Open Letter to the Working People of the World

[MSchreader]

An Open Letter to the Working People of the World

The rise to power of the George W. Bush regime in the United States marked the transition from one world historical period in the epoch of imperialism to another. The 225-year example of the U.S. as a model of capitalist (bourgeois) democratic functioning was ended, and a time of transition was opened. This turn by the leading section of world capitalism toward naked class dictatorship was a conscious act, and was carried out in order to facilitate both the intensification of the superexploitation of the Global South, in the name of “globalization,” and the establishment of a worldwide cartel of client states, in the name of the “war on terror.”

The invasions and occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq represent a departure from the so-called “humanitarian” interventions and wars of conquest of the last decade of the 20th century. The wars of the 1990s were for the division of the world, following the collapse of the former Soviet Union and Central European “people’s democracies;” the wars waged under the guise of “fighting terrorism” are for the re-division of the world, to secure Washington and Wall Street’s advantage.

But while this pattern of division and re-division is endemic to world capitalist development, there is an underlying dynamic that is new to the current situation. The need to divide and re-divide the world has always been a fundamental feature of capitalist international relations, but the collapse of the former “socialist camp” led to a qualitative change: one of the main players in this game of international capitalist relations — the United States — became overwhelmingly dominant. The 1990s thus became a period when the U.S. was forced to consolidate its newfound position. Because economic conditions at that time more closely matched the level of international dominance, they were able to carry out this necessary consolidation with relative ease. The latter part of the decade saw increasing disparity between economic reality and the level of power held by the U.S. internationally. This disparity brought about an international policy based more on the need to intimidate and terrorize imperialist rivals into absolute submission.

Like Germany before the Second World War, the power they held and the material conditions it is based on no longer matched. The result was recognition by American capitalism of the need to prevent rival imperialist states from imposing a re-division of the world on them. Given the lack of ability to continue to do this through economic maneuvering and pressure, global terror became their only option. The Bush doctrine of “pre-emptive warfare,” while carried out in smaller, lesser developed countries, is aimed at its European and East Asian rivals, designed to organize and solidify their plan for a “New American Century,” imposed on the world. It represents an overarching need on the part of American capitalism to organize the world along lines most friendly to it, in order to be able to maintain its position as the most powerful (economically and militarily) imperialist state.

The Bush regime’s doctrine of “pre-emptive warfare” in foreign policy has been accompanied by an asymmetrical “class warfare” against the proletariat, both in the U.S. and in those states under their domination. The Bush regime’s use of the Taft-Hartley “slave labor” law, the USA-PATRIOT Act and the Department of Homeland Security against the West Coast longshoremen of North America who were threatening to strike, and, similarly, the use of U.S. soldiers and marines as strikebreakers against Iraqi oil workers, longshoremen and public service employees, were meant to send a warning to the exploited and oppressed of the world: step out of line and we will crush you.

In these efforts to reorganize the world along lines dictated by Washington, the capitalists have found partners in the “middle class” (petty-bourgeois) professionals and independent producers, and among leaders of “official” movements — including movements and organizations of the working class. Acting as police for the capitalists, these “middle class” elements have done their part to atomize and disarm working people in the face of a rabid and bloodthirsty ruling class. The development of the “official” labor and social-democratic movements — as well as sections of the “official” Communist movement — is the best example. The turn to the neoliberal “Third Way” in the 1990s has, in this period, further degenerated into a program of collaboration with neoconservative corporatism.

The British Labour Party, led by Tony Blair, has been the chief international ally of Washington in the “war on terror,” just as the “official” Iraqi Communist Party has been a consistent ally and partner of the U.S.-led occupation in that country. Throughout Europe, and in many other parts of the world, these “official” leaders have been instrumental in undermining and dismantling the social services their predecessors were involved in establishing. In exchange for these attacks on the very survival of working people, the most minimal (and insulting) social “reforms” are offered as a cheap bribe. Workers are pushed further down into economic slavery while being spoon-fed the illusion of expanded “freedom” — a “freedom” which, often times, cannot even be exercised because of the class system.

