I was trying to remember this afternoon why I joined the LP. It was way back in late 1984-early 1985 when I saw a quote from Tony Benn and this struck a chord in me. At the time as well I used to watch the television and gaze in amazement at the mass demonstrations against nukes. It galvanised me to join Youth CND and the LP. I suppose, as well, I wanted to part of something, activism with other people. I wanted to organise.
What made me reminisce was mainly due to this post. The arguments put forward in the post about the Convention of the Left and the demo on Sunday did trouble me somewhat. The demo especially was angry, dynamic and lively (on an aesthetic point it was the most animated part of the demo to take pix of), indeed there were slogans such as ‘Gordon is scum’… ‘Labour Out’… Yes, politically under-developed slogans and negative ones I grant you (I recall the more positive ‘jobs not bombs’…) but then people are possibly depressed, demoralised and disillusioned.
The attacks on young people has been harsh and punitive, the minimum wage is pathetic, education is expensive, unemployment is high, no real apprenticeships, learning skills etc. A supportive society not one that slings pregnant young women into a 21st century version of a Victorian home for ‘unwed mothers’….
Sometimes people do want to express their anger in slogans that reflect how they feel. Are we supposed to ‘police’ demos by telling people not to chant certain slogans? Yes, whole purpose is to take that undiluted anger and organise into constructive activism. But they were slogans. I don’t know (and don’t really care) how many were SWPers/SWSS members in the student section, or whether you can dismiss them as ‘middle class students’… Yes, it was loud and noisy but hey, it’s a protest.
And anger conveyed can come across as disorientated and chaotic, this being conveyed in the slogans. Will those slogans build the alternative to NL? No, they are slogans. The other thing is that people are angry, angry at being betrayed by this government who were swept to power after the traumatic period of 18 years of Toryism. Labour had such a massive unbelievable majority which they squandered on neoliberalism as opposed to transforming this society into something equitable.
Maybe those slogans were ‘ultra-left’ and not where we should be politically as the alternative to not voting Labour is something far far ugly and vile….Tories. The class enemies who have no qualms in shafting the poor, Labour has organic links to the working class and the trade union movement, and because of this has tensions, pressures and contradictions. The Tories, pure and simple, have their own class interests to defend.
When I think of NL I think of illegal and barbaric wars, destroying the benefits system along with the welfare state, contracting out, privatisation, bailouts for banks, MPs expenses, not repealing the anti-trade union laws, attacks on civil liberties that further encroach on our freedoms, more and more anti-terrorism laws, and on a personal level meeting people, alongside campaigning with, whose loved ones have died in state custody and being stonewalled and sidelined by the state. Banging up more and more vulnerable and powerless people in the prison system, using the prison system as a social dustbin, increase in suicides and self-harm, marginalising and stigmatising and vilifying people with appalling vile hideous oppressive ‘mob rule’ style justice in the guise of ‘community payback’ schemes…. Where NL plays to the right-wing populist press, indulges in state racism and continues to adhere to neoliberalism.
Undoubtedly, by christ I know it, the Tories will be far far worse in their turbo-charged attacks but in the meantime how the hell do you engage with people and tell them to vote Labour? This also for me depicts the wholesale sell-out by the trade union bureaucracy. The funding they have given Labour over the years shoulda had strings attached, such as spend money on the public sector not wars….etc etc.
But no, they bowed and scraped to the NL tune.
And what of the Left, since 1997 there have been one group or another stating that they are the ‘One’ and lead us to the promised land of bread and roses but instead it was the road to splitsville, with more added trauma. And then the next time….and next time….Groundhog Day. I want to see a viable transparent, democratic, honest alliance that doesn’t allow itself to descend into turmoil ‘cos one leftie grouping or another wants to gain supremacy (ditch the democratic centralism…that would be a start). If the Left is to survive then it has to shackle itself free of Leninist principles and party discipline…because, Toto, this aint a pre- revolutionary situation…..
