The ISN outlines it's position on Elections & Democracy.

by me Mon Dec 11, 2006 17:28

I like the rejection of bolshevism for starters. Interesting and nuanced position on elections imho.

by SPer Mon Dec 11, 2006 17:32

Glad the ISN posted this article. It maybe short but it helps to clarify somethings about the politics of the ISN. In particular the section which says: "The ISN places itself firmly in the left communist tradition, which supported authentic participatory democracy, and not in the Bolshevik tradition, which supported authoritarian rule by the party. The workers’ councils and soviets that sprang up across Europe after the First World War provide a model, albeit short-lived, of participatory democracy in action."

Now we know the ISN, by self proclaimation are not Marxists, but instead belong a variant of the syndicalist political tradition. Comse comsa! What is not acceptable is when they parrot the lies, distortions and slurs of the bourgeoisie and the anarchists about the Bolshevik Party being authoritarian. I expected more...

by ISNer Mon Dec 11, 2006 17:45

Hi SPer,

Believe it or not, there were Marxists in the world before Lenin and Trotsky insisted on the centrality of 'vanguardism' and the one-true-way. Indeed, even post the noisy arrival of Lenin & Trotsky, there were many Marxists - from many different perspectives - who politely and forcefully disagreed with them.

With regard to where we all stand, we are not even in the same building as yourself if you really think that a rejection of Leninism is the same as a rejection of Marxism. Leninism doesn't own the Marxist tradition!

Less dogmatism and more honest dialogue please. We have more in common than your hair-trigger prejudice is currently willing to admit.

That said, we ain't believers in hierarchical or vanguardist ways of organising. You reap what you sow.

by (A} - Anarcho Mon Dec 11, 2006 18:15

"Groups that try to build through electoral contests build election machines, not revolutionary movements"
Hear,hear.
Was still left a little in the dark as to whether or not the ISN would contest elections-""it's a tactical decision"-does this mean that if it so happens you think you can realistically get somebody elected in a constituency,then you go for it?

by w. - wsm (pers cap) Mon Dec 11, 2006 19:22

"Now we know the ISN, by self proclaimation are not Marxists, but instead belong a variant of the syndicalist political tradition. Comse comsa! What is not acceptable is when they parrot the lies, distortions and slurs of the bourgeoisie and the anarchists about the Bolshevik Party being authoritarian."

I would consider myself a Marxist of sorts and I'm quite certain the ISN would do the same. There's nothing more pathetic than a leftist claiming to have the franchise on "Marxism" and denouncing all others.

by Starstruck Mon Dec 11, 2006 19:40

Agree with W,its quite like the Connolly fever thing,a plethora of groups claiming ownership of him.
I imagine if he was around today there'd be an almighty tug of war !

by guydebordisdead Mon Dec 11, 2006 20:28

I think people tugging at themselves over marx is the problem, the emancipation of the working classes is the job of the working classes and not some floppy haired geeks who try to apply the same strong marxist leadership remedy to every political problem they face.

by Friend of Vladimir Illich Mon Dec 11, 2006 23:42

The ISN article is both smug and dishonest. It asserts that the Bolshevik party was a centralist dictatorship. All the facts of the time contradict this view, a view until recently confined to the extreme right. Where the hell to they think the call 'All power to the soviets!' came from?

They manage to write an article about representative democracy in Ireland without mentioning the British occupation or partitiion. Nice one!

They don't agree with bourgeois democracy but contrast the tone of their comments about the government structures of the corrupt semi-colony in the 26 counties with the heroic attempt by the russian proletariat to establish a workers government. Ther is no 'crude rejectionism' of bourgeois rule, only of the Bolsheviks.

To cap it all we have the arrogant assertion that it is their critics who are dogmatic!

by SP member Tue Dec 12, 2006 00:36

An anarchist claiming to be a Marxist and the ISN claiming to be Marxist in the same breath as they condemn Lenin, Trotsky and the Bolsheviks is just like Bertie Ahern claiming to be a socialist!

Marxism is not a menu of loose ideas that can be selected from according to taste. You are either a scientific socialist, a Marxist or you reject it.

Those who "learnt" about the class struggle, democratic centralism and the struggle to build a vanguard party in the Communist Party or the Workers Party have been miseducated by a septic distortion of Marxism. Your knowledge of the ideas and struggles of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky have been filtered through the sieve of the school of Stalinist falsification. You come from a political lineage who perverted, deformed and deliberately corrupted the ideas of Marxism in order to justify and cover up the crimes of murdering the October Revolution, the Bolshevik Party – and tens of millions of workers around the world.

You claim to have recognised your mistakes. You claim to have given up your allegiance to Stalinism. Now you have decided to cherry pick from the vast arsenal of Marxism. You have decided to jettison the October Revolution, the historic successes of the Bolshevik Party and the monumental achievements of Lenin and Trotsky because you have swallowed the bourgeois lie that Lenin and Trotsky created Stalinism.

It’s a dangerous thing being a Marxist these days. You could get killed in the rush of political groups/parties and individuals charging to the right. The SWP now have the ISN to keep them company!

by moi Tue Dec 12, 2006 02:11

The statement is a basic principles position document on forms of democracy - not everything has to be specific to the occupied six counties.

Secondly, the notion that Leninism equals Marxism is challenged in this policy statement, and quite rightly. Marx famously said that whatever he was, he wasn't a Marxist - he was prompted to declare this by the antics and nonsense propounded by some of his 'followers'. SPer above is an example of somebody who has turned Marxism into an ideology and doesn't even realise it. Marxism without Leninism was the norm up to about 1919. The idea that they are one and the same shows a complete ignorance of socialist history.

by John Meehan Tue Dec 12, 2006 02:13

The Irish Socialist Network says today :

"The ISN places itself firmly in the left communist tradition, which supported authentic participatory democracy, and not in the Bolshevik tradition, which supported authoritarian rule by the party. The workers’ councils and soviets that sprang up across Europe after the First World War provide a model, albeit short-lived, of participatory democracy in action."

In 1985, over twenty years ago, the Fourth International altered, consciously and deliberately, its programmatic position on the one party state. The final document was passed a a world congress after eight years of internal debate.

The text is here :

http://internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?article921

This is one example of a revolutionary marxist organisation (which is part of the "Bolshevik Tradition") - and which firmly rejects "authoritarian rule by the party".

The same can be said about, for example, the outstanding Marxist Scholar and revolutionary activist Marcel Liebman (See his study "Leninisam Under Lenin").

Trotskys's pioneering biographer Isaac Deutscher also deserves an honourable mention in such a discussion.

None of these individuals or organisations are without fault or never made mistakes - that would be impossible.

But no fair minded and responsible individual, or organisation, would say they support or supported "authoritarian rule by the party". In the case of the FI Resolution above, such a conception is very explicitly rejected.

The ISN, theoretically, mixes together the distinctly different phenomena of Stalinism and Leninism.

The FI statement above does a thorough job attacking the unacceptable authoritarian conception of the one -party state - a tragic mistake made by the Bolsheviks which built the foundations for the Russian Revolution's degeneration in the early 1920's. Trotsky ane Lenin must share responsibility for that mistake - no doubt about that.

Evidence exists that Trotsky realised the dimensions of this mistake in the 1930's.

Today, in any case, many Trotskyists agree with the programmatic criticisms made against the Bolsheviks by revolutionaries such as Rosa Luxemburg and the Dutch comrade Pannekoek on the broad question of democracy and the workers' state. See, for example, Tariq Ali's "Beginner's Guide" to Trotsky.

So, we can all learn from our history and do our best not to repeat hideous mistakes.

Let's move to the present day - the ISN statement is abstract.

We could debate these general formulas endlessly and arrive at nowhere fast.

None of these theoretical differences would matter too much if they were part of a concrete discussion on what to do today.

A better question is : how do the ISN wish to apply their general formula today? Who, if anyone, should socialists vote for? What sort of campaign should be run in the forthcoming General Election campaign? And so on.

by ISNer Tue Dec 12, 2006 02:25

I'm about to go to bed and don't have the energy to respond to SPer's misdirected and ill-informed rant, but I'd like to correct one thing:

SPer: "You have decided to jettison the October Revolution"

Er...no. The revolutions in Russia in 1905 and 1917, and the soviets created, are examples of what the working class can achieve through collective struggle. What the Leninists did afterwards is another issue. Let me put it like this: The Bolsheviks no more own the Russian revolution than they own Marxism!

by Mark P - Socialist Party (personal capacity) Tue Dec 12, 2006 02:51

The first person posting as "SPer" is wrong to conflate syndicalism with Left Communism. They are two quite distinct ideologies, putting forward different (and incompatible) strategies aimed at bringing about a socialist transformation of society. What's more many syndicalists and nearly all left communists have considered themselves to be Marxists. James Connolly for instance was heavily influenced by syndicalism in his ITGWU days, which didn't prevent him from being a Marxist. He was also involved in the industrial unionism of the De Leonist movement in the United States and the Industrial Workers of the World, organisations which were not strictly speaking syndicalist but which were pretty close to it in their essentials.

On a wider point, I've never seen that there's much point in arguing that someone is incorrect because they have rejected Marxism, or at least the variant of Marxism which I like other members of the Socialist Party consider to be the most useful. They may be wrong, but that has to be determined on the merits of the particular issues rather than on then on the degree of proximity of their attitudes to some more orthodox approach. Orthodoxy is after all an essentially religious concept. Marxism is not a set of revealed truths but rather a set of analytical tools.

I don't really have much desire to get into an argument about the merits, personal or political, of Lenin or Trotsky yet again. For what it's worth I think that both were important revolutionary leaders who added enormously and usefully to Marxist political theory. What I think is interesting about the Irish Socialist Network article's negative reference to them, along with its favourable reference to Left Communism and the slightly turgid section about participatory as opposed to representative democracy is that these points seem to have no connection to the main conclusions of the article.

These points have attracted a lot of attention here because they touch on points of friction between different groups and views on the left. What seems to have been missed is that the article essentially argues that (a) socialism can't be won through votes in a capitalist parliament and that (b) even so standing in elections can sometimes be a useful tactic for socialists to use. For all the semi-anarchist boilerplate these conclusions are much closer to those of the Socialist Party than to those of anarchists.

In fact I'd have to say that I personally find the ISN's politics at the moment slightly bewildering in their eclecticism. Support for the Scottish Socialist Party, verbal nods towards Left Communism, a bit of anarchist organisational theory, all mixed together in an organisation which is also campaigning for the establishment of a new broad working class political party. It may be that the ISN have developed some brilliant new synthesis of these seemingly incompatible notions, but if they have then I'd have to say that they haven't exactly been rushing to share it with the rest of us. Perhaps one of the ISN members who post on Indymedia can explain their politics a little more coherently than I can?

by The only Marxist in the village - SP (pc) Tue Dec 12, 2006 03:09

Groups other than Trotskyist groups are free to draw from Marx and describe themselves as Marxists if they want as far as I'm concerned. We can then have an argument over who has applied Marx's ideas best to today's situation, and developed his theory but I'm not sure this is the place for that argument. In relation to that argument - the ISN are perfectly welcome to try to separate the Russian revolution (October in particular) from the Bolsheviks, but I think any objective reading of history would say that that is extremely different. Lenin and Trotsky's concept of a revolutionary party, giving a leadership of ideas, winning (together with events) the majority of the active working class to the need to overthrow the Provisional Government and giving all power to the Soviets, is central to the October Revolution. Without the Bolsheviks, the October revolution would not have happened - Kornilov would have crushed the Soviets that existed, and would have bloodily put down working class opposition.

I also think that Marxism is capable of explaining the reasons for Stalinism and what it was, a degeneration of a revolution because of its isolation and its extremely atomised and reduced working class post civil war and WW1 - rather than a concept of original sin in which the Bolsheviks and Lenin and Trotsky were to blame. You only need to look at the fact that almost the entire Central Committee of the Bolshevik Party of 1917 was wiped out by Stalin in order to consolidate power. Rather than Lenin and Trotsky leading to Stalin, a river of blood of decent socialists and revolutionaries separate them.

