferences for accountability, Scargill overturned conferences with his 2,000 vote card, and a cult of personality was also built up around Sheridan. Here Tusc is actually no different: it has presented itself as a ‘safe pair of hands’ to Bob Crow, offering trade union representatives a veto on the steering committee! Further, unlike the (thoroughly undemocratic) Respect or SLP projects, it has not even had a founding conference where people can sign up, move motions and discuss the future of the project. This is a real cause for concern, and in many ways apes the undemocratic structures of the early Labour party.
3.
The period in which these projects were born was in a time of 13 years of Labour government, where there was a real argument for a new left force in that many tempted by a project could not feasibly argue that it would split the Labour vote and let the Tories in – they were already in power!!!
A few asides here. The SA indeed broke down for sectarian reasons, and it was your comrades in the Socialist Party who were at the heart of this – walking out when it became clear to them that they did not have the numbers to outvote the SWP and effectively control the project – you were unwilling and perhaps unable to patiently argue for your ideas in a minority. That is a shame.
The fact that somebody wealthy funds a left party does not matter – the Bolsheviks inherited millions from wealthy supporters who owned factories, Engels funded Marx using his position as a capitalist. What matters is the political programme.
Why on earth would you seek to emulate the LRC in the 1900? It created an organisation which, due to its limited labourite programme, has effectively ended us up with Blairism.
2.
Programme. There is a lot of stuff to get to grips with here.
Needless to say, your description of the ‘transitional slogans’ of the Bolsheviks is more than a simplification – it is totally ahistorical. (I don’t blame you though, it comes straight from Taafe). Could you tell me when the Bolsheviks had a transitional programme, given that Lenin was defending the minimum-maximum programme from Bukharin and the lefts as late as October 1917? (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/oct/06.htm)
The Bolsheviks never argued that we should renounce a Marxist political programme for a limited amount of time due to political consciousness (ditto Engels when arguing for a workers’ party in England – he certainly did not mean setting up a Labourite party!)
The Bolshevik programme was not ‘Peace, Bread and Land’ but always had been (in revolutionary times as in relatively quiet or reactionary periods) a clear path for working class self-rule, ie: all representatives on a workers’ wage, arming of the people, the democratic republic, one single assembly with legislative and executive powers, abolition of the police, the army, the bureaucracy etc etc.
The Tusc programme:
I do think though that you are slightly kidding yourself that the Tusc programme is a Marxist one in the sense of all the classical programmes of Marxism such as the Parti Ouvrier programme (1878); The Erfurt Programme (1891) and the programme of the Bolsheviks in the RSDLP from 1903-1917.
The “socialist policies” it put across were little different to the policies of the Labour Left, Respect, the AWL, the CPB, the SLP etc – ie little to do with the demands and perspectives outlined in the Bolshevik programme. The problem was not simply that it did not call for the abolition of immigration controls, but is whole political method. Who else called for railway renationalisation, repeal of the anti-TU laws etc? Well, the Labour left, Respect, CPB and all the other labourite-focused groups! (See this chart here to see just how bad the left’s programmes are: http://www.cpgb.org.uk/html/general_election_2010.html
So we need to be serious in our method, but very open in our politics. We, that is the SP in Portsmouth, have made no secret in what we’re calling for and the TUSC meetings have been quite lively, with debates on UAF/BNP, and our collective stance on other issues. Indeed Callum may remember we spent a fair amount of the meeting he came to debating our perspectives of the Labour party following this election, and also the UNISON elections.
3)The Unions.
There is a lot of stuff to say here. I just think that you are oblivious to the fact that many people are rejoining Labour in their thousands, and the trade unions you are seeking to win to Tusc will be focussing on getting as much pull as possible in the Labour Party. The LP will also shift to the left, looking to gain from the increase in struggle which (I agree) we are likely to see. But that is why “being against cuts” is not a class line. The class line is revolutionary politics versus reformist, labourite ones. To paraphrase Charlie Marx, the class is a revolutionary class for itself, or it remains a class for others (including the trade union bureaucracy, by the way).
4) “I don’t believe TUSC has an active policy of blocking the CPGB, Worker’s Power or any other group for that matter (the AWL said we’d also excluded them.)”. Well, it is well known that Tusc refused these groups the possibility of standing candidates under the Tusc banner – a good step forward in terms of increasing the number of candidates and getting the left together, no? This is the national approach. Maybe a conference will be called though?