Just finally….back to that demo. I know as a young pre-revolutionary energetic shiny raw (naive) cadre I woulda have liked running along chanting possible ultra-left slogans but that’s the thing about being a leftie youth there’s always a tinge of ultra-leftism and I wouldn’t want it any other way. You stop these people chanting these slogans (Though steer clear of the revo groups….it is an education, an apprenticeship if you like….. but could do without the mind fuckery) but you engage them into activism and debate. That’s how to change political landscape…..The way to counter disorientation, disillusionment and demoralisation is through open debate and political leadership.
The 14-15 year hopeful and idealistic me desired and dreamed of an equitable socialist society, I still do and will always campaign for that. Socialism such a simple idea yet some fucking hard to achieve…..
To be honest, I don’t see what Leninism has to do with it. The Labour Party doesn’t operate by “Leninist” principles and boy isn’t it wonderful?
There’s plenty to critique about existing socialist parties – the SWP for example – but none of what they do is predicated upon “Leninist” structures or even basic Marxism, if you include front organisations like UAF.
So that seems like a bit of misdirected anger.
Dave, indeed the LP doesn’t operate by Leninist principles, sorry if that was unclear. I was meaning the revolutionary left groupings which operate on Leninism and democratic centralism.
I hate to disagree with you but many of the these revolutionary left grouping like the SWP do operate on bureaucratic/democratic centralist structure.
But to be honest Dave, I am angry and I do not think it is misdirected, about what happened to the Socialist Alliance (and indeed there are others as well who had very bad experiences of being shafted). I spent 4 years in that org having left the LP thinking it was the ‘alternative’ to Labour instead I witnessed various democratic centralist groups wrestle for power (SP walked out…SWP took leadership…)
Socialist Alliance, for example, dissolved because of the various dem cent groupings desires to take leadership, they had the ‘correct’ programmatic way froward. And the SWP got bored with it and many people had fled the SA because of the lack of democracy and openess.
It destroys debate and democracy. It was not about building honest open transparent democratic structures for debate and exchange of ideas.
So fundamentally, I am angry still about what happened to the SA and my trust in these groups(being active in a Trot group, and I do understand my Leninism only too well and how it operates from experience).
I don’t really care by what name we designate the ruling structures of the SWP, but they aren’t Leninist – and if by democratic centralism, we’re speaking of what Trotsky defended, then they’re not that either.
The SWP has few educated cadres to hold its leadership to account, because it has such a high turnover rate of young members. There’s nothing Leninist about that. But most of all, the campaigns which the SWP indulges in, and which SWP activists participate in uncritically (in practical terms) do not operate according any Marxist theory of class or consciousness that I am familiar with.
Which is why the UAF can run a campaign pleading for people to vote for any party but the BNP, which is an essentially liberal idea that does nothing to challenge the fact that the three main parties are the reason people vote for the BNP. My point here is if we can know parties by their actions, the SWP is not Marxist or Leninist.
Also, within the Bolshevik Party, there were clear tendencies elected to the leadership – tendencies which fought openly and through polemic with one another. Aleksandr Bogdanov and Lenin, for example, polemicised against each other via long books that are still studied today. I know of no such equivalent within the Socialist Workers Party. As the actions against John Rees show, they prefer a knife in the dark approach to frank and honest discussion. Which can be contrasted to the behaviour in what I suppose we must regard as the epitome of a Leninist Party – the party led by Lenin.
With regard to the Socialist Party, equally I think there is a problem in that the cadres are not schooled in Marxism quite enough, or are schooled only in one type – that which is propounded through the publications. In Bolshevik publications, different tendencies were given space in the same paper: to the best of my knowledge this doesn’t seem to happen in either the paper or journal. Again, this can hardly be held up as a model of “Leninism”.
I’m not saying I personally have all the answers – but there’s enough narky crap about who is and who isn’t Leninist, and why that is or is not a good thing to bother adding to it.