The myriad of forces ostensibly standing to the left of the “official” movements and parties — including its two main currents, the Maoist and Trotskyist movements — have themselves carved out a tradition of betrayal and failure. The Maoist organizations, in spite of their revolutionary rhetoric and support for guerrilla actions in areas of the Global South, deny the very crux of communist theory — i.e., that the working class is the only really revolutionary class — in favor of a classless and amorphous “people,” which serves as an ideological cover for the seizure of political power by the exploiting “middle class.” A similar revisionist line is taken by the Trotskyist movement. While this movement did at one time make important contributions to the organization of working people, this ultimately took a back seat to chasing after (and tailing) the “middle class” — sometimes in the guise of “left unity” — even when that class is attacking working people. The result has been a course that parallels Maoism: a doctrine that rejects the central role of working people and the acceptance of the exploitation of workers by self-styled “leaders” from the “middle class.”

The parallels seen in the viewpoints and practical actions of these left currents — “official” and unofficial; reformist, “radical” and “revolutionary” — points to a systematic collapse of the “old” organizations claiming to represent the interests of working people. Current political events emphasize this development in graphic detail.

In relation to Iraq, the left has capitulated to religious fundamentalism and “middle class” nationalism by uncritically supporting the organizations leading the “resistance” to U.S.-led occupation. The left’s inability to grasp the fundamental class questions has translated into sideline cheerleading for forces that would just as soon massacre these self-described radicals and revolutionaries — to say nothing of working people fighting for their interests — as they would imperialist occupation forces. They fail to discern between the generalized disgust and anger expressed by the workers of Iraq, which leads them to take up arms against imperialist occupation, on the one hand, and the reactionary and fascistic platforms of the Ba’athists, religious fundamentalists and terrorists, on the other hand. The concrete result is that these self-described partisans of the working class find themselves in an alliance with forces that are fundamentally opposed to the interests of working people, and are exploiting the anger and frustration of Iraqi workers to advance their nationalist and religious agendas.

In the recent elections in Great Britain, the left organizations that only a few years ago cried for “unity,” in the form of the Socialist Alliance, have torn themselves apart in a mad rush to tail professional capitalist politicians or socially backward “community leaders.” Even those organizations that sought to present an “independent” alternative in the election appealed more to the activists at the core of the antiwar movement than to working people and their class interests.

For the last four years, the working people of Argentina have been organizing and fighting for their rights and class interests. And yet, in spite of the fact that these brothers and sisters have been implementing elements of a revolutionary workers’ platform on their own, the self-described “leaders” of the workers’ movement — i.e., the left organizations — have been and remain marginalized and separated from the working class. Decades of compromise and capitulation by the left to the exploiting and oppressing classes, under the false banners of “anti-imperialism,” “united front” and “revolutionary unity,” have resulted in working people leaving the left behind.

The collapse of the former USSR and Central European “people’s democracies” opened up a wave of class struggle in the region not seen for close to a century. In Russia, massive workers’ strikes and demonstrations against privatization and the imposition of capitalist market mechanisms have fallen into the hands of nationalist and social-nationalist (national socialist) forces. The remnants of the left have only been able to tail these nationalist forces, leaving the working people of this country at the mercy of the exploiters at home and abroad. Similar dynamics are to be seen in the other former republics of the USSR, including the Ukraine and Georgia, as well as in former “people’s democracies” like Serbia and the other elements of the former Yugoslavia, Hungary, and Poland.

In the United States, the epicenter of world capitalism and imperialism, over four years of the George W. Bush regime has led to the galvanizing of millions of working people against endless war and increasing suppression of democratic rights. However, the leading elements of the growing mass movements against war and for democracy, drawn from the “official” and unofficial left organizations, all of which reject in word and deed the central role of working people in the class struggle, have once again shackled workers to the capitalist order and its political representatives. This act has been reinforced by the other organizations of the left, most of which raise the slogan of “left unity” and effectively counterpose it to the unity of working people — thus condemning workers to enduring (and intensified) exploitation and oppression.