But, the question I have is - how can the ISN describe themselves as part of the left communist tradition? I am genuinely interested in this - which authors, experiences etc do you draw from? Some of the key principles of many of those groups in the past, and many of the current groups in the left communist tradition are not principles that you uphold (e.g. not standing for bourgeois parliament, thinking all trade unions are reactionary), nor do you share the same type of vitriolic sectarianism which some of those exhibit (i.e. thinking all of us, probably ISN included are simply the "left of capital")?

by observer Tue Dec 12, 2006 10:33

Mark - "It may be that the ISN have developed some brilliant new synthesis"

Leaving MarkP's cynicism to one side, it may in fact be that the ISN is in the process of developing its own political platform and set of beliefs without stopping at the Marxist-hypermart to pick a ready-to-go, 2-minutes in the microwave, package of dogma. A good thing, I would have thought.

by John Tue Dec 12, 2006 11:07

And you wonder why the right neither fear you nor take you seriously, while your all busy postulating and fighting over the scraps from Lenins/Marxs/Trots etc table, pro-democratic/business/economic initiatives advance unabatted.
Do you really think any of your myiopiccly pathetic points have any relevance in the real world.

"WE dont run for elections because its self defeating and we will only become the same as those we wish to tear down"(sic)

Bullshit, you wont run for elections because you dont want to be humiliated and have it thrust down your throats how out of touch with reality you are when nobody votes for you.

You cant change the world by fantasining about it in your basement.
Debating the merits of Marxs et al means and achieves nothing.

The left is disjointed, fractured, egotistical, self righteous and hopelessly rudderless bith ethically and politically.

Just look who easy it was to homogenise the Labour Party

by Fintan Lane - ISN (pers cap) Tue Dec 12, 2006 11:43

There are a number of issues raised on this thread that could make for long and interesting debate, but, to be honest, I don't think this is the best forum for that. However, I do want to respond briefly to a few points.

The ISN made a passing reference to the left communist tradition in this policy statement, which was primarily about clarifying our long-term objective, i.e. that we see representative democracy as inadequate and argue for genuine participatory democratic structures. Our basic points of difference with the Leninist tradition centre on the vanguardist approach, democratic centralism, and the sectarian political behaviour exhibited by many of those who use Lenin as a guide. The Bolshevik method of organising does not appeal to us and, historically speaking, damaged the international socialist movement in the wake of the First World War and for many decades afterwards.

With regard to left communism, surely the ISN can critically locate itself within this tradition without being associated with every crack-pot group that has described itself as 'left communist'? Frankly, the ossified politics of 'council communists' such as the ICC are as dogmatic as anything the Trotskyist or Leninist movements produced (if not more so) and we have no interest in going down that road.

When we say that we locate ourselves in the left communist tradition, we are thinking more in terms of the living, breathing workers' councils and soviets (spontaneous workers' self-organisation) that arose towards the end, and after, the First World War, rather than particular organisations.

Even the KAPD and the associated unions have to be seen as problematic. They went down in a ball of flames partly because of political inconsistencies, of which there were more than a few. Nonetheless, their democratic and political instincts were good. Arguably their rejection of parliamentary politics and old-style unions at that moment in time (1920-3) was correct because Germany was in social turmoil and revolution was a real possibility. The problem with the 'council communists' who followed in the 1930s and later is that they ossified the positions taken during the early 1920s.

The ISN can surely look back positively on this tradition without putting it on a pedestal. We intend to arrive at our own perspectives by ourselves not by hunting down some 'ideal' model to replicate. Marxism is an analytical tool not a dogma.

by Gaz B -(A)- - WSm (pers cap) Tue Dec 12, 2006 12:19

It was Lenin and Trotsky who crushed the soviets and workers councils after October 1917 as they consolidated their power. Between March and October the Bolsheviks supported factory committees, but turned against them at the end of 1917. Large-scale civil war peaked in August 1918 (which led to an increase in centralisation) and Western intervention in Russia occured in May 1918. Civil war is used as a justification for the dismantling of factory committess but the councils simply didn't fit into Lenins stated belief that the 'masses' "unquestioningly obey the single will of the leaders of the labour process".

"An anarchist claiming to be a Marxist and the ISN claiming to be Marxist in the same breath as they condemn Lenin, Trotsky and the Bolsheviks is just like Bertie Ahern claiming to be a socialist!"
Marxs analysis of capital and labour is excellent, its his revolutionary praxis that anarchists have major problems with (look at the Bakuninist split from the First International). There are many people who would regard themselves as Marxists while condemning Lenin, Trotsky and the Bolsheviks, such as Rosa Luxemburg. There is no one true Marxism and attempts to claim that anyone who disagrees with a Leninist or Trotskyist interpretation of Marxs ideas is not a Marxist , is disingenuous.

I don't find anything 'bewildering' about ISNs stance, council communists have had a similar postion for decades. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_communism

by Conor McGowan - ISN Tue Dec 12, 2006 12:26

"SPer": We have not "parroted" anybody. Instead of ending debate by labelling us sectarian liars with no capacity to politically criticise (and all because we reject your particular tradition), why not make a more constructive and nuanced critique of our politics?

"{A}Anarcho": The document is quite explicit. We see elections as being a matter of tactics rather than principle. Our wider approach to elections is outlined in the rest of the document.

"Friend of Vlad": This document is on our approach to elections, not our approach to British Imperialism. We haven't, in this document or others, rejected the attempt by Russian workers to establish a workers state. Until you produce a shred of evidence that we have, I'll assume that's nothing more than simple distortion on your behalf.

As it happens, we don't say that all our critics are dogmatic. We are more than willing to listen to criticism. Unfortunately, SOME of the criticism of the Irish Socialist Network IS based on dogma. Such criticism is usually signified by a disregard of our basic principles and a distortion of our political material. Saying that, the ISN is more than willing to listen to criticism - but (and this may shock some on this thread) that involves listening to workers rather than pandering to the more dogmatic nerds on assorted indymedia threads.

"SP Member": Like other members of the ISN, I have never been a member of the Workers Party. The word "bolshevik" is mentioned once in the article, Lenin and Trotsky aren't mentioned at all - and yet with absolutely no basis, you assume that a "miseducated" Stalinist cabal has rushed to airbrush any achievements of the October revolution from the politics of the ISN. As I said above, not all our critics are dogmatic, but have no doubt that your baseless criticism is.

"John Meehan" (at last, a real name!): There is nothing abstract about the statement. It is a concise outline of the basic principles of the ISN's policy on elections. Without wanting to sound smart, come election day, socialists should vote for socialists. ISN members have extended solidarity in many campaigns, and when it comes to elections, we have campaigned for non-ISN, socialist candidates, as well as for our own candidates.

"Mark P": I don't think there is anything bewildering about our politics. If you take a trip around the site and read some of our articles, you should get a fuller picture of our politics. Supporting (not uncritically) the SSP is perfectly consistent with making attempts to build a broad working class political party at home. The ISN is a participatory democratic, member based organisation. We are not anarchists, as you quite correctly point out in your post. There is nothing incompatible about socialist politics and internal democracy. I'd say you can't have one without the other.

If anyone wants to read more about the ISN, it's all in black & white at: http://irishsocialist.net/about.html

by Dan - ISN (p.c) Tue Dec 12, 2006 13:11

A few people have already noted how absurd it is to claim that one version of Marxism is the one true faith and anyone who rejects it is “moving to the right” or “abandoning Marxism”. As far as I can see, anyone from a radical social democrat like Tony Benn, to a member of the WSM, could honestly claim to be developing the tradition of Karl Marx. Which of these views is closer to the spirit of Marx isn’t all that important – what matters is which of them is closer to being right, for the here and now. And we can only find that out by having honest, non-sectarian debate, and testing different strategies in practice.

This position paper was about the attitude of socialists to elections, not about Leninism, so I don’t want to get into a lengthy historical discussion about the Bolsheviks and the Russian revolution. All I’ll say is, I honestly don’t know how anyone can deny that the political system that was firmly in place in Russia by 1921 - when Lenin was healthy and playing an active role – was a centralist dictatorship. This view was never confined to the “extreme right”, it was held by many socialists and anarchists in Russia at the time, including members of the Bolshevik party.

I don’t really understand why Trotskyists are (usually) so reluctant to admit this. When the same people talk about the Cuban regime, they acknowledge the pressure from US imperialism and how this has affected the development of Castro’s system – but without denying that Cuba is a one-party state where dissidents are locked up. You can recognise what the Leninist system actually was without denouncing the Bolsheviks lock, stock and barrel, you can still draw on parts of their ideology if you think it’s useful. But anyone whose political outlook demands that they ignore historical facts is in trouble. There’s a lot more that could be said about this subject but this isn’t really the place.

“It may be that the ISN have developed some brilliant new synthesis of these seemingly incompatible notions” – I think the key word in that sentence is “seemingly”. You may find the positions we adopt bewildering, but we don’t see it that way. Observer’s comment about the perils of “stopping at the Marxist-hypermart to pick a ready-to-go, 2-minutes in the microwave, package of dogma” is spot on. To be honest I find quite a few ideas that are dear to Trotskyist groups bewildering (the idea of a “deformed workers’ state” for example). Better to engage with people's arguments than spend all your time trying to fit them in a box

by Colm Breathnach - ISN personal capacity Tue Dec 12, 2006 16:17 breathc at hotmail dot com

As always with any Indymedia debate, we have the usual mix of serious discussion and childish blather on this thread. I intend to leave the children out to play and get on with the matter of adult discussion. I want to respond to some of the points made by John Meehan, and if I get the time to Mark P., on the basis that theirs are serious contributions and that they have always attempted to engage with rather than simply point-score against others in such debates.

John correctly points out that the Fourth International has moved away from a classical Leninist position over the years since the 1980s. I agree and since they are no longer Leninists, in the usually understood meaning of that word, the ISN’s rejection of classical Leninism hardly applies to them, whatever other disagreements we may have with them. Whatever else you might think of them, a glance at the FI’s publications, the writings of their main intellectuals and the activities of most of their constituent organisations point to a healthy democratic internal life and a lack of dogmatism. In my view this is a case of formally adhering to a Leninist/Trotskyist position while in practice evolving towards a substantially different position. In fact I think the FI use the term “Trotskyist tradition” to describe themselves, which would indicate the reality of where they stand today. Personally, I don’t care if a group or individual justify their actions, or the structures they favour, using Trotsky, Lenin’s writings etc. if I am in broad agreement with them on the issue of democratic structures, opposition to authoritarian rule of the party etc. etc.

As for the somewhat remote but nonetheless interesting question of when the Bolsheviks took a wrong turn (that is if they were ever on the right road to socialism), rainforests have been decimated in the production of books on this issue from a variety of Marxist, other leftist and bourgeois perspectives, so it’s a matter of reading through them and weighing the evidence. John mentions Liebman’s work but there are many others of value including Samuel Farber’s Before Stalin and Maurice Brinton’s The Bolsheviks and Workers Control. Personally, my reading has lead me to the view that right from the seizure of power in October 1917, the Bolshevik leadership moved gradually but systematically to undermine workers control, hollow out the soviets and undermine the independence and effectiveness of the trade unions. I’m not an expert on Russian history so I may be wrong, but whether it started in 1918 or later, few would now argue against that fact that by the time Lenin died the Soviet state was already well on the way to bureaucratic authoritarian rule. As for Trotsky’s role, I have not read the 1930s writings alluded to by John but it seems to me that Trotsky was the leading opponent of democracy within the party and of workers control, at least until after Lenin’s death. All that said, of course there were oppositional factions within the Bolsheviks such as the Workers Opposition and the ironically named Democratic Centralists but they were always defeated or suppressed.