You and I discussed the Socialist Alliance on TCF (http://thoughcowardsflinch.com/2009/06/09/our-loyalty-must-be-to-our-class/#comments) and I think we’re broadly in agreement about many of its failures, and how we could re-run the idea except minus those failures. But whereas you seem to identify the failure of the SA in the “democratic centralism” (and presumably we can substitute, on the basis of this article, “Leninism” in there too), I would say that the problem is that both the dominant socialist parties have only got the idea half-right – the “centralism” bit.
So we should find a different name for whatever the hell it is they practice.
Yet even if we got rid completely of “Leninist” practices, caucuses would still develop. There would still be groups within a nominal future Socialist Alliance that wanted to control the task, believing they had the right answers. In fact, that’s as much true for individuals. In a large group of socialists, there’s never going to be consensus. So at some point, if unity is important to us, socialists are going to have to perform tasks with which they disagree. And so long as they have the right to voice their disagreement, to organize factions around it, to attempt to get their own opinions implemented, then it seems unproblematic to me.
And that is the basis for “democratic centralism”.
The central question to a future socialist alliance, however, is how to go from a federal structure to an organisation with enough pulling power amongst our class as to convince the SP and SWP to dissolve their independent parties in favour of platforms within the Party – and by what organisational structures we’ll be able to accomplish the transition, whilst retaining democracy and trust amongst the people we aim to represent and organise.
But truthfully, none of that key question is related to Leninism or democratic centralism. Or at least that is how it seems to me.
Regarding the SWP, SP…. you can debate them within a Marxist framework, you may not agree with their take on questions but essentially you can debate them in Marxist terms.
I agree with you about democratic centralism but the problem with how the revolutionary left operates is not within your interpretation (and again, I would agree with that take) of democratic centralism. The interpretation is seriously flawed and an utter distortion of its true meaning.
“And so long as they have the right to voice their disagreement, to organize factions around it, to attempt to get their own opinions implemented, then it seems unproblematic to me.”
I have no disagreement whatsoever with the above statement but….
The fundamental flaw, in the case of the SA, was that you weren’t allow to voice disagreements. The above statement didn’t happen. It was primarily about supremacy and putting forward some programmatic way forward based on whichever group’s terms. Not on the terms of the organisation.
I want to see an organisation you describe but with the past actions of various groups it won’t be about open honest debate/disagreements it will be about stifling debate and about which group runs the show. I have witnessed this as well in campaigning. And the sum total of this is that it pisses people off, because it is also about advertising your own propaganda, building your own revo org and stating why out of the 57 varieties why you will lead the revolution. This is the Left’s stumbling block, that’s why if there is going to be some alternative to Labour then the revolutionary Left needs to ditch some of its principles, and that includes a very distorted understanding of democratic centralism.
Just finally, I attended the final conference of the SA in early 2005 and it was one of the most depressing conferences I have ever attended. No real debate was allowed, people were allowed less than 5 mins to discuss motions on how to wind up the SA. Who decided that the SA should be wound up? Was it discussed by the whole of the org? No, it was the SWP who had decided that it was time to end the SA, they stifled debate and the atmosphere was very very nasty and hostile. The winding up of the SA was essentially an undemocratic stitch up as the SWP wanted to spend time building Respect. That’s an example of the SWP but are any of the other revo groupings that different? I doubt they are.
LP used to be good but now its past its time.
There now isn’t much between them and the tories.
The key here is your statement:
“I want to see an organisation you describe but with the past actions of various groups it won’t be about open honest debate/disagreements it will be about stifling debate and about which group runs the show.”
I suspect one of the problems is that each “side” regards its own party members as essentially lobby fodder – to vote how they are told. When activists meet other activists, and socialize outside their own organisation, they tend to realise that there are other takes on any given issue.
Indeed so low is the broad cultural and intellectual level of the Left that in many corners being well-read outside of the minutiae of Marx, Lenin, Trotsky and [substitute your sect's ideological father here] is frowned on, as though Marxism stopped growing 70 years ago with the death of Trotsky.