These examples, only a few among many, point to the need for working people coming to realize their historical importance and role in class society to unite in new organizations and movements. Indeed, steps in this direction have already begun, with working people dedicated to their liberation and the abolition of classes forming their own political movements, free from the interference of elements from the exploiting and oppressing classes that pose as false “allies” or “friends” of the working class. But, for the most part, these organizations are small, geographically scattered and isolated, and are just beginning to take the first tentative steps. These new, genuine organizations of working people, inspired by both the spontaneous and organized actions of their brothers and sisters around the world, are just now beginning to take their place among the most politically advanced and organized sections of their class.

But in this historical epoch, a greater unity from the beginning is needed. The growth of globalization, the further integration of the world market and world production, has rendered virtually obsolete the old local and national formations that working people have traditionally built. As well, it has relegated the old Internationals of the left, generally based on “flagship” or “mother” organizations based in one country with “satellite” groups in other parts of the world, to the dustbin of history. The degeneration, collapse and putrefaction of the old organizations of the left, and the doctrines that inspired them, demands the formation of a new worldwide movement of working people — organized by working people, composed of working people, led by working people — under a new banner.

This new working people’s International — this new International Working People’s Association — would build on the experiences of the 20th century, drawing out the lessons of the struggles, victories and defeats of the last century in order to educate and politically arm workers for the battles of the 21st century. Many of the lessons of the last epoch of struggle have yet to be fully elaborated and understood, and one of the chief tasks of the new International will be to discuss the experiences that will aid in the education and political development of future generations of working people fighting for liberation and the abolition of classes.

But a new International Working People’s Association would be more than a mere educational institution. First and foremost, its task will be the organization and mobilization of working people for their liberation. In order to facilitate this work, we come together as an Association around basic points of unity that reflect the principles that guide this new working people’s movement in the 21st century. These points of unity are based on common experience and common understanding, and represent the foundation of our work.

1. The liberation of working people<1> must be carried out by working people themselves; this struggle for liberation does not mean merely a fight for better wages and privileges, or merely for more rights, but the abolition of classes and class antagonisms, beginning with the establishment of real majority rule on its own basis.
   
   
2. The exploitation of the producers, of working people, is based on the private ownership of the means of production, and this private ownership lies at the heart of all the misery, degradation, oppression and bloodshed in society, as well as serves as the basis for the development and irreconcilability of classes and class antagonisms.
   
   
3. The liberation of working people from this societal system of exploitation and oppression (capitalism) is the central task of all genuine working people’s organizations and movements, with all other tasks subordinated to and guided by this goal. This struggle of classes takes place in all areas of society, but is concentrated on the political battlefield, in the form of a decisive struggle against the state and its organs of enforcement.
   
   
4. All previous movements for the liberation of working people failed either because of isolation and a lack of solidarity, or because of an inability to venture beyond immediate issues, or because of subordination to the interests and/or leadership of false friends from the exploiting and oppressing classes.
   
   
5. The liberation of working people is not a local or national, but a societal task, embracing all the countries of the world where capitalism exists, and demanding the closest possible unity of working people on a worldwide basis. The organization of working people toward this end, without regard to “homeland,” is a natural outgrowth of the class itself and the conditions that created it.
   
   
6. The struggles of working people against economic exploitation are only one part of the broader struggle for liberation. The struggles against oppression of working people based on race or nationality, gender, age, sexuality, or ability, are an inseparable part of the struggle for liberation, and must be fought by all working people in order to achieve our common goals.
   
   
7. The reawakening of working people in this period to their central role in society, their common interests and the lessons given to them by the last century of struggle, while it raises a new hope, gives solemn warning against a relapse into the old errors, and demands the immediate unification of these emerging, disconnected forces into a single worldwide body.
   