John ends with the complaint that the ISN statement is abstract and he goes on to pose a number of practical questions. Of course he knows that it is important for a relatively new organisation to develop general positions in dialectic interaction with their practical work, so there is no error involved in outlining such an “abstract” position. In response to his questions I would put forward my own views:

How would the ISN apply the general formula outlined today? In a nutshell by engaging primarily in campaigning on the ground in working class communities and through interaction with people engaging in struggle, opening up the possibility of a revolutionary transformation of society from the bottom up. It would also entail a view of engaging in elections, as the ISN has done before, as a tactical measure to advance that struggle but not under any illusion that such engagement alone, or even primarily would bring about such a transformation. The question of who socialists should vote for is of course dependent on the time, place, forces involved etc. In one circumstances one might stand a revolutionary socialist as a candidate in others one might urge a tactical vote for other lefts etc. but there is no general formula. As for what sort of campaign should be run for the next general election, that can only emerge from a genuine debate amongst those on the left and there are many different roads one could go down. The one thing I can say with confidence is that the ISN has a good record of principled positions toward electoral work including working for Clare Daly of the SP in the last general election, cooperating closely with Joan Collins/Pat Dunne of CWAG in the last local elections (including a joint manifesto) while calling in our literature for a vote for Joe Higgins for the Euro Election etc. In all these case, there was nothing abstract at all about our position in fact we did our talking by our walking. The key here of course is that the joint work is on a principled basis, and in the interests of the working class rather than just narrow organisational interests, so it is impossible to judge what position one would take in relation to a general election until we see what emerges from discussions: it could for example be a left liberal mish-mash designed as a soft front for one left organisation or it could be a genuinely broad but principled, class struggle based alliance. Time and lots of discussion will tell. The ISN, like other individuals and organisations will throw in our penny’s worth, and make an assessment of what comes out based on the core principle of how the outcome relates to the interests of working people.

Apologies to Mark P., I will try to come back and respond to your points at a later stage, that awkward irritant called work calls me away for the moment.

by Mark P - Socialist Party (personal capacity) Tue Dec 12, 2006 16:26

I quite agree with Conor that internal democracy and socialist politics should go together, although I strongly disagree that internal democracy is synonymous with anarchist ideas of supposedly non-hierarchical organising. I also, as I pointed out in my first post, don't think that it is useful to evaluate the merits or otherwise of political views based on the proximity or otherwise of those views to some more "orthodox" set of politics. New ideas, or a new synthesis of old ideas, or the development of existing ideas are hardly something to oppose on principle.

None of which leaves me any the wiser about the Irish Socialist Network's underlying political approach, which still seems, from the outside, to consist of chunks of differing ideologies mixed together rather randomly and in ways which don't seem to fit very well. I asked for some further explanation because, slightly cynical tone aside, it is possible that they have been developing a coherent synthesis of these varying ideas but if so they haven't explained it very clearly yet. And I have to say that I didn't find Fintan, Dan and Conor's contributions very enlightening on that score. This is not meant to be some point scoring attack, and I have no intention in getting into a bad tempered exchange of insults. I really am curious about this.

Fintan points out, quite correctly, that the original article deals with the ISN view of elections. But it also contains a very straightforward self-description of the ISN's overall politics: "The ISN places itself firmly in the left communist tradition". Yet what does this actually mean? As Fintan went on to demonstrate the ISN don't have much time for the other organisations existing today which call themselves left communist and for that matter they have big problems with even the original left communist organisations. Even more importantly, the ISN don't as far as I can see agree with any of the distinctive political positions of left communism. It works within and seeks to transform the trade unions rather than rejecting them as reactionary. It takes part in elections. It doesn't, as far as I know, regard support for national liberation struggles as divisive and wrong in principle.

If you strip this "left communist tradition" of the actual present and historical left communists and then ignore its distinctive political positions, what exactly remains of this tradition for you to situate yourselves in? Are you really just saying that you want to see workers councils and revolutionary uprisings? Well and good if you are, but that doesn't really distinguish you from anyone else on the left, Marxist or anarchist.

To take another example of what looks to me like an incoherent co-existence of mutually contradictory political views, the ISN places some emphasis on its commitment to its particular form of "non-hierarchical", "participatory" organisation. But this emphasis doesn't seem to have any impact or influence on its views on other issues. It has been largely uncritically admiring of the Scottish Socialist Party, a political party with a significant fulltime bureaucracy, a heavy electoral focus and a fairly traditional political party structure. In Ireland the ISN itself stands for elections and it is involved in a campaign for a new political party. That campaign has given no indication that it is advocating or intends to build a party along the kind of organisational lines the ISN talks about, nor as far as I am aware are the ISN trying to push the campaign into adopting that goal. Do you see no inconsistency between opposing "hierarchical" forms of organisation internally and pushing to get people elected to positions of influence externally? Or am I misunderstanding something and you have not in fact been influenced by anarchist arguments for supposedly "non-hierarchical" organising?

by ISNer Tue Dec 12, 2006 16:40

Mark P., Your incomprehension (feigned or otherwise) derives almost entirely from your desire to put the ISN in some neat box. I fear you will continue to feel frustrated because the ISN is not in the business of the wholesale adoption of the programmes of particular strands within Marxism. This may not suit you but there you have it.

by Mark P - Socialist Party (personal capacity) Tue Dec 12, 2006 17:16

As I said, I have no interest in getting into a ritualised exchange of insults with anyone. I'm not "feigning" incomprehension. I'm not trying to score points off you, nor am I trying to put you in some kind of box. It's perfectly clear that the ISN is drawing on influences from a number of different traditions. and I'm not arguing that there is anything inherently wrong with that.

However each political influence has its own context and logic. Politics isn't like going shopping, where you can grab a bit of this and a bit of that and then put each item away in a different press when you get home. Political principles interact with and shape each other. A position on issue (a) will often determine or at least strongly influence a position on issue (b). It's a dynamic process.

What I'm trying to understand is how those different elements in the ISNs politics have been mixed or fused together. Do they they fit well or do they contradict each other? Have you developed some creative new way of blending these different ideas and traditions?

You can respond by trying to portray the issue as a contrast between your own innovative approach and independent thinking on the one one hand and my supposed inability to think outside of neatly defined boxes if you like, but I don't think that's either accurate or particularly convincing.

by Colm Breathnach - ISN pc Tue Dec 12, 2006 19:39

I will try to respond to what I see as your two main criticisms of the ideological position of the ISN. Of course ideological positions do not come ready made but evolve as a socialist organisation grows in interaction with its involvement in class struggle. The ISN, like any other organisation, has evolved gradually and I would contend has gained increasing ideological coherence over time.

To take your point regarding the tradition in which the ISN locates itself, this is not a matter of left-wing train-spotting, of placing an organisation in a precise place on some imaginary historico-ideological chart. Though I accept the use of the term “left communist” may have led to the confusion because of its association after the 1920s with small dogmatic sects, it seems fairly clear to me from this and other documents on the ISN site that we belong to that broad tradition (you might just as easily call it Luxemburgism, libertarian socialism, democratic Marxism etc.etc.) located in the space between anarchism and Leninism which is characterised by a number of core positions:

1. An absolute commitment to internal democracy, including the right of members to hold and articulate minority positions at all times. A rejection of the idea of leaderships, whether parliamentary or otherwise.
2. A commitment to class struggle and to the struggle of the working class as the basis of socialism.
3. A rejection of the idea of a vanguard combined to a commitment to a much more dialectic approach to the relationship between the revolutionary organisation and the class.
4. Unlike anarchists, an acceptance that electoral work is tactical matter, though married to a strong view that this must be a subordinate task.
5. A view of power that sees the creation of basic structures of self-rule such as workplace and locality councils as fundamental to building a socialist society rather than the winning of positions in the institutions of representative democracy.

One of the key differences, therefore, between the ISN and many other left organisations is the participatory nature of its internal structures. This means that the decisions (including regarding the allocation and implementation of tasks) are made by the membership as a whole, and that there is no formal or informal leadership. While some may do more talking or writing, the structures are geared towards encouraging all to have their say. It’s not perfect but it works. For the actual structures I would refer readers to the ISN constitution (see link below). This adherence to internal democracy has a fundamental bearing on how the ISN involves itself in struggle. Of course we participate in campaigns and struggles in which we are not the predominant influence so these are usually not perfect models of participatory democracy but we do try to push them in that direction. Mark P. states that he does not see the influence of the ISNs commitment to participatory structures on the ISN’s position on other issues. This is akin to saying that I don’t see the influence of the SPs revolutionary perspectives because they work within SIPTU or on County Councils or, in the past, within the Labour Party, none of which are revolutionary organisations.

For example, in our work, through various channels for the creation of a broad party of the working class, we have always pushed the view that such party, or any pre-party formations, must be internally democratic, rather than controlled by either a parliamentary or bureaucratic elite. To what degree the party that might emerge would conform to our position would depend on the influence that we, and others who shared our views, had on its formation and our ability to win people over with our arguments. Hence, I doubt we would enter a set-up like Respect, since it hardly democratic at all, is not based on class struggle etc. etc. i.e. it would be a waste of time arguing for revolutionary participatory politics within such a body.

This brings me on to the SSP. Because you see some thing as an improvement on past structures does not mean it conforms exactly to your model of organisation. The SSP and similar parties, in my view, are an advance on previous attempts to build united parties of the left because it is genuinely democratic, including the real right (rather than theoretical right) to build open platforms, there is a genuine attempt to involve members more fully in the running and ideological development of the party, and has a solidly working class orientation etc. Now clearly the SSP is not a revolutionary participatory organisation but is certainly one in which such revolutionaries can work openly within, arguing for their position and hopefully winning members over to their positions. As for being critical, personally I have never stinted in pointing out to comrades in the SSP, including their MSPs, the dangers of over-reliance on parliamentary reps, the tendency of left parties that make electoral gains to drift (often unintentionally) towards reformism, putting too much emphasis on charismatic or popular individuals etc., all of which I am well aware of from my brief membership of the left-reformist (calling it that is probably being far too generous) Democratic Left. I am not an uncritical fan or follower of any party but I recognise progress even if it slow and wavering. CWI affiliates are involved in all sorts of parties including WASG and Solidarity, neither of which are by any remote stretch of the imagination revolutionary organisations. I might disagree with their involvement but there is clearly a certain logic to their strategy (mistaken as it may or may not be). To prove his point Mark P. would need to show that the ISN is involved in campaigns that are heading in a contrary direction to its stated ideology. We would correctly be labeled a sect if we hung around waiting for campaigns/organisations to conform precisely to the models we advocate just as we would be opportunists if we were involved in activities that were directly contrary to those models.

by Mark P - Socialist Party (personal capacity) Tue Dec 12, 2006 21:22

Thanks for the response Colm. It clarifies quite a few things about your political approach for me.

It seems clear now that the phrase "left communist" was being used not in the technical sense as it would be understood by most of the tiny minority of us who have an interest in such things but as a synonym for a kind of anti-Lenin Marxism, influenced by some anarchist or "libertarian" arguments. That makes a good deal more sense to me now and isn't glaringly out of synch with the ISNs politics as I had previously understood them. I really was baffled by what looked like a straightforward statement that you considered yourselves to be in an anti-electoral, anti-trade union, anti-national liberation and ferociously sectarian tradition.

Of course of the points you outline as the features of this broader anti-Lenin Marxism you describe, most of them do not differ from the Marxism of Lenin or from the politics espoused by many people who would consider themselves to be in Lenin's broad tradition. There are some real points of difference though - in particular your rejection of the idea of leadership and of the idea of a vanguard.

As I've argued before on this site I don't think that these anarchist influeced positions are of much value. Every time you hand out a leaflet, hold a meeting, argue with someone or take part in pretty much any political action you are offering a lead. Leadership is good and useful and arises inevitably in real struggles. It is also dangerous and has to be subject to rigorous accountability and democratic control. "Vanguard" is another word which is too often used as a curse word, rather than as a descriptive term. It's also the kind of left wing jargon I do my best to avoid. The working class is not now and is unlikely to ever be an undifferentiated bloc. Some hold radical socialist views and want to act on them. Some are right wingers. Most others are at some point in between. Those with (what socialists would regard as) better ideas are from our perspective "in advance" of right wing bigots or reformists or the apolitical. It makes perfect sense to argue that those workers with revolutionary socialist ideas should organise together to spread those ideas. But anyway, all of this is getting well of the point and would be better discussed elsewhere.

