tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post4387775583792955048..comments2024-03-29T07:14:55.029+00:00Comments on All That Is Solid ...: Why I Resigned from the Socialist PartyPhilhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06298147857234479278noreply@blogger.comBlogger146125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-48003167611458726222010-03-01T22:33:39.366+00:002010-03-01T22:33:39.366+00:00It would make it a lot easier if Michael just admi...It would make it a lot easier if Michael just admitted that he decided to leave the CWI after he was offered a high paying job working for the right wing leaders of the ACTU (Australian TUC).<br /><br />While he is quick to criticise the CWI's politics he reserves no such criticisms for his bosses Jeff Lawrence and Sharan Burrows.<br /><br />The bottom line is that he has retreated from revolutionary politics and decided to dedicate his time to being a lackey for some of the worst class collaborationists in the world!<br /><br />He no longer plays any progressive role. In fact he is now part of the problem propping people who stand firmly in the way of change.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-52346999538466747422010-03-01T20:23:58.377+00:002010-03-01T20:23:58.377+00:003. Michael makes the following statement: “I concl...3. Michael makes the following statement: “I concluded that trying to convince an organisation that defines itself as ‘Trotskyite’ that Trotsky and Trotskyism were best left to historians would almost certainly be a colossal waste of time.”<br /> <br />I do not know if this is meant to taken seriously or not (and I accept that Michael can set the record straight). If we take it at face value, it is an incredible statement and just shows how far Michael has departed from the political ideas he used to espouse. <br /> <br />In the first place, the SP/CWI does not define itself as ‘Trotskyite’. Michael puts this term in single inverted commas but why does he use this term in the first place? As is well known on the Left, ‘Trotskyite’ is a pejorative term, with anti-Semitic connotations (which, to make clear, I am not accusing Michael of). It is a term of abuse used historically by Stalinists, reformists, fascists and the bourgeoisie to attack Trotskyism. <br /> <br />The idea that the SP/CWI should leave “Trotsky and Trotskyism to historians” is an astounding and absurd statement. Such an argument advanced inside the SP/CWI would indeed be a “colossal waste of time” for all concerned. Perhaps the Tories should leave the study of Churchill and Thatcher to historians or Labour members should leave the analysis of its former leaders to the academics? As Michael knows, it is not just a question of individuals but ‘Trotskyism’ has come to be equated with a distinct set of ideas and movement (and, in the opinion of the CWI, the modern expression for revolutionary Marxism).<br /><br />This statement, if serious, shows that Michael is constructing an artificial wall between academia and political movements. It indicates, alongside his other recent pessimistic and mechanical perspectives, that Michael is unfortunately moving into an ideological and political marsh. <br /><br />The CWI has always placed great emphasis on historical analysis. We aim to see events in their historical context and to understand the processes that shaped and given rise to these events (and the process of the examination and re-examining history is never a finished article). This is undertaken to learn from the past, as part of the process of developing perspectives, so that we can anticipate and prepare for the mighty political, social and economic events that impend.<br /><br />I conclude by saying this definitely will be my last posting on this issue. I expect Michael will reply (wanting the first and last word seems a common approach of cyber polemicists– just a shame the SP/CWI were never even presented with a hint of Michael’s differences, which then could have been scrutinized and tested by the membership in an organized and democratic manner). Any further sweeping and unsubstantiated claims from Michael will just have to go unanswered, by me at least. With the prospect that this is unfortunately likely, I will leave my previous postings as my general reply, and I of course refute any possible mendacious statements.<br /> <br />I think this debate has been useful, in at least that it revealed Michael has not been able to, or prepared to, substantiate his initial assertions about the internal life and methods of the SP/CWI, and he has failed to provide a serious analysis and critique of the CWI’s ideas etc.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-52506272289750153412010-03-01T20:22:58.065+00:002010-03-01T20:22:58.065+00:00Michael has already retreated over the issue of wh...Michael has already retreated over the issue of whether he should have raised his differences when he was still in the SP/CWI. If Michael now wishes to draw back from his sweeping assertions, as he implies, that is very good (although I reject Michael’s attempt to cover his previous assertions by now setting up a false distinction between my position and that of the rest of SP/CWI members). <br /> <br />However, Michael’s continuing dismissive approach towards the SP/CWI, Trotskyism, and apparently revolutionary socialism, in general, is continued in his last posting (and still unsubstantiated with any detailed arguments): “I do not think Trotsky and Trotskyism has much to offer the left…” <br /> <br />We wait to see what Michael has to offer the Left (he certainly has not offered the SP/CWI any critique, beyond naming a few authors of books he’s read and headlining political differences).