We, the undersigned organizations and individuals, issue this letter as an invitation to our brothers and sisters, the working people of the world, to work with us to establish the International Working People’s Association — to stand together for a new working people’s International based on clear principles that flow from the lessons of the 20th century. This invitation also extends to those working people who feel themselves trapped in the old left organizations to join with your class in this historic effort. We are in the initial stages of work on this project. We want to avoid the errors of past efforts toward a similar goal, most of which attempt to mimic one of the past Internationals of the left. This is not a “call” for yet another “workers’ International” that will be the organized expression of a doctrinaire movement, but an invitation and encouragement for collaboration on building a lasting unity among working people.

The initiators of this open letter wish to establish a provisional Contact Committee, made up of delegates from each affiliated organization or autonomous branch, to handle correspondence among the groups involved in establishing the Association. This Contact Committee would also be responsible for establishing and issuing an information and discussion bulletin, and, after it is established, a public central organ of the International. In the future, the Contact Committee would facilitate the drafting of programmatic, strategic and tactical documents for the Association. The question of preparing an international congress will be decided on the basis of replies received and the course of our work.

Communist League (U.S.)
Detroit Working People’s Association (U.S.)
Free People’s Movement (Dominican Republic, Philippines, UK, U.S.)
Revolutionary Youth (Dominican Republic, Philippines, UK, U.S.)

Adopted: June 29, 2005

For more information, or to affiliate to the International Working People’s Association, write to: IWPA, c/o Martin Schreader, Corresponding Secretary, P.O. Box 19221, Detroit, MI 48219-0221, USA; e-mail: [email protected].


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

<1> Because there is so much confusion created around what defines a class, because the exploiting classes have deliberately confused the definition of class, we need to be particularly clear here. We define working people, the modern proletariat, as those who have to sell their ability to work (labor-power) to survive. Whether you work in industry, in the “service sector” or in agriculture, whether you are employed or unemployed, if your survival is based solely on the need to sell your labor to other people, and you do not have control over other people’s labor, you are one of us — a working person, a proletarian.

[whistle]

1. none of your links open....what is the source of the story?

[MSchreader]

2. Links fixed

This letter was adopted by these organizations yesterday. That's the source of it.

Martin

[julianer]

3. I don't know about much of what is written

But I can say that this:

'In the recent elections in Great Britain, the left organizations that only a few years ago cried for “unity,” in the form of the Socialist Alliance, have torn themselves apart in a mad rush to tail professional capitalist politicians or socially backward “community leaders.” Even those organizations that sought to present an “independent” alternative in the election appealed more to the activists at the core of the antiwar movement than to working people and their class interests.'

is utter bollocks.

The left in the UK has 'torn itself apart' to such an extent that it managed to get the first independent socialists elected to Parliament since 1945! The Socialist Alliance had rather pathetic results in comparison in 2001.


The tearing apart involved unprecedented votes for left organistations. Respect is recruiting heavily in all communities. I know I'm a member.

What is this nonsense about 'tailing professional capitalist politicians' and 'socially backward "community leaders"'? Can you elucidate?

What is the point in having such decided opinions about something you obviously know nothing about?

Edit for typos.

[MSchreader]

4. Galloway was a longtime MP...

First as Labour, now as RESPECT. To try and pass that off as getting "the first independent socialists (sic!) elected to Parliament since 1945" is ... umm, what's the term I'm looking for ... "utter bollocks".

As far as I am concerned, both SA and RESPECT were/are diversions. SA was more concerned about "left unity" than workers' unity, and RESPECT's lip service to "socialism" as about as hollow sounding as when Tony Blair sings "The Red Flag". RESPECT's program is left-populist, at best. And, in terms of social issues like abortion, gay rights, etc., it is either noticeably silent or, as in the case of Galloway and abortion rights, on the side of reaction.

It is a shame that the SWP decided to junk what remaining principles it had to cast its lot with professional politicians like Galloway and "official" leaders of the South Asian community whose political views on such "shibboleths" as women's rights are closer to the Tories than to self-described socialists.

I know you've been handed the line from Lindsey German, et al., and you've done your best to defend it. Unfortunately, it still does not change the facts.

Martin

[julianer]

6. You are obviously a deluded

sectarian.