These are things which can be corrected, and by correcting them we’ll be helping to create the conditions for internal questioning and democracy. Debate is the key – but in any case, what begins with a lash-up between sects must immediately be broadened to a wider layer of the working class, or it is bound to fail anyway.
This is one of the problems I have with the LRC. With a few exceptions, it seems to spend all its energy focussed on the Labour Party and not nearly enough energy recruiting people for itself, involving people all around the country on its own behalf. I mean the idea of creating local LRCs is only now being seriously contemplated – at the next AGM. The previous attempt, that of setting up local Conventions of the Left failed.
So again, whether democratic centralism is involved or not, if debate doesn’t exist and if the organisation is not broadened to include advanced sections of the working class, the most democratic structures in history won’t save it.
Which brings me back to my original point. The problem is not with the theory of democratic centralism or Leninism: it is with a failed practice thereof. To automatically write off the theory on the basis of this failure is a bit like writing off all Marxism on the basis of the failures of the Soviet Union.
Moreover, it is not even all the time about a failed practice of Leninism: sometimes it’s just that the sects can be so inward looking, or so plain nasty, that people get put off and no connection to the working class is properly made. I mean, let’s be honest; Left politics has its fair share of anorak-dwelling, overly-intense people to scare away anyone remotely normal.
The actions of the SWP regarding the Socialist Alliance (and subsequently RESPECT), for example, were nothing to do with democratic centralism. They wanted what they wanted and they were prepared to ride roughshod over everyone else to get it; traditionally democratic centralism involves long periods of debate.
One particular example, from Cannon’s American SWP went on for two years and actually involved writing to Trotsky for advice. Same with Lenin; I mean a key example of democratic centralism is Lenin’s return from Germany with the April Theses – which were rejected by the central committee of the Bolsheviks, with only Lenin’s vote in favour. So he propagandized, and lo! The next vote went the other way. That sort of debate and democracy is democratic centralism.
The use of sheer numbers to hammer home your opinion without debate is not democratic centralism. You won’t get any argument from me that the different revo groups practice something less than the ideal – but my argument is pretty plain: let’s not throw baby and bathwater out together. From the perspective of the minority parties, what we need is more democratic centralism (especially as described in my first post on this thread), not less.
In truth then, our argument to the minority parties is easier. It involves them actually properly employing that which they claim as a principle, rather than dropping it. And there’s a role we can play as well – by educating comrades. I mean, whatever happened to the great institutions of working class education, education that didn’t shy away from addressing writers like Marx and their modern practical relevance?
“Moreover, it is not even all the time about a failed practice of Leninism: sometimes it’s just that the sects can be so inward looking, or so plain nasty, that people get put off and no connection to the working class is properly made. I mean, let’s be honest; Left politics has its fair share of anorak-dwelling, overly-intense people to scare away anyone remotely normal.”
Dave, I think that sums things up because but that does included a flawed interpretation of Leninism, shaping it to serve the purposes of the organisation and not the interests of the working class. True as well, it is so inwardly looking and there’s also the surreal ‘cult of the leader’…the downfall and/or implosion of a group.
Indeed I don’t believe in chucking the theory of democratic centralism away but what I do support is the chucking away of the flawed and plain wrong understanding and continued implementation of democratic centralism.
I also agree with your final paragraph as education is an important and vital component in building an organisation, but fundamentally it is also being to debate and engage with ideas on a equal footing, rather than the stagnant ‘this is the programme get with it’…that needs to be ditched. If the Left is to evolve and ultimately survive then it needs to ditch the desire to fight for their own programmatic position and also the desperation to control the organisation. Factions and tendencies are a good idea btw.
‘scare away anyone remotely normal’
Ha!! Ha!! Very true….
Pingback: The Left: part 2 « Harpymarx
Pingback: For democratic centralism? « Though Cowards Flinch
Pingback: Carnival of Socialism- Halloween Special! « Ten Percent