Getting back to your post, I have never advocated that socialists should only involve themselves in campaigns and organisations with which they have 100% political agreement. As you say, that's a recipe. As you say, that way lies sectarian impotence. My curiousity about the views of the ISN was not triggered by your involvement in the Campaign for an Independent Left or by your sympathy for the SSP. It was triggered by:

A) what seemed to me to be your uncritical attitude towards the SSP. I'm not aware of ever having read a critical word about the SSP written by an ISN member (although I haven't read all of your publications of course). My general, perhaps again erroneous, impression is that you regarded the SSP as an overwhelmingly healthy socialist organisation. Yet the SSP, whatever its strengths, is not only an organisation which leaves open the question of revolution or reform it is also an organisation which has an elected leadership, a substantial bureaucratic apparatus and a near complete absence of the kind of structures you regard as essential for the ISN.

I was confused not by your view that the SSP represented a step forward, but by the absence of a critique of the SSP based on what you regard as essential organisational principles. In your post above you do make some criticisms of the SSP (the first time I've heard these criticisms) but even then you describe it as "genuinely democratic". Now I was once a member of the SSP and I found it to be by and large democratic in its affairs, but I don't subscribe to the ISN's views on internal organisation. Is there not a contradiction between your view of the SSP as "genuinely democratic" and your view that genuine democracy means what anarchists call "non-hierarchical" organisation?

B) my reading, from the outside, of the ISN's relationship to the Campaign for an Independent Left. The CIL does not advocate, that I've seen, that a new party be leaderless or "non-hierarchical". As you say, the ISN doesn't have to agree with everything about a campaign or an organisation to join it but again I haven't seen any evidence of the ISN arguing for a change of course in the CIL or publishing anything outlining its different views on how the campaign should progress. I am not of course in the ISN or CIL, so if you say that you have been doing that it may well just be that I didn't notice.

C) your approach to elections. Now maybe I've missed something, but it seems on the face of it contradictory to oppose "formal or informal leadership" while also putting people up for elections. You don't have to have illusions in the possibility of bringing about socialism through parliament to see that elected positions, in a political organisation, in society as a whole or in a trade union are leadership positions. I don't agree with the anarchist view of elections, but it is at least consistent with their advocacy of (in my view mythical) leaderless organisations.

Anyway, thanks for the response which was informative.

{Before I go, in relation to your exchange with John Meehan, the Socialist Party and the Committee for a Workers International are also completely opposed to the idea of establishing a one party dictatorship. Instead we argue that:

"A socialist society would transform our sham democracy into a real democracy, extending democratic decisions to all aspects of life, including the economy. Workplaces, schools, neighborhoods, and all institutions would be democratically controlled by elected councils of workers, consumers and all communities.... ...There should be no special privileges for elected public representatives, and they should be subject to immediate recall. Elected representatives should not make any more money than the average worker they represent. A socialist government would have a multi-party system and the right to freedom of speech, association, press, and religion.")

by hs - sp (pc) Tue Dec 12, 2006 23:12

I think reads as a reaction to the sectish nature of the left in general over the last few decades.
All too often leftists of all stripes claim a pure marxism that only their group (out of the whole world!) occupies. Which is infantile to say the least. I would be curious to know if the rejection of leninism or Bolshevism is more a rejection of western european sectism?

Practically though, the article differs very little from the position of the socialist party on standing in elections.

hs

by SP member Wed Dec 13, 2006 00:35

Colm Breathnach the Fourth International no longer exists. You are mistakenly confusing the United Secretariat of the Fourth International (USFI), as the Fourth International. The USFI publicly declared they are no longer Trotskyists a number of years ago and have not been viewed as the Fourth International for over 40 years.

Conor you may not have been a member of the Workers Party but the majority of the ISN were at one time members of the Workers Party or splits from that party, DL or the IRSP. You may not be aware that the WPs origins are to be found in the infiltration of the IRA by the Communist Party, hence their Stalinist politics.

Conor you said: "The word "bolshevik" is mentioned once in the article, Lenin and Trotsky aren't mentioned at all - and yet with absolutely no basis, you assume that a "miseducated" Stalinist cabal has rushed to airbrush any achievements of the October revolution from the politics of the ISN. As I said above, not all our critics are dogmatic, but have no doubt that your baseless criticism is."

Conor unfortunately one of your own members disproves your point with his own words. Colm Breathnach stated: "Personally, my reading has lead me to the view that right from the seizure of power in October 1917, the Bolshevik leadership moved gradually but systematically to undermine workers control, hollow out the soviets and undermine the independence and effectiveness of the trade unions. I’m not an expert on Russian history so I may be wrong, but whether it started in 1918 or later, few would now argue against that fact that by the time Lenin died the Soviet state was already well on the way to bureaucratic authoritarian rule. As for Trotsky’s role, I have not read the 1930s writings alluded to by John but it seems to me that Trotsky was the leading opponent of democracy within the party and of workers control, at least until after Lenin’s death."

In this statement Colm Breathnach is clearly jettisoning the gains of the October Revolution and scandalously reiterates the tired worn out lies that we have heard from bourgeois politicians and historians (and Anarchists) from the moment that Tzarism and capitalism were overthrown in Russia.

It is not surprising that Colm Breathnach, who was educated in the Stalinist school, is ignorant of Trotsky’s role in the USSR and his battle to the death for workers democracy and against Stalinism. Colm would have been taught that Trotsky was the number one enemy of the Soviet Union. Instead of trying to educate HIMSELF in his post Stalinist life about what Trotsky really stood for, and did in the USSR, he has swapped a set of lies for a set of ideas that are the political equivalent of the urban myth, i.e., that Trotsky was anti-democratic. If you want to know what Trotsky stood for and did then read his writings, not the writings of his enemies.

He mentions some opposition groups within the USSR, Workers Opposition etc some of whose leaders ironically became leading Stalinists! Yet he failed to mention the Left Opposition, i.e., the hundreds of thousands of Trotskyists the majority of whom, including Trotsky were murdered defending Marxism, the ideals of October and struggling for workers democracy.

Marxists are used to being called dogmatic. Although this is an irrational accusation and an attempt to portray Marxists as living in the past when in reality Marxism is fresh, vibrant and the only ideas capable of explaining the world in the 21st Century. The fundamental ideas of Darwinism have remained unchanged. Is it also a dogma? Marxism just like Darwinism has "evolved" in the last 150 years but in its fundamental principles and analysis it has not changed. However along the way many individuals and political parties have abandoned Marxism mostly because it did not suit their aims or because they became demoralised by the failures and defeats of revolutions and the class struggle. A lot of these people over the last 150 years have attempted to develop new theories, new ideas and analysis. New methods of trying to change society. None have come up with any credible alternative to Marxism. The ISN are not new in their attempts to "re-invent the wheel".

You claim that your critics are trying to put the ISN in a box but that we will fail to do so. I have to agree. It is not possible to put what the ISN stands for into a "box", or a category. This is because it is not possible to define what the ISN stands for, as the ISN do not have coherent ideas.

Your article on elections and the attempts of the ISN members on this thread to define what they stand for expose the eclectic nature of your politics. A mish-mash of ideas, like a political paella. Unfortunately unlike good paella your ideas once tasted are found to be tainted and unsatisfying.

Those who condemn Lenin as a dogmatist and the author of authoritarianism in the Soviet Union are ignorant of his ideas and methods.

In his pamphlet Left-Wing Communism: an Infantile Disorder Lenin wrote about how Marxists should approach elections and bourgeois parliaments. The following are a number of quotes from this work.

"…that participation in parliamentary elections and in the struggle on the parliamentary rostrum is obligatory on the party of the revolutionary proletariat specifically for the purpose of educating the backward strata of its own class, and for the purpose of awakening and enlightening the undeveloped, downtrodden and ignorant rural masses. Whilst you lack the strength to do away with bourgeois parliaments and every other type of reactionary institution, you must work within them because it is there that you will still find workers who are duped by the priests and stultified by the conditions of rural life; otherwise you risk turning into nothing but windbags."

"The conclusion which follows from this is absolutely incontrovertible: it has been proved that, far from causing harm to the revolutionary proletariat, participation in a bourgeois-democratic parliament, even a few weeks before - the victory of a Soviet republic and even after such a victory, actually helps that proletariat to prove to the backward masses why such parliaments deserve to be done away with; it facilitates their successful dissolution, and helps to make bourgeois parliamentarianism "politically obsolete"."

"In Western Europe and in America, the Communist must learn to create a new, uncustomary, non-opportunist, and non-careerist parliamentarianism; the Communist parties must issue their slogans; true proletarians, with the help of the unorganised and downtrodden poor, should distribute leaflets, canvass workers’ houses and cottages of the rural proletarians and peasants in the remote villages; they should go into the public houses, penetrate into unions, societies and chance gatherings of the common people, and speak to the people, not in learned (or very parliamentary) language, they should not at all strive to "get seats" in parliament, but should everywhere try to get people to think, and draw the masses into the struggle, to take the bourgeoisie at its word and utilise the machinery it has set up, the elections it has appointed, and the appeals it has made to the people; they should try to explain to the people what Bolshevism is, in a way that was never possible (under bourgeois rule) outside of election times (exclusive, of course, of times of big strikes, when in Russia a similar apparatus for widespread popular agitation worked even more intensively). It is very difficult to do this in Western Europe and extremely difficult in America, but it can and must be done, for the objectives of communism cannot be achieved without effort. We must work to accomplish practical tasks, ever more varied and ever more closely connected with all branches of social life, winning branch after branch, and sphere after sphere from the bourgeoisie."

This is how Marxists approach the question of elections.

by John McAnulty - Socialist Democracy Wed Dec 13, 2006 01:16 webmaster at socialistdemocracy dot org

Dan says ‘As far as I can see, anyone from a radical social democrat like Tony Benn, to a member of the WSM, could honestly claim to be developing the tradition of Karl Marx. Which of these views is closer to the spirit of Marx isn’t all that important – what matters is which of them is closer to being right, for the here and now. And we can only find that out by having honest, non-sectarian debate, and testing different strategies in practice’

I agree, but I don’t recognise the practice of the ISN in what Dan says. Recently Socialist Democracy attempted to open a discussion about internal democracy with the ISN, covering many of the issues on this thread, and were brusquely rebuffed. The details are covered at:

http://www.socialistdemocracy.org/RecentArticles/Recent....html

http://www.socialistdemocracy.org/RecentArticles/Recent....html

http://www.socialistdemocracy.org/RecentArticles/Recent....html

The main point linked to their current statement is that no-one demanded that the ISN define themselves in relation to the history of the socialist movement. There was no need to do so in a short statement about elections. The fact that they dismiss the leadership of the only workers government in history and all the associated issues of working class power in a throwaway line is both light-headed and supremely arrogant.

Having failed to support non-sectarian debate, having unnecessarily made dogmatic assertions about the nature of socialism, the ISN go on, in my view, to get the here and now wrong. It would seem common sense that what protects revolutionaries standing in elections is not the anti-leadership sentiment within the organisation but the revolutionary demands that they stand on and stand by. My observation of the movement convinces me that what is missing from their statement is the most important immediate and practical issue – their clear view that we should appeal to the class by standing on a reformist ticket. To be fair to the ISN, almost all Irish left organisations agree with them.

The ISN seem to feel no need to examine what happens in the here and now. They support the SSP, a party with revolutionary currents within and a reformist programme, but don’t seem to feel that the recent implosion of the party might have something to do with this tension or that any explanation of the collapse is necessary.

The tensions are real, the issue of elections and of reformism are real issues. An honest non-sectarian debate within the socialist movement would be a real advance, but I won’t hold my breath.

by Conor - ISN - p.c. Wed Dec 13, 2006 01:54

I don't usually facilitate bickering posturing as debate/education, but I will clarify some points in the mind of the anonymous fool who is posting as "SPer"

First of all, I am well aware of the politics of the WP. If I, or others in the ISN weren't before, we all are now. Using the WP stick (no joke intended) against my comrades seems to be the common theme amongst assorted trolls and dogmatic dullards on indymedia when their algebraic arguments let them down. As I said to SPer, and the same goes for any troll, if you have any legitimate critiques or questions of the ISN, put them forward. I think that we have demonstrated on this thread (and others) that we are open to questions and suggestions. If you are going to substitute debate and discussion for personal attack, then you can waste indymedia's webspace doing so, but we won't be wasting our time getting back to you.