You are just wrong about Respect's position on abortion and gay rights. Check it out - the results of Respect's founding conference covering these issues are available at their website.

Can you please name another socialist elected since 1945 that hasn't been a member of the Labour Party (apart from the two CPers)?

Your criteria seems to be that if someone is elected they are automatically 'capitalist politicians'. Your purity is beneath me, I'm afraid. I take the view that socialism isn't going to regain popularity by only interesting itself in the sort of internecine warfare sectarians engage in.

Do you have any evidence of the 'backwardness' of our Muslim members? Is this simply racism dressed up?

What organisation are you a member of?

[MSchreader]

7. "Deluded sectarian" -- SWP Newspeak for...

Someone with political principles.

What RESPECT says on paper, and what its one and only one MP advocates in Westminster are two different things. I can find enough of Galloway's own statements to prove that.

You're right that no other non-Labour socialist has won election to Parliament since 1945 (apart from the two CPers). But it is a stretch of reality to present Galloway in the same light as, say, if Lindsey German had won in the constituency she contested. RESPECT is not the SSP, and George Galloway is not Tommy Sheridan. Apples and oranges.

My criteria is perhaps more "pure" than yours, but the positions you ascribe to me are false. Galloway, in spite of his paper positions, functions as a capitalist politician. Want proof? Ask him his views on what are considered the basic principles socialists advocate for elected officials: take no salary higher than that of the average worker; subject his or herself to the right of immediate recall; abide by the decisions of the party (or, in the case of an independent candidate, a community assembly) and take its positions into Parliament; etc. On all of these points, Galloway has consistently stated his opposition.

I also happen to agree with you that "the sort of internecine warfare sectarians engage in" is not the way to rebuild a movement for socialism. The socialist Left has completely disgraced itself in the eyes of working people. Trust has to be rebuilt, from the bottom up. That's what the IWPA project is about.

In terms of the social backwardness of the "official" leadership of the South Asian (note: I did not say Muslim, since not all South Asians living in Britain are Muslim) community, all you have to do is read their views on women's equality, reproductive rights, gay rights, etc. Racism? Certainly not. A principled stance against reaction, wherever it is found? Absolutely.

I am a member of the International Working People's Association.

Martin

[julianer]

8. Well I'm not a member of the SWP

I haven't been in any party since Blair got rid of Clause 4 - until Respect.

Of course there is criticism of Galloway(worker's wage) and the SWP (countrol freakery) inside Respect but the proof of the pudding is in the fact that both of these are recruiting to Respect as quickly as possible. Soon the SWP will be a minority in the party, if it hasn't happened already. That's definitely a good thing. How else do you hope to build a mass working class party except by recruiting a mass of the working class - and you can't guarantee that they are going to be pure socialists, not to start with at least. It's a reality we must confront.

I would welcome other left groups into Respect but I am worried that they would continue to want to improve Respect in the purity stakes rather than look outward to what is a pretty big constituency for us.

To me it is less important that Galloway operates on a worker's wage than we build a viable left party in the UK.

Are you in the UK? It has been a desolate experience for socialists since the poll tax campaigns, really. This is about the first coherent sign of hope and there are lots of 'leftist' puritans criticising it!

If the IWPA wants to build a mass international then it is going to have to engage with groups like Respect, find areas of agreement and campaign together. Unity in action,etc,etc.

Your point about 'South Asians' is strange. There is a stereotype about muslims and the 'backwardness' of Islam that is unwarranted and not supported by the facts. All groupings of people will be split on class lines and all groups will have a full range of political opinion. What does it matter to you what 'your' official leaders say about anything?

It is one of the most fantastic successes of Respect that it has been able to form such close links with the progressive sections of the muslim community, and to offer support to the wider muslim community which has been under pretty big pressure and attack these last few years. The fact that muslim youth in East London is attracted to Respect rather than radical Islam is surely a good thing.