The whole thing is tightly policed. Take for example our comrade in Walthamstow, (http://cpgb.org.uk/article.php?article_id=1003881) who was told not to come along, or the fact that just a stone’s throw away in Tottenham, the independent candidate Jenny Sutton had little to no support from SP, in what was largely an SWP campaign. What is the problem with comrades mixing, talking to each other and – pray – even having a few political discussions?
Lanarkshire Socialist Alliance were allowed by the Tusc SC to stand candidates in the election. Do you think the LSA has more social weight than an organisation like the CPGB with around 15,000 readers of its paper/week, or do you think something else is going on? Maybe a coincidence that WP and CPGB are far to the left of the SP? (I don’t think the AWL actually are to the left of you – see the chart for their nonsense on imperialism for example)
I do agree that “quite simply, it has to” be the case that in the current world we live in, there is a crying need for a mass party on a Marxist programme. But this involves breaking with the forlorn perspectives of labourism – whether we are doing it in the Labour Party, outside it, or both. This means getting the left together on Marxist politics – now.
Needless to say, we in the CPGB would be willing to get involved with any steps in this direction, just as we have done in the SA (where, in spite of our small size, we put in more money than any other left group), Respect, SLP, SSP etc. We would do so in order to push these projects away from labourism towards a Marxist programme.
Communist greetings,
Ben
PS – If you are interested I can send you a lot more material on the importance of programme and its near universal neglect by a left which has really lost its way and capitulated before reformism.
Quite how this fits with Peter Taafe’s prediction of the “red 90s” is however beyond me….
I think as time goes on the chances of a left group producing some analysis that looks very silly in retrospect approaches near certainity.
Comrades in the CPGB may chuckle at the phrase “red 90’s”, which wasn’t exactly how things panned out, but is it any dafter than the Weekly Worker issuing a stern warning to the working-class that Ken Livingstone is a potential dictator, then campaigning for him to become London Mayor a year later?
Probably not.
Ken Livingstone is anti-democratic and has little time for accountability. The reason we backed him was his position on the war and his (ever diminishing) links with the broad labour movement. What is wrong by exposing him for who he is yet backing him as an important anti-war voice in the elections? Maybe you think we should be quiet and uncritical to the people we sometimes have to call for a vote for?
Back to the topic, it looks like Tusc – well on the road to a new mass party, remember – are organising a CLOSED post-election meeting! CPGB comrades learned of it simply because a non-SP Tusc comrade who had been personally invited to the meeting had the gumption to circulate it more widely. As one CPGB comrade commented, “Maybe their approach is a similar one to their election campaigning – the less people coming along and helping out the better!” (It’s on Saturday June 12 from 11am until 3pm at Unity House, 39 Chalton Street, London NW1 1JD – so get along if you can).
What is wrong by exposing him for who he is yet backing him as an important anti-war voice in the elections? Maybe you think we should be quiet and uncritical to the people we sometimes have to call for a vote for?
CPGB member in humourless drone shocker.
The Weekly Worker in April 1999 explains Ken is a would-be dictator, a potential fascist like Mussolini and someone no socialist could even think of supporting. In March 2000 the Weekly Worker announce they are campaigning for him to be London Mayor! (Also, which war was he an important voice against in, um, the year 2000?)
So, is this exposing him for who he is, or a bit of a silly mistake?
As I say, I think all left groups make the odd howler and have certain eccentric habits (printing press releases as letters anyone?) so made a light-hearted comment noting that. Still, please feel free to get even more sanctimonious about how you are always correct about everything ever though.
Duncan,
Nobody is claiming that we are always correct on everything. I simply made the point that the understanding of this period – which Ben N had correctly characterised as one of reaction – is crucial (decline of Social Democracy, the dead-end of Stalinism etc). I was just wondering how for the SP this “red 90s” worldview fits in with what Ben N had said, or whether it has subsequently been amended. This was not a sanctimonious swipe but an attempt to point out that theory should be taken slightly more seriously.
This is not for the sake of light-hearted commentary but an attempt to look at where we are today and what needs to be done. In my opinion that is not a new LRC, but the unity of Marxists as Marxists. Big questions that require serious thought and exchanges, I am sure you will agree.
Communist greetings
Ben
PS – In terms of the CPGB tendency and mistakes, we have clearly pointed out where we have been wrong in the past and drawn honest balance sheets. Take for example our old view on the Soviet Union, which we have openly criticised and the evolution of which can be traced in the book From October to August and in all of the WWs since then.