If you took the time to read Colm's arguments you would see that he doesn't "jettison the gains of the October revolution". It is my opinion that Colm is correct when he says that "by the time Lenin died the Soviet state was already well on the way to bureaucratic authoritarian rule". Many on the left were critical of the Bolsheviks at the time, and many have been since. If you want to read articles on Rosa Luxemburg or Anton Pannekoek, I'd suggest you follow the link at the bottom of my post.

Then again, its easier to read between the lines, when the printed word doesn't fit your revealed truth. After all, if dogma is a belief or doctrine held any kind of organization to be authoritative, then evidence, analysis, or established fact may or may not be adduced, depending upon usage.

So SPer, the true and reasonable voice of Darwin and Marx eventually suspends all rational debate and starts slurring the ISN with all he has. We are "trying to reinvent the wheel", we are "a mish-mash of ideas", and worst of all "eclectic". All conversation stoppers if ever I've heard them.

And after all these years shouldn't we in the ISN be happy to be assigned a meal of our own. A paella! I suppose that means that we are the Cuba to SPers Soviet union. A little bit Spanish, a little bit fishy, and the Anarcho types seem to go all soft around us cause unlike that fine omelette we're not responsible for the smashing of lots and lots of eggs.

by SP member Wed Dec 13, 2006 02:03

"In Internet terminology, a troll is a person who enters an established community such as an online discussion forum and intentionally tries to cause disruption, often in the form of posting messages that are off-topic, with the intent of provoking a reaction from others. The troll differs from the Snert in that it is the troll's intention to cause disruption to the community and not necessarily insult or offend, as is the intention of the Snert." Wikipedia definition.

Conor nowhere in my contribution is there a comment that is off topic or that diverts the discussion away from the topic(s) being debated. None of my comments are insults, they are statements of fact and opinion.

If you decide to ignore the serious political criticisms I have levelled against your organisation because you can't be bothered to answer them or are incapable of answering them, then say so and don't try to evade the issues by making spurious claims of trolling.

by ger Wed Dec 13, 2006 10:32

In his pamphlet Left-Wing Communism: an Infantile Disorder Lenin wrote about how Marxists should approach elections and bourgeois parliaments. The following are a number of quotes from this work.

"…that participation in parliamentary elections and in the struggle on the parliamentary rostrum is obligatory on the party of the revolutionary proletariat specifically for the purpose of educating the backward strata of its own class, and for the purpose of awakening and enlightening the undeveloped, downtrodden and ignorant rural masses. Whilst you lack the strength to do away with bourgeois parliaments and every other type of reactionary institution, you must work within them because it is there that you will still find workers who are duped by the priests and stultified by the conditions of rural life; otherwise you risk turning into nothing but windbags."

I'm looking forward to Claire D mobilising the ignorant rural, undeveloped, duped, stultified residents of Swords in the next General Election. Take my advice better not put this in your election material as your reason for standing

by anon Wed Dec 13, 2006 10:37

Dare to differ and the sectish ghouls descend. Amazing really coz I thought the ISN's rejection of Leninism was a well known fact already.

Mark P, even though he's off down some side roads, is at least trying to engage in respectful dialogue. Seems to me that most of the rest of the Trot contributors are just trolling and shit-stirring. McNulty, in addition, seems into settling some old score coz the ISN wouldn't debate with his sect. :-) Is he for real?

The ISN's declaration of left communism should come as no surprise to activists who have actually worked with their members. To ask them to minutely locate themselves within that tradition is just pedantic nonsense and the sort of thing that only sect members could get worked up about.

by Alan Wed Dec 13, 2006 10:59

I wonder are they defending the one party state? Come clean comrades. Do you both yearn for an end to political pluralism? As Lenin said "democracy is precious, so precious it must be rationed" or something to that effect. If so I dread the day! And I would suggest that you seriously do not state that in your election material as the 'unconscious' workers would never tolerate it.

by Dan - ISN (p.c) Wed Dec 13, 2006 11:20

I think I understand better now why Mark P was confused about the ISN’s position. If we had signed up to council communism in the narrow sense of the term, then of course that would be hard to square with other positions we’ve adopted. I hope it’s clear now that we identify with a broad tradition that includes people like Pannekoek and Rosa Luxemburg, not a narrow doctrine. The term “left communist” may confuse people. If it’s giving the wrong impression, we may revise the language in due course, it wouldn’t change the substance of our position.

If the term “left communist” has baggage, that’s surely nothing compared to “Leninism”. There’s been a helluva lot of disagreement about what that term actually means. You can draw different conclusions because naturally, the Bolsheviks evolved over time and Lenin changed his position on various issues (for example, at one point he said socialist ideas had to be brought into the working class from the outside; elsewhere, he said that workers were naturally, instinctively socialist).

I’d say when the ISN refer negatively to “Leninism” and rejects that tradition, what we reject is the idea of a narrow, tightly centralised organisation controlled by a small leadership group, with a high-handed, arrogant view towards the working class. We reject the idea of a one-party state backed up by a secret police force that’s totally independent of democratic control and which represses political opposition.

I’ve read quite a bit about the development of the Russian revolution, and I think this is a fair description of the way the Bolsheviks developed after taking power up until the point when Lenin became too ill to play an active role. It’s not a caricature and it’s certainly not dishonest (“SP Member” has unfortunately retreated into the realm of fantasy by denying well-established facts and denouncing Colm as a liar for simply stating the bleedin’ obvious – it’s very hard to have any kind of discussion with people who insist that 2 + 2 = 5 and black is actually white).

If Mark has a different interpretation of Leninism, he can argue the case for it. But it’s hardly surprising if, when organisations like the SP describe themselves as Leninists, people interpret that a certain way. If “Leninism” doesn’t refer to the actual behaviour of Lenin when he was in power, then what does it refer to? It’s possible to say that the Leninist / Trotskyist tradition contains many useful ideas while explicitly condemning the undemocratic practices of Lenin and Trotsky in the early years of the revolution – as John M. wrote, the USFI have done this. But if you don’t say this explicitly, people are bound to assume that you have no problem with these undemocratic practices.

Anyway, I think it’s a bit unfortunate that 90% of the discussion on this page has focused on a couple of sentences. As I remember, when the ISN held a meeting to discuss the draft version of this paper, the “left communist / Bolshevik” section got about 5 minutes’ discussion, while we spent more than an hour going over our views on representative vs participatory democracy, how elections should be used by radical socialists and so on.

There’s one point I made during that discussion, which I think everyone who’s thinking about these questions whether Marxist (of any variety) or anarchist should have a think about. During the first half of the 20 century, there were impressive examples of participatory democracy in practice: the workers’ councils in Russia, Germany, Italy etc after WW1, the revolutionary experiment in Republican areas during the Spanish Civil War.

Since then we haven’t really seen anything like that, at least not in the developed world. From the late sixties onwards, there were big protest movements in countries like France, Italy and Britain, but they never reached the stage where there was a network of factory and community councils that was presenting a real challenge to the existing political institutions.

This doesn’t mean that it can’t happen, but it is a real challenge for anyone who doesn’t think the current political order is the best we can hope for and wants to move towards participatory democracy. Over the last few decades, countless people have implicitly rejected the idea that “politics” is something that should be left to professional politicians by taking part in big protest movements and taking matters into their own hands, but they haven’t reached the level of the council movements in Europe after WW1.

I don’t claim to have any easy answers to this problem. I think the experience of countries like Russia and Spain between the two world wars is going to be of limited value, since those countries had very weak traditions of representative democracy (Russia actually had soviets before it ever had a parliament). There’s probably more to be learnt by looking at the experience of the Left in societies like France, Italy and Chile since the late sixties, where there were parliamentary institutions that had put down deep roots.

Regarding the SSP and the ISN’s view towards it, I don’t think we’ve said all that much about them in public. Colm has written articles for the ISM’s publication about Irish politics. As far as I can remember the only official statement we’ve issued about the SSP was a brief message of solidarity we sent earlier this year to the party conference. Getting into a row about the Tommy Sheridan affair would consume a lot of energy to no useful purpose, but suffice it to say we reckon the SSP is a healthier organisation than Sheridan’s new vehicle and a better bet for the future of the Scottish left.

Since you’re curious, I think ISN members would have the following main criticisms of the way the SSP has developed (from the discussions we’ve had amongst ourselves): we think they were too dependent on Sheridan in building the party, particularly when he was their only MSP; we think they’ve put too much emphasis on Scottish nationalism; and it seems like since 2003, when they made an electoral breakthrough, they’ve drifted towards focusing too much on backing up their reps in the Scottish assembly and neglected grassroots activism (the open letter Kevin Williamson wrote when he resigned from the SSP over the summer had some interesting things to say on this, although I think he exaggerated some points and drew the exact opposite conclusions about the party’s commitment to Scottish nationalism).

ISN members have made these points in discussions with members of the SSP, including its MSPs as Colm said; whether we’ve influenced them or not I don’t know, but we’ve made our case anyway. If we haven’t drafted a lengthy document summarising our differences with the SSP, it’s not because we take an uncritical view.

In fact the reason is a lot more mundane – with a small membership, there’s a limit to the number of articles that we can get members to write on any subject, and we have to prioritise. We’d sooner put our energy into working out and formalising our own positions, instead of criticising those of the SSP or other left groups (I don’t think we’ve ever issued a statement criticising the Irish SP, and we’ve actually given more practical support to the SP by canvassing for Clare Daly in the last election than we ever have to the SSP. This doesn’t mean that we are uncritical cheerleaders of the SP/CWI :) ).

Finally regarding John McAnulty’s contribution: if he’s really surprised that the ISN was in no hurry to invest time and energy in a debate with his organisation, he might care to re-read his own documents, which among other gems refer to the “monstrous Campaign for an Independent Left”. Now the Campaign for an Independent Left may be criticised by John and SD for one reason or another – in their eyes, it may be misguided, wrong-headed, foolish or even downright wrong.

But to describe it as “monstrous” betrays a dizzying lack of perspective. The Nazis were monstrous. Pinochet was monstrous. The Israeli attack on Lebanon was monstrous. But the CIL is not monstrous by any stretch of the imagination – so far as I know, Seamus Healy is not a child molester and Joan Collins does not sell heroin in school playgrounds.

When you use this kind of poisonous, abusive language, don’t be surprised if people are in no hurry to take time out from their busy schedules so they can be your punching bags. If you want “honest, non-sectarian debate”, then some minimal standards of courtesy are required. SD have earned themselves a well-deserved reputation for hyper-sectarianism over the years. You’re perfectly free to use poisonous language and make dishonest claims if you like, but other are perfectly free to ignore you.

by Clancy Wed Dec 13, 2006 13:39

'the IRA was infiltrated by the communist party' Is this really the best analysis that the left can come up with for the emergence of the Official republican movement and later the WP after 40 years? Its what Sean MacStioain thought in 1967 but I'd expect the SP in 2006 to be a bit more sophisticated.

by Colm B - ISN pc Wed Dec 13, 2006 14:20

I will happily respond to and refute every childish lie that SPer has written about me when he/she has the bottle to print them under their own name, which wont happen of course because he/she is a gutless wonder. Personally I doubt if it is a member of the SP since I have worked over many years with many comrades in the SP in various campaigns/elections and while they have sometimes criticised my views I have never been attacked or slandered by them (Isn't it odd that a vile neo-stalinist hack like me would have been personally asked by Joe Higgins to stand in Dun Laoghaire, where I was an independent socialist councillor, as a candidate on a joint ticket with the SP and other independents in the 1997 general election?)

by democrat - workers voice Wed Dec 13, 2006 16:24

I’m trying to follow the thread of this debate and it appears to have gotten into a row about the Russian Revolution, Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin and exactly when the “Revolution was Betrayed”

Some (basically SP members) are saying that the degeneration was purely connected to the power struggle after Lenin’s death between Stalin and Trotsky. The argue that Trotsky would have continued the revolution led by Lenin up to then and that Stalin took over and put in place a bastardisation of communism, Stalinism.

Here are a few quotes from Trotsky that refute this position

“There are no absolute rules of conduct, either in peace or war. Everything depends on circumstances.”