[MSchreader]

9. That the SWP would become a minority in RESPECT

Is certainly a good thing. The problem, though, is that the class line in RESPECT is almost non-existent. The T in RESPECT may stand for "Trade Unionism", but it take more than an assertion to build a party of -- not just for, but of (as in, led by, organized by, composed of) -- working people. That's the issue here.

A political party of working people in Britain will never emerge from the existing Left organizations, even if they were to all unite under a common program and banner. My experience with the British Left is that it has turned workers away from socialist politics there in the same way that the U.S. Left has done here.

The whole point of the IWPA project is to say that the times we live in today demand new organizations composed of and led by working people ... and only working people. If you look at the leaderships of all the Left organizations in Britain today, there is a common thread to them all: they are all drawn from outside of the working class. There may be a "veteran trade unionist" here and there, but usually they have either not been on the job in years or they contribute nothing substantive to the politics and activity of the organization.

I understand fully that a working people's movement would have to engage an organization like RESPECT. For that matter, it would also have to engage workers who support Labour, just as this letter was meant to begin engaging working people who support the Democratic Party. But engaging an organization, and even working with them where possible, does not and should not mean a burying of political differences. I would think that members of an organization such as RESPECT would rather know up-front what the differences are than to have them buried and hidden away. It goes to the question of honesty, in my opinion.

I understand fully that there is a wide range of political opinions inside the South Asian community in Britain. I work with elements of the Arab-American community around Detroit, and see exactly what you're talking about. I know there are often clear divisions, based on class, in the organizations of the community -- including on questions of women's rights, gay rights, etc. But, as in the case of dealing with an organization like RESPECT, it is better to be open about your differences from the beginning.

It's not so much that the opinions of these "official" leaders matter to me. I am not the issue. What matters is that the retrograde views that these leaders present publicly stand in total opposition to the principles of socialism. The African-American historian John Henrik Clarke said it best: "If your movement for liberation has no honored or equal place for half of your people, then your liberation is not worth the fight."

Even with all of my criticisms of the politics of RESPECT, and many of the community leaders who are involved with it, I agree wholeheartedly with you that the fact that South Asian youth are becoming involved in RESPECT instead of with religious fundamentalist movements is "surely a good thing". It's just that I feel more is needed, and they deserve that.

Martin

[julianer]

10. What on earth do you mean by a class line?

Can you give me some concrete examples?

Why do you say Respect isn't composed of working people? Do you have any evidence for this (it's news to me, for starters)? For a young organisation it is making very good progress inside the trade union movement. I'll refer you to the website again, which has reports of Respect meetings at various union conferences as well as large public meetings in different parts of the country.

http://www.respectcoalition.org/?ite=814

You seem to regard the 'failure' of the left in 'turning workers away from socialism' as if it were some sub-standard brand that has lost market share or just gone out of fashion. A marxist would argue that there are barely conscious movements in society, responding to the ever changing, multi-faceted nature of existence. Sometimes circumstances are hostile to socialist ideas as in the Reagan/Thatcher times. At other times working people are more open to socialist ideas, like now. It is the class as a whole that comes to ideas of socialism through the bitter experience of life - not because some wet-earred trot tells them to.

It is silly to suggest that if socialism found no resonance in a given time it has forever lost such resonance and that left organisations must undergo a complete overhaul. In any case this seems to argue against your criticism of Respect of not being a pure socialist organisation. You can't have some sort of ideological fixity in party dynamics with the class and claim that the left so constructed 'has failed' at one and the same time.

You sound to me like the Independent Working Class Association here in the UK. Are you linked?

Frankly I find your ideas to be a bit 'workerist' and confused.

[MSchreader]

11. Example of a class line

Or lack thereof:

"But the yearning for a political alternative is even wider than the anti-war movement. Pensioners, students, trade unionists, Muslims and other faith groups, socialists, ethnic minorities and many others have been deeply disappointed by the authoritarian social policies and profit-centred, neo-liberal economic strategy of the government." (Founding Declaration of RESPECT - the Unity Coalition)

In this passage, which is a pivotal part of this short manifesto, workers are treated as little more than just another "constituency" alongside cross-class categories. As well, the statement is clearly anti-"neo-liberal", but it is not anti-capitalist. Not all capitalists are neo-liberals, just like not all workers are trade unionists.

I am sure that there are many working people who are members of RESPECT. The point I was trying to make was that RESPECT, while having workers as members, is not a clearly working people's organization. It is a cross-class coalition, a movement where the exploiters and the exploited sit side-by-side. In such situations, it is always the case that those from the exploiting class hold leadership and define policy, while those from the exploited class are relegated to mindless "organizing" work.

Every new development in the struggle for workers' liberation demands new organizations. The history of the movement itself shows that. The outbreak of the First World War shipwrecked the mass Social Democratic parties, leading to the emergence of the world Communist movement inspired by the 1917 October Revolution. The prostration of the "official" Communist movement during the Great Depression and the rise of fascism, and the shackling of that movement, in the name of the People's Front, to the bourgeoisie, led to the emergence of a number of dissident communist currents, including the early Bolshevik-Leninist (Trotskyist) movement.

However, the collapse of these dissident movements after the end of the Second World War resulted in a vacuum that was filled by a succession of epigone organizations, each one a poor copy of the one that came before. This is where today's alphabet soup of the Left came from. With the collapse of the ex-USSR and its satellite "people's democracies", that vacuum became even more pronounced, leading to the rebirth of utopian socialist movements, anarchism and various intermediary kinds of organizations (e.g., ATTAC).

What you say is true about there being an ebb and flow of support among working people for socialist ideas. But that ebb and flow is modified by the kind of organizations that exist. The Great Miners' Strike of 1984-85 is a good example of this. Here was a situation where thousands of mine workers were in a pitched class battle with the state, the capitalists and the media. By all rights, the British socialist Left should have grown exponentially during this struggle. Reality, however, was quite different.

The same can be said of the poll tax struggle. By all rights, Militant's membership should have exploded; it's active cadre in the Labour Party and LPYS should have been able to transform that mass support they had into a movement in the party to regain what they lost and conquer further positions. But what happened? And why? Not everything can be written off as poor objective conditions.

The IWPA has no relations with the IWCA, and it is my opinion that there should be no relations between the two groups. The IWCA has very backward positions on several social issues, most notably on immigrants and asylum seekers. From what I've seen of their work, they cater to the racism and nationalism found in backward-thinking sections of the working class, the petty bourgeoisie and lumpenproletariat.

Finally, define "workerist". If you mean that we put class at the center of our politics, then you're right. If you think we have a romaticized view of what it means to be working class, you're dead wrong.

Martin

[julianer]

12. I simply fail to understand your criticisms

The section of the manifesto you quote with disdain seems to me to be an unremarkable appraisal of the situation in Britain. You aren't in Britain are you, so how the hell can you criticise what you don't know?

Your argument about the leadership of Respect being class exploiters is just complete rubbish that you won't be able to justify. I am becoming very suspicious about your motivation in saying such a stupid thing.

'Workerism' is precisely what you are doing in your criticism here. You are invalidating any political work that doesn't specifically target 'workers'. Why shouldn't we seek to represent people who aren't employed or who see themselves in terms other than being a worker? You are effectively saying that racism, student interests, the problems facing pensioners and persecuted religious minorities should not be addressed by a socialist party.

I can't agree with this and if this is the approach your organisation takes it won't get very far.

Can you please wonder why your organisation is so keen to attack other similar organisations on such narrow grounds? In my mind much of the sectarianism generated by small groups like yours is a result of infiltration by various intelligence services who hope to cause splits in left organisations.

Think on that.

[MSchreader]

15. I've never been to the Moon

But I know it ain't made of green cheese.

Answer this question: From which class are the bulk of the leaders of RESPECT drawn? The working class? If they're not from the exploited class, then where are they from? Mars?

Your argument about "workerism" is shallow. Apparently, you didn't bother to actually read past the paragraph on Britain; otherwise, you'd know that this entire paragraph has no basis in reality. Read the seven points of principle at the end of the letter; read the note defining working class.