Stalin would have agreed entirely. Was Stalin a Trotskyist?

“But terror can be very efficient against a reactionary class which does not want to leave the scene of operations. Intimidation is a powerful weapon of policy, both internationally and internally. War, like revolution, is founded upon intimidation. A victorious war, generally speaking, destroys only an insignificant part of the conquered army, intimidating the remainder and breaking their will. The revolution works in the same way: it kills individuals and intimidates thousands. In this sense, the Red Terror is not distinguishable from the armed insurrection of which it is the direct continuation.”

Stalin was big on intimidation; breaking people’s will and “Red Terror” he certainly treated all opposition as “enemies of the revolution”

“During war all constitutions and organs of the State and of public opinion become, directly or indirectly, weapons of warfare. This is particularly true of the Press. No government carrying on a serious war will allow publications to exist on its territory which, openly or indirectly, support the enemy. Still more so in a civil war. The nature of the latter is such that each of its struggling sides has in the rear of its armies considerable circles of the population on the side of the enemy. In war, where both success and failure are repaid by death, hostile agents who penetrate into the rear are subject to execution.”

Stalin would agree, to write a publication criticising his position was, in his eyes, the same as taking up arms against the Soviet Union and you could be expected to be treated as a hostile agent indeed many Bolsheviks were for criticising him
"The creation of a socialist society means the organisation of the workers on new foundations, their adaptation to those foundations and their labour re-education, with the one unchanging end of the increase in the productivity of labour".
Workers have one end, to increase productivity. Very Stalinist!

"The introduction of compulsory labour service is unthinkable without the application, to a greater or lesser degree, of the methods of militarisation of labour".
Stalin was big on the militarization of Labour
"We have been more than once accused of having substituted for the dictatorship of the soviets the dictatorship of our own Party. . . In this substitution of the power of the party for the power of the working class there is nothing accidental, and in reality there is no substitution at all. The Communists express the fundamental interests of the working class..."
We are the people! Therefore the party’s will is the will of the people. To be opposed to the Party line is to be against the people
"They [the workers' opposition] have come out with dangerous slogans. They have made a fetish of democratic principles. They have placed the workers' right to elect representatives above the party. As if the Party were not entitled to assert its dictatorship even if that dictatorship clashed with the passing moods of the workers' democracy! . . The Party is obliged to maintain its dictatorship . . . regardless of temporary vacillations even in the working class . . . The dictatorship does not base itself at every moment on the formal principle of a workers' democracy."

Democratic principles are a fetish! Workers rights are subordinate to the Party! Workers demands are “passing moods” to be ignored when they clash with the party’s interests; worker’s democracy is dependent on it fitting the needs of the Party.

All of the above could be used to justify what Stalin did and could have been written by Stalin.

by SP Member - Socialist Party/CWI Wed Dec 13, 2006 19:33

democrat said

'Some (basically SP members) are saying that the degeneration was purely connected to the power struggle after Lenin’s death between Stalin and Trotsky. The argue that Trotsky would have continued the revolution led by Lenin up to then and that Stalin took over and put in place a bastardisation of communism, Stalinism.'

Lenin argued from the outset the counter-revolution would occur in Russia in the event of the failure of th revolution in the advanced countries of Western Europe. Russia was too economically backward and the proportion of the working class too small for it to survive indefinitely. This position was supported by Trotsky.

It was inevitable that the revolution in the Soviet Union would degenerate without a successful revolution in the West. Socialism cannot be built in one country.

The struggle between Trotsky and Stalin after Lenin's death was not a struggle about personalities but a struggle over the democratic socialist ideals of the Bolshevik revolution as fought for by the Left Opposition and bureauractic distortions promoted by the Stalinist wing. This was a struggle that started before Lenin's death and continued right up to the collapse of Stalinism in 1989.

If the Left Opposition had been successful in winning the political struggle for the genuine traditions of the revolution then counter revolution/ degeneration could have been delayed for a period. However the greatest impact the a victory of the Left Opposition would have been the correct orientation of the Comintern towards the revolutions unfolding on a worldwide basis in the 1920's and 1930's rather than the establishment of a bloc to facilitate the consolidation of the bureaucracy under the guise of 'socialism in one country'. The success of Stalinism ensured the derailment of revolution after revolution during a period when the forces of the Left Opposition had been devastated in the Soviet Union and were too weak elsewhere to counteract the influence of Stalinism.

by Another SP member Thu Dec 14, 2006 01:38

A reply to "democrat – workers voice".

"There are no absolute rules of conduct, either in peace or war. Everything depends on circumstances." – Trotsky.

Anyone with a basic understanding of the class struggle or war would agree with this statement, it is common sense.

"But terror can be very efficient against a reactionary class which does not want to leave the scene of operations. Intimidation is a powerful weapon of policy, both internationally and internally. War, like revolution, is founded upon intimidation. A victorious war, generally speaking, destroys only an insignificant part of the conquered army, intimidating the remainder and breaking their will. The revolution works in the same way: it kills individuals and intimidates thousands. In this sense, the Red Terror is not distinguishable from the armed insurrection of which it is the direct continuation." – Trotsky.

Trotsky was explaining how the working class could defeat the ruling class in a revolutionary struggle. The use of the words terror and intimidation are used in the context of terrorising and intimidating the capitalist class, and its political and armed forces. Trotsky was talking about mass terrorism, when the mass of the working class by becoming political conscious of their own power as a class move through general strikes and mass protests and even armed defence to overthrow the capitalist system or to prevent counter-revolution. I would ask you the question why would you disagree with this statement?

"During war all constitutions and organs of the State and of public opinion become, directly or indirectly, weapons of warfare. This is particularly true of the Press. No government carrying on a serious war will allow publications to exist on its territory which, openly or indirectly, support the enemy. Still more so in a civil war. The nature of the latter is such that each of its struggling sides has in the rear of its armies considerable circles of the population on the side of the enemy. In war, where both success and failure are repaid by death, hostile agents who penetrate into the rear are subject to execution."

Again please explain to us what you object to in this statement? Let us exam in a concrete way what exactly Trotsky was talking about. He was referring to the counter revolutionary civil war waged by the Whites, backed up by 21 imperialist armies to overthrow the gains of the Russian Revolution.
Do you believe that the Soviet government should have allowed the Whites to politically organise in the parts of the Soviet Union controlled by the Red Army and the working class?
Should they have been allowed to publish newspapers propagandising against the revolution? Maybe they should have been allowed to hold demonstrations and meetings!
Should political parties who were sympathetic to the counter-revolution have been allowed to politically organise and be extended "freedom of speech" to assist the counter revolutionary armies?
Do you believe that there were no agents in Soviet controlled territory who were engaging in acts of sabotage or sections of society carrying out acts that assisted the counter-revolution?
My next comment is not intended to be an insult, but if you do believe that the Soviet government was wrong to prevent counter revolutionary forces from organising then you are a very naive person. By preventing the forces of counter-revolution from organising and by denying them rights that would normally exist during a time of peace, i.e., freedom of speech etc, the Soviet government was defending democracy and the gains of the Russian Revolution. Denying democratic rights to your enemy during a time of war is necessary in order for the working class to enjoy full democratic and economic freedom once the socialist revolution has been successfully defended. To have done otherwise may have allowed the counter-revolution to succeed and not only would capitalist rule have been reimposed but a brutal military dictatorship (possibly the worlds first fascist regime) would have taken control of Russia backed up by the armies of imperialism.

"The creation of a socialist society means the organisation of the workers on new foundations, their adaptation to those foundations and their labour re-education, with the one unchanging end of the increase in the productivity of labour".

It is easy to take a quotation out of context and twist it to suit your argument. It was crucial for the survival of the revolution for the economy to be completely re-organised from its pre-revolutionary semi-feudal condition into a modern, well-planned economy that utilised the most modern machinery and production techniques. The vast majority of Russians were peasants who for centuries had tiled the soil of the landlords with the most basic hand tools, and horse drawn ploughs. Why is it wrong to say that they needed to be educated in the best methods of production of modern industry? Why is it wrong for Trotsky to say that it was crucial to have a major increase in the productivity of labour? Soviet society needed firstly to arm itself to defend the revolution. This required a war economy. Soviet society needed to have a massive increase in food production to feed its people, to eradicate not just malnutrition but famine that drove some to cannibalism. It needed to build roads, railways, schools, hospitals, tractors, and an electricity network etc. This could not be achieved using the production methods that existed under Tzarist rule. If the Soviet government didn’t make major strides forward in trying to solve these critical problems then the majority of people would have turned against the revolution because it would have failed to meet their needs. The main method used by the Bolsheviks to achieve these economic aims was to politically win over the majority of workers and peasants to supporting these objectives.

You should give source information for the next two quotes that you give. You have again quoted Trotsky out of context but also you have edited the second quotation and left sections out in order to mould it for your own purposes. Give me the source and I will answer your accusations.

You claim that Stalin could have made any of these statements. This is not so. Stalin was a political lightweight. He would never have had the political depth to make such important judgements, assessments and proposals for action as those contained in the comments from Trotsky.

by John McAnulty - Socialist Democracy Thu Dec 14, 2006 02:47 webmaster at socialistdemocracy dot org

Try again.

I said three things and Dan of the ISN ignored them all. Lets try again.

I said the ISN were being arrogant in deciding on the nature of the Bolshevik led government in a throwaway line. Dan confirms that by saying that it took them 5 minutes to come to a decision and that this was OK because some members had read books about the issue. That’s arrogance. At any time the ISN could have brought the thread to a close by saying that the issue requires more thought and they will reflect on it. Instead they harden out their position – the Bolsheviks have had their 5 minutes and that’s it. Dan says there is no need to debate with us because we are hypersectarians – that’s arrogant. Making the charge without substantiating it means that Dan is standing in some high lofty place where he and the ISN can look down on us mere mortals and put us in our boxes. By the way, this has been a characteristic of the ISN for some time. Dan says that everyone from left social democrats on can claim to be in the tradition of Marxism, but in real life his organisation practices secret diplomacy, cherrypicking who is worthy of discussion.

SD are sectarian because of the terrible language I used. I’ll come back to that in a moment. The main point is that the ISN were able to tell in advance what terrible things I would say and reject discussion. My initial contribution was perfectly fraternal and a serious attempt to discuss. I was a little tetchy when rebuffed. We are willing to join in joint activity with anyone around agreed issues, we are willing to fraternally debate with anyone. We always play the ball and not the player. And we are the sectarians?

I accused the ISN of dogmatism. They advance a policy of unstructured democracy. I make fraternal criticism of the policy not on the basis of what Lenin, Trotsky or anyone else said but on the grounds that I started my political career in ‘New Left’ movements that held identical views to the ISN nearly 40 years ago. I and my comrades went through a great deal of pain and suffering in overcoming these early mistakes and I though the ISN might be interested in our experience. Instead we get a dogmatic rejection of discussion and now hysterical name-calling. Yet we are the sectarians! I think that you will find that any real commitment to a socialist democracy involves quite an enthusiasm for debate – even with people outside you organisation – even with people you dislike!

My third point was put quite diplomatically, so I will be more direct. I was accusing the ISN of obscuring the real issues. Your policy statement is full of platitudes about standing in elections, an issue really only contentious in the anarchist movement. What is not in the document, but evident in your actions, is the conviction that reformist programmes, such as the one you proposed for the CIL, are the basis for a revolutionary intervention.

That brings me back to my use of the word monstrous - a word that Dan sees as so terrible as to put me and my organisation beyond the pale, way out in the hypersectarian outer limits. It’s a word that seems to mean quite strange things to him, a word to make working class militants weak at the knees and reach for the smelling salts.

From my point of view the word has a quite mundane meaning, familiar to anyone who has watched an old horror movie. A monster is a creature jumbled together from a collection of parts. It seems to me to describe perfectly the CIL, a group of people who mostly describe themselves as revolutionaries but who have firmly bolted the head of a reformist onto the body and sent it shambling about the highways and byways.

That leaves one question. If the CIL is a monster, who is Doctor Frankenstein?

by update Thu Dec 14, 2006 10:12

The ISN left the CIL a long time ago, presumably because they made an assessment that it was going nowhere.

by anon Thu Dec 14, 2006 10:29

John, just because you begin jabbering at every bus stop you meander along to doesn't mean that others in the queue are obliged to talk to you.

Socialist Democracy is a tiny group precisely because of its dogmatic politics and utter sectarianism. It's a sect. What makes you think ANY left group would want to waste useful time in debate with you? It would be as useful (or worthless) to debate the Sparticists!

No offence to John but activists ultimately have to choose how to allocate their time and debating with Socialist Democracy is unlikely to top the agenda of any left-wing organisation in Ireland. That's just the reality out there.

by Dan - ISN (p.c) Thu Dec 14, 2006 10:39

We decided that we wouldn't invest our energy in a polemical debate with SD John, so you won't be getting your debate now by proxy. I'd say we're confident that anyone on the Irish left who's familiar with the approach of SD to "debate" will understand our decision. Since you still insist that it's perfectly appropriate to describe the CIL, a modest initiative involving three left groups that the ISN decided to leave some time ago, as "monstrous", you've confirmed that any "debate" with SD will involve the use of poisonous, hysterical language. We are always quite happy to debate with people who are willing to observe minimal standards of courtesy, as anyone can see from the responses of ISN members to Mark P and John M on this thread.

by Jon A - SD Thu Dec 14, 2006 17:37

Maybe I've missed something and there has been a great outbreak of politeness on the Dublin left. Or maybe those of us beyond the Pale just aren't as practised in diplomacy. Either way, Dan's transformation into Miss Manners leaves me a little bemused.

Dan claims cryptically that 'we're confident that anyone on the Irish left who's familiar with the approach of SD to "debate" will understand our decision' and then goes on to say that 'any "debate" with SD will involve the use of poisonous, hysterical language'.

Really?

Just from my own personal experience, I've been described to my face as "objectively pro-fascist" by two senior members of the SWP, and as a Provo by SP members. I don't know if this meets Dan's minimum standards of courtesy, but I'm less than impressed by the immense umbrage he takes at John's choice of adjective to describe the CIL, a body to which the ISN, after all, does not belong.

To recap: the ISN has problems with the Bolshevik tradition. That's fair enough. As John Meehan will testify, our political tendency has produced tons of material on the Stalinist dictatorship and how it arose historically. If the ISN wants to produce documents on the degeneration of the Russian Revolution, or the KAPD, or how Pannekoek was a clever bloke with some interesting ideas, that is perfectly all right by me.

But that isn't what you've done. What you've done, in a document on electoral policy, is to slip in an offhand dismissal of the entire Bolshevik tradition - in a document where you didn't even need to mention the issue - and then take some high-minded position that to debate this issue - at least with people who debate robustly - is (a) sectarian and (b) a waste of your limited energy. Yet it is perfectly productive to exchange pleasantries about Pannekoek or the KAPD or whatever, as long as we meet the required standard of politeness.

I have a suspicion - and I emphasise it's a suspicion rather than a definite criticism - that the ISN has a set of unofficial dogmas that only emerge in the margins of your documents, and that you might not even be conscious of. I would only suggest that you can best clarify your ideas through debate - whether internal or open is up to you. I suggest as well that we are entirely capable of fraternal debate, and that members of the ISN, who are good experienced activists, are not so fragile that they can't give as good as they get.

by anon Thu Dec 14, 2006 17:48

Does Socialist Democracy actually do anything other than engage in polemical 'debate' ? Very little, I would suggest. Oh wait, you hang around public meetings and conferences sticking your hands up to make 'interventions' detailing your purism - as opposed to the 'opportunism' of everybody else on the left.

Let's be honest here, activists won't waste their time debating with you because they...err...don't take you seriously. Don't you think this is clear by now?

by Dermot Lacey Thu Dec 14, 2006 18:12

I am absolutely shocked. I did not think there was anyone Left who spoke the sort of language used to date in this thread.

If we are ever to make real practical progress for ordinary working people - which to me is the only point of Left/Progressive politics - a start could be made of speaking their language instead of the outdated rhetoric and attachment to outdated concepts. FF/FG/ and the PD's will surely shake at the implications of this ISN development

by Indo Thu Dec 14, 2006 18:33

Which piece of the ISN document is outdated? Or are you just going on what was said in this thread? You surely wouldn't critcise a document without actually reading it, would you?

by Dermot Lacey Thu Dec 14, 2006 18:42

Indo,

I have in fact read the entire document ( short and all as it is) and you are correct I would not comment without doing so. I believe that the thinking behind and the entire approach is outdated. But in fact it was more the langauge used in the thread that is outdated. Have you ever heard an ordinary working class person spout the sort of nonsense uttered in the previous postings.

by me Thu Dec 14, 2006 19:46

Actually, Dermot, I think this is a very interesting thread, apart from the occasional rants by sectarian posters. The original ISN policy document poses a number of interesting questions to my mind, such as:

1. Is representative democracy the best model of democracy or is there a better alternative?

2. Should the economy be run by and for the benefit of ordinary people, or for the profits of a few?

3. Should revolutionary socialists boycott parliamentary elections at this point in time?

The third question, of course, isn't an issue for you because your answer to the first two would be: 1) Yes, and 2) No.

by surfer Thu Dec 14, 2006 19:52

Jon A,

You say that the ISN should produce documents on Luxemburg and Pannekoek, which kinda suggests that you haven't looked at their site recently. On the publications page, there is a downloadable pamphlet on Rosa Luxemburg and a lengthy article by Fintan Lane on Anton Pannekoek.

Click on: http://irishsocialist.net/publications.html

by Another anarcho Thu Dec 14, 2006 20:08

For all the attacks and sniping and dismisal this ISN document has generated quite a level of interest on indymedia. I dont agree with their conclusion that socialists should participate in elections but its an interesting document and it sure brought them all out of the woodwork. One grouch: Would be better if we had more Mark P. and less SP member, metaphorically speaking.

by Dan - ISN (p.c) Thu Dec 14, 2006 20:17

Final word to SD – we have decided, in our limited wisdom, that we don’t want to invest our energy in a debate with your organisation. Very simply, there wasn’t a single member of the ISN who was willing to take the time to write a response to your views. Deal with it, move on. To be honest, I have no fear that anyone outside the membership of SD will be outraged and appalled by our unwillingness to debate with them.

Jon A is free to be “less than impressed” if he likes. Certainly, if anyone began a political discussion by telling me I was “objectively pro-Fascist”, I wouldn’t see any point continuing the discussion – it would just be an exchange of insults from then on. Calling the CIL “monstrous” is just one example of SD’s use of abusive, hysterical language, and their dishonesty. I could cite many more (even from their posts on this thread).

This attitude doesn’t apply merely to SD, as anyone can see from this thread. ISN members were quite happy to respond to points made by Mark P of the Socialist Party, because he actually put forward constructive arguments. On the other hand, “SP Member” (who may or may not be a member of the SP, but let’s assume that they are) was dismissed as a crank and a troll, because his/her posts were hysterical and dishonest.

There’s a long and ignoble tradition of people on the far left trying to emulate Lenin and Trotsky by coming up with the most over-the-top denunciations of other left groups and individuals they can muster. This approach has precisely nothing to contribute to real debate and discussion about socialist ideas.

Anyway, this is the last time I will be responding to SD – as I said in my last post, we decided not to have a debate with your organisation, and you won’t get us to debate with you now in a roundabout way.

Now to Dermot L – the ISN can only take responsibility for what we’ve said ourselves, not for everything that’s been said by other people on this thread. I’m quite satisfied that the language we use is clear and accessible to anyone with an interest in what we have to say. We don’t use specialised jargon that will fly over people’s heads.

Now, it’s perfectly true that not everyone will be interested in the subject matter of this thread. The overwhelming focus of our document was on the attitude of socialists to elections, but most of the criticism directed at it has focused on our passing remarks about Leninism. The number of people in Ireland who are interested in the finer points of the Russian revolution is no doubt limited. I’d prefer it if this thread was a discussion of how socialists can use electoral politics to advance their goals (our document is just a starting point for discussion). But it wasn’t the ISN’s choice to concentrate on the Bolsheviks, and it’s certainly not the main focus of the material we produce.

In my experience, saying that something is “outdated” is often a substitute for coming up with real arguments against it (particularly coming from people on the right wing of social democracy). You ask “have you ever heard an ordinary working class person spout the sort of nonsense uttered in the previous postings.” Well I’ll repeat again – we can only take responsibility for what we’ve said ourselves.

But I don’t think an “ordinary working class person” would have any trouble getting a handle on our attitude towards electoral politics. We would say to people that it can be very useful for radical candidates to run and get elected if possible, in order to use electoral politics as a platform to promote their ideas. But this can’t be the be-all and end-all of political activism, or even the main focus – real change comes about because people take action themselves, instead of waiting for politicians to do it for them.

The “ordinary working class person” you have in mind might agree with that, or they might disagree. But they certainly shouldn’t find it incomprehensible. As Mark P and hs have said, our position is similar enough to that of the SP – they’ve got enough working-class people to support that position to get Joe Higgins in the Dail, and they look set to have Clare Daly elected next time round.

We don’t expect to achieve the same success in the short term, our organization is too small and doesn’t have enough of a presence. But we know for a fact that working-class people in Ireland are willing to support radical socialist candidates. You should know Dermot, you’ve put a fair bit of effort into harassing one of them, Joan Collins, on the letters page of Village Magazine.

by Dermot Lacey Fri Dec 15, 2006 11:12

In response to "person styling themselves as "me" can i simply say I would have answered your first question Yes and Question Number 2 Yes also. I do believe that our society should be run for the benefit of ordinary people. However I do not believe that we should delay introduction of reforms until some sort of Socialist Utopia is achieved.

To Dan - yes I have politically engaged and challened what I consider to be the false political premise of Joan Collins and used the media to so on issues. I have also supported Joan on a number of different political issues at City Council. That is not any sort of personal attack - it is political disagreement and debate. Joan is a Socialist of a particular type. I have never claimed to be. I am a Social Democrat. I am committed to that political tradition and proud of my role in advancing various "Left" causes that I cherish.

Incidentally if I was perceived as being offensive to the ISN I actually do apologise. While i do not share their analysis I have always found the ISN as a body and the few people I know who are members to be of the highest integrity. Unlike some organisations on the Left and most on the Right they do not try to mislead working people in pursuit of their end game,

by Jon A - SD Fri Dec 15, 2006 15:01

As John McAnulty pointed out in his original article on Leninism, we are a fairly thick-skinned bunch. Nor do the ISN have to reply to us if they don't want to. I find it interesting though that Dan is adamant no ISN member will reply to any political point we raise, while at three points in this thread he has posted indignantly about John's choice of adjective to describe a campaign the ISN doesn't even support!

Now Dan is free to like or dislike our literary style. None of us are Marcel Proust. But really - if the ISN adopted Dan's criteria, they would never work with anybody. Is Dan saying the ISN shouldn't support Clare Daly's election campaign because of something scurrilous that Brian Cahill wrote on some message board? Of course not. And while I can accept that Dan might be genuinely offended by sharp polemical language, it stretches credibility to say that's true of the entire ISN. After all, we know how disputes were settled in the Workers Party.

It is quite clear that the problem is political. The ISN condemn us to outer darkness, but have no problem - on the same thread! - arguing the toss with members of the CWI sect, which is hardly known for its politeness. It seems clear to me that they feel an affinity to the SP, while there is something about our politics they find deeply repugnant - what that is I don't know, because they refuse to say.

And the funny thing is that in Belfast we work very well with members of the ISN, nor do we have any trouble discussing the tasks ahead with them. And that really is the point. If I had written a reply to Colm's article I wouldn't have phrased it like John did, but I would have made the same point we have been making for years in left unity discussions - that you start with the tasks facing the working class. It isn't us who brought up the Russian Revolution or democratic centralism.

Incidentally, I will repeat one point from John - the ISN set great store by having a broad, pluralist, non-hierarchical, no-leader, no-dogma, direct democracy organisation. The original Peoples Democracy was just such an organisation, only on a far bigger scale than the ISN, and it proved just how undemocratic direct democracy is. The point may not be obvious to comrades with a background in the WPI (or in Dan's case, the SWP) which are not democratic centralist but centralist.