Your attacks on us -- calling us a de facto police agent -- are to be expected. We represent what the Left fears more than capitalism: an educated, critically-thinking and self-acting revolutionary working class. That scares the hell out of you and the "middle-class" Left because you cannot control us.

Narrow ground? No. There is a wide gulf between us and the "middle-class" Leftists you support: the class question.

As we say in the first point of principle of the IWPA: The liberation of working people must be carried out by working people themselves. You can keep your condescending saviors (Galloway, German, Callinicos, Harman, etc.). Your time has passed; history has left you behind. You and RESPECT are nothing more than an echo of past mistakes and betrayals.

Think on that.

Martin

[julianer]

18. Yep, what I thought

a sectarian tosser who wants to attack the left rather than do any real work.

Great stuff.

[MSchreader]

19. Actually,...

1. A sectarian is one who puts narrow organizational interests ahead of those of the working class. If there is ever a description of the Left you defend, this is it.

2. I prefer to ignore the Left, just as it ignores the working class.

3. I've probably done more "real work" in the last week than you have done in your entire life.

Ciao, Leftie. Have fun spinning your wheels.

Martin

[MSchreader]

5. Kick

:kick:

[T Town Jake]

13. LOL...how much does the RNC pay these days?

...is it "piece-work," i.e., by post with a sliding scale based on the number of replies any one post receives, or is it a straight hourly wage?

Just curious.

[MSchreader]

14. I wouldn't know

You tell me.

Martin

[Redleg]

17. Are you suggesting that MSchreader is an agent provocateur?

Huh?

[MSchreader]

20. Slander/Libel:...

The second-to-last refuge of a scoundrel.

Martin

[Redleg]

22. Too true. Karl Rove likes to do slander/libel after he wraps himself

in the flag.

[Redleg]

16. All right- you're all under report!

The Geheime Staatspolizei (GESTAPO) has been informed of your communist talk. Obersturmbannführer Karl Rove will be sending security officials to sieze you and your computers.

That is all.

[MSchreader]

21. I'd like to make a reservation:...

Instead of going to Gitmo, I'd like the Eugene V. Debs Memorial Cell at the federal prison in Atlanta. ;-)

Martin

[Redleg]

23. LOL- Jesus, we could use a person like Debs right now.

I don't doubt that he would be first on Karl Rove's hitlist.

[Endangered Specie]

24. Attention Lurking DU readers...

the pro-communism quackery that occasionally surfaces does not represent the membership at large of DU, please take it with less than a grain of salt.

You may now continue with your regularly scheduled lurking.

(edit: this goes for members too)

[MSchreader]

29. Quack, quack, quack...

Beating back the McCarthyite attack.

Quack, quack, quack.

[Endangered Specie]

31. nice rhyme...

not much else worth mentioning.

[MSchreader]

33. It got the treatment

It deserved.

Martin

[Endangered Specie]

35. Im just tired of my (our) side being called looney and

what not because of our fringe extremes.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Catch22Dem]

26. Czar?

[Endangered Specie]

27. communisms track record: Josef Stalin, Mao Zedong, Kim Il Song...

not exactly what Id call a good record, mind you.

[MSchreader]

28. If you think Stalinism/Maoism/Kimism is communism,...

Then you must think Bush invaded Iraq because of WMDs and to liberate the Iraqi people.

Now, if you want to know my view on the USSR, etc., I recommend the following article:

http://www.communistleague.org/wr/stories/wr2005q1-ussr.html

Martin

[Endangered Specie]

30. they are what happen when communism is tried...

(and fails)

Seriously, I dont want a world where I have to bow down to the Great Leader else get 'reeducated'. Communism, on paper, a nice theory, in pratice, an utter failure.

[MSchreader]

32. Well, thanks for confirming the extent of your knowledge

of communism. :eyes: I really shouldn't expect so much from some people.

Martin

[Endangered Specie]

34. Actually its more an opinion...

would you care to name a country in which communism has been a rousing success?

[Moderator]

36. Locking

This is not the Communist Workers Party Underground