Tell you what Dan, next time you're in Belfast let me know. I'll buy you a pint and we can discuss Rosa Luxemburg to your heart's content.

by Fintan Lane - ISN Fri Dec 15, 2006 15:33

Contrary to the impression given in one or two comments above, members of the ISN do NOT all come from a Workers' Party background. For example, I was never a member of the WP and that's true for other members, a couple of whom were previously in the SWP.

by Jon A - SD Fri Dec 15, 2006 16:12

I never made such a sweeping statement, Fintan. After all, I was never in PD.

by Dermot Lacey Fri Dec 15, 2006 16:25

It is a real pity that "Misleading - Social Hypocrisy" is such a coward and hides behind a false name.

It is also a real pity that he cannot engage in politiical debate.
I do not find it tough to defend my views and nor do I find it "tough to be Dermot Lacey". I find the failures and misleading lines of many on the Far Left to be far tougher on the thousands of hard working families who are led up too many garden paths only to be let down by those same people all over again.

As for "being beaten by better, even more right wing politicians" I have not a clue what that is meant to mean. Who is meant o have beaten me?

Yes I engage in advocacy in the pages of Village and indeed anywhere else I can. As for attacking "good leftist activists". The only people I recall criticising in those pages - apart from the Minister and Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government - were a Mr Harry Browne, journalism lecturer and writer and my City Council colleague Joan Collins. I see no reason now why I should not have made the comments that i did make.

Whether you agree with me or not I would have thought it takes "guts" to break the whip of a Party you have been a member of for over 25 years and take what was a somehat unpopular ( with some) stand.

I know that it took "guts" in the early 1980's to take the stand I took on the Pro Life Amendments, in support of the Free Nicky Kelly campaign and the Bermingham Six and Guildford Four campaigns. As Lord Mayor against the advice of "Officialdom" I physically led the first of the big Anti War Marches. ( I am not claiming here to be the Leader of that - simply when others thought I should not take part because of Dublin/American relations ) I pointedly did not accept their advice.

I have set out my "vision" for Local Government and for Dublin in numerous articles, letters and speeches. You may not agree with me but i have outlined such a vision -perhaps more than any other Local Councillor.

Finally I am not aware of any reactionary Residents Associations in my area. I am aware that I have twice put my name forward for re-election to the City Council and that the people of the area in which I live and in which I grew up have twice so re elected me.

by Dan - ISN Fri Dec 15, 2006 22:15

I said I wouldn’t respond again to SD, but I’m getting increasingly fed up with our position being misrepresented, so I’ll lay it out one last time. John McAnulty posted on this thread demanding to know why the ISN hadn’t accepted his organisation’s invitation to a debate. I briefly responded, saying that his follow-up had confirmed our suspicions that a debate with SD would be completely unproductive and quickly degenerate into an exchange of slogans. I repeated this a couple of times.

Both Johns from SD claim to be utterly perplexed at the example I gave – the description of the CIL as “monstrous”. I find it hard to take this bafflement seriously. The use of language like that is a symptom – it usually means that someone has lost all sense of proportion and has no intention of engaging in dialogue (in other words, a two-way street, not a monologue where you tell the other side that they’re wrong). It’s got sweet FA to do with not having the literary gifts of Proust, Joyce or Maeve Binchy.

I only cited one example for the sake of convenience – John’s follow-up was littered with dishonest claims. Substance is the issue, not style. To claim that the ISN have got their knickers in a twist because of one careless word, and nothing else, is completely disingenuous.

“It is quite clear that the problem is political. The ISN condemn us to outer darkness, but have no problem - on the same thread! - arguing the toss with members of the CWI sect, which is hardly known for its politeness. It seems clear to me that they feel an affinity to the SP, while there is something about our politics they find deeply repugnant - what that is I don't know, because they refuse to say.”

I’ll simply cut and paste what I said earlier, which addresses exactly this point:

“This attitude doesn’t apply merely to SD, as anyone can see from this thread. ISN members were quite happy to respond to points made by Mark P of the Socialist Party, because he actually put forward constructive arguments. On the other hand, “SP Member” (who may or may not be a member of the SP, but let’s assume that they are) was dismissed as a crank and a troll, because his/her posts were hysterical and dishonest.”

Now that really is just about all we have time for folks…

by Ado Perry Fri Dec 15, 2006 23:35

Well done to the ISN for their positive and practical document.
While we should all accept that elections cannot not be the primary focus of any working class group, we must accept the reality that workers vote and if we can harness that vote for positive change, then elections are a strategy we must use.
Good to see a left/socialist group living and campaigning in the real world.

by John McAnulty - Socialist Democracy Sat Dec 16, 2006 02:54 webmaster at socialistdemocracy dot org

I do hope that Dan will not keep popping back and forward. Anyone who cares to run a search of Indymedia will find that we do not routinely engage in bunfights with other left organisations and I see no purpose to be served by a slagging match. I am however quite determined to put our position as clearly as possible.

I posted on this thread because of a comment by Dan on Tuesday the 12th. He said:

As far as I can see, anyone from a radical social democrat like Tony Benn, to a member of the WSM, could honestly claim to be developing the tradition of Karl Marx. Which of these views is closer to the spirit of Marx isn’t all that important – what matters is which of them is closer to being right, for the here and now. And we can only find that out by having honest, non-sectarian debate, and testing different strategies in practice.

I have no difficulty with the statement but I had reason to doubt that Dan actually meant this and said so. Everything he has said since confirms my view that his actual practice is at variance with the statement. The ISN, or at least the leadership they don’t have, do not wish to debate with us and the reason appears to be that the broad spectrum of socialists he endorses does not appear to include us – we have been banished to the hypersectarian dimension. Picking and choosing whom you will talk to is pretty arrogant at any time. It is precious beyond words when your organisation posts on indymedia. By implication you are agreeing to take on all comers.

An even more worrying aspect of Dan’s posting is his definition of sectarianism as being rude or impolite. This is an apolitical definition. Socialist groups should cooperate where they have political agreement and try and clarify or discuss where they do not. By advancing this definition Dan is being moralistic and patronising and capitulating to the very real sectarianism that poisons the Irish left. The daily practice of Irish socialism is littered with example of groups in bitter rivalry around issues on which they are in absolute political agreement, only equalled by the number of opportunist alliances where the same groups cobble together formations united around - nothing at all! In fact most of the left unity calls pose unity as a thing in itself and avoid like the plague any programme around which they will unite.

Even more problematic is Dan’s call for a focus on the here and now. But this is precisely what the majority of posts avoid. People are polite to each other – but only when talking about the Russian revolution – an issue that can’t be solved in 5 minutes and certainly not by an exchange of views on indymedia and is clearly not about the here and now. The original statement by the ISN is not about the here and now. It is general platitudes about why it’s all right to stand in election in a situation where most of the left agree that it is all right to stand.

That’s a big problem, because there is a here and now and the ISN have a political position on it, but they haven’t given it in their election statement. Their policy was to found and support the Campaign for an Independent Left. Someone remarks off-handedly that you have withdrawn from the CIL but gives no reason. There is no statement on you website of withdrawal and, when I search, there is no mention either of the launch of the campaign or of your earlier support. One edition of Leftline has been pulled in its entirety. We have a long thread on indymedia about your election policy but it turns out that in the here and now your position is entirely hidden!

Our position is quite simple. Socialists should stand in elections in order to facilitate the self-organisation of the working class. If socialists can agree a programme then they should unite and stand on that programme. In certain circumstances socialists may vote for social-democratic candidates, but they support social democrats, as Lenin argued, as the rope supports the hanged man, making clear their opposition to the social-democratic programme and striving to aid the self-organisation of workers and break the majority from social democracy.

All that we have seen and heard indicates that most Irish socialist groups are intent on standing in the next 26 county elections on a reformist ticket. We believe that this is a great pity because it is an opportunity missed. We have enough militants and the capacity to organise around a candidate or candidates raising the banner of the Workers Republic. If we could do that then the campaign itself would be a tremendous organising force. A rag-bag of local campaigns calling for reform will not contribute to the revolution. The outcome is likely not to be more workers in the revolutionary camp, but rather fewer socialist militants at the end of the campaign.

by KOL Sat Dec 16, 2006 05:27

Why don't you mail the Spartacists or some similar outfit. Seriously, who knows, one of them might have time on their hands.

by Friend of Vladimir Illich's grandmother Sat Dec 16, 2006 10:45

Nobody cares what you think John, nobody takes your group seriously, nobody has any interest in having a debate with you. You can post as many long-winded comments as you like on this thread, nobody will take the bait, just go away and leave everyone in peace.

by ISNer Sat Dec 16, 2006 10:52

John, you can go on pretending not to understand why the ISN won't debate you all you like and distorting our position til the cows come home, it won't make a blind bit of difference, anyone else can read what's there in black and white. We have better things to do than waste our time debating with your group. End of story. Don't "try again". Just leave us in peace, ok? We have absolutely nothing to gain from debating with you, it would be a complete waste of time.

by Gearoid O Loingsigh Mon Dec 18, 2006 19:24

I find Dan's denunciations of SD very strange. he was willing to come to Colombia with two members of Socialist Democracy and discuss politics there and rely on one fo the SD members for his security, organisation of the trip, translation etc. Now he says that he isn't willing to talk to SD members or discuss politics with us. I will bear that in mind the next time. I find it strange and dishonest that you could write to me seeking documents and opinions on Colombia but now I am just a sectarian not worth talking to.

Gearoid

by Gearoid O Loingsigh Mon Dec 18, 2006 19:27

I find Dan's denunciations of SD very strange. he was willing to come to Colombia with two members of Socialist Democracy and discuss politics there and rely on one fo the SD members for his security, organisation of the trip, translation etc. Now he says that he isn't willing to talk to SD members or discuss politics with us. I will bear that in mind the next time. I find it strange and dishonest that you could write to me seeking documents and opinions on Colombia but now I am just a sectarian not worth talking to.

Gearoid

by observer Mon Dec 18, 2006 20:08

Gearoid, That's called getting personal. You're taking a political decision by an organisation as a personal affront. Not very mature imho.

by ISNer Mon Dec 18, 2006 22:37

More proof that there’s no point debating with SD. If you won’t debate with them, without saying why, they attack you and accuse you of running away from the argument. If you say why you won’t debate with them, they attack you and threaten not to work with you in any situation ever again. And if you do debate with them, they attack you even more. This farce has gone on more than long enough – just leave us in peace and we’ll leave you in peace ok?

by Gearoid O Loingsigh Tue Dec 19, 2006 00:03

No I am not being personal, the point is that Dan is/was quite willing ot have political discussions with members of SD in private. I was one of them. I do not understand why such discussions can not be public.

Dan has written a private email to me raising various points. I have pointed out to him in a reply that to do so privately is utterly dishonest.

That is all.

by Anon Tue Dec 19, 2006 15:06

Isn't it amazing that people don't want to debate with Socialist Democracy, when you're all so nice and upstanding and ethical? Honestly, you couldn't make this stuff up. It doesn't exactly fill you with confidence that, in the unlikely event of SD ever being in a position of power in Ireland, they'd be willing to tolerate opposition or criticism. And wasn't it SD who were accusing the ISN of not being able to take criticism? Seems like as soon as they get a taste of their own medicine, they throw a tantrum. Good luck lads, and don't be surprised when everyone else on the left ignores you. Nobody takes you seriously ok? Time to get the message

by observer Tue Dec 19, 2006 16:08

SD are behaving very weird - this is akin to stalking. It also makes no sense. Why not publish their own stuff on their own website about their views on this n' that? Why does it have to be done through polemical debate with other left groups? Seriously, do SD write to other left groups regularly insisting on public 'debates' and then get the hump when they're told to sod off? Any other groups out there with stories of being stalked by SD??? Is this a pattern?

A question for SD, has any group ever actually taken up this 'offer' to 'debate' Socialist Democracy?

Honestly, jokes aside, this is the sort of behaviour that gives the left a bad name.