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-33691109908797623492010-03-01T20:11:49.455+00:002010-03-01T20:11:49.455+00:00I wish we could "move on" but as I said ...I wish we could "move on" but as I said in my last posting, I reserved the right to respond to Michael Fisher, notwithstanding my earlier intention to sign off. Amongst other things, natters of factual accuracy and Michael’s accusation that I was “dishonest (or at least very careless)” demand a reply.<br /> <br />1. Michael states: “The impression has been given that I announced my resignation from the SP/CWI on this website. The CWI knew that I no longer considered myself a member before this thread began.”<br /> <br />Why does Michael introduce this point? The substance of this debate concerns Michael’s sweeping and unfounded attack on the approach of the SP/CWI towards internal debate and discussion, and also his sweeping and unsubstantiated attack on the SP/CWI’s ideas. These were the points SP members objected to and replied to. <br /> <br />But as Michael now raises the question of resignation, I will attend to it. Announcing his resignation publicly, and the fact that “the CWI knew that” Michael "no longer considered himself a member”, are two separate things. It is a fact that Michael publicly announced his resignation from this blog. He never volunteered a resignation elsewhere. I have consulted CWI comrades about this matter. As far as is known, Michael never formerly resigned from the CWI. The CWI discovered from a third party (non-CWI member) that Michael had left the CWI. Michael was contacted by the CWI and asked to confirm if he had left the CWI. Michael confirmed he was no longer a member and stated he had political differences but he did not elaborate. A few short weeks later, Michael posted his public resignation and attacks on the SP/CWI.<br /> <br />2. Michael protests: “It is clear from a careful reading of my comments that I have not characterised the CWI and its members in general as holders of ‘sterile dogma" and "Anonymous misleadingly seeks to imply that I intended some of the terminology to have a more general application.”<br /> <br />Is that so? <br /> <br />Any reading of Michael’s first posting can clearly see he made sweeping claims, denouncing the SP/CWI (and by inference its membership and leadership): <br />“…it [SP/CWI] completely misunderstood the nature of post-Cold War, post-Keynesian, post-social democratic politics in the UK and elsewhere… many of its core theoretical positions…were simply wrong… the lack of serious internal discussion on questions of history and theory… the internal culture of the organisation was overwhelmingly geared toward recruitment and activism at the expense of acknowledging and trying to understand why the radical left today is weaker than at any time in over 100 years…”<br /> <br />“Completely misunderstood”…”simply wrong”…”lack of serious internal discussion”… if this damning description does not amount to saying the SP/CWI is an organisation that is “sterile” and dogmatic, what does?<br /> <br />Michael went on to attack the CWI’s analysis of Stalinism, referencing Trotsky’s debates with US SWP oppositionists. Michael concludes: “Only the most sterile and dogmatic mindset would assume that because Shachtman was wrong 70 years ago that the validity of Trotsky’s analysis is therefore settled.”<br /> <br />Most generously, we can say Michael conflates the SP/CWI position with the “most sterile and dogmatic mindset”.<br /> <br />Michael now states he only means there are a “few” in the CWI who are “hampered by a naive faith in a particularly dogmatic interpretation of Marxism…”<br /> <br />For SP/CWI members, a “few” taking such a position would be a few too many - if it were true! Does Michael’s "few" include the leadership of the CWI and the authors of SP/CWI articles and publications he attacks?<br /> <br />If, according to Michael, there are “a large number of CWI members involved in union work that take anything but a sterile and dogmatic approach” does that infer a minority of SP members do take a “a sterile and dogmatic approach” to union activity? If so, where is this “sterile and dogmatic approach” evidenced in SP union work? Does this small minority of SP members include leading SP union members?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-90602496532863015442010-02-27T14:11:23.102+00:002010-02-27T14:11:23.102+00:00My own final comments…
The impression has been gi...My own final comments…<br /><br />The impression has been given that I announced my resignation from the SP/CWI on this website. The CWI knew that I no longer considered myself a member before this thread began.<br /><br />It is clear from a careful reading of my comments that I have not characterised the CWI and its members in general as holders of ‘sterile dogma’. The penultimate sentence of my previous post began: <br /><br />‘Most members of the CWI, even those few hampered by a naive faith in a particularly dogmatic interpretation of Marxism…’<br /><br />The clue to my view resides in the words: ‘…even those few…’<br /><br />I know from my own experience that there are a large number of CWI members involved in union work that take anything but a sterile and dogmatic approach to what they do.<br /><br />Points ‘a’ to ‘d’ were made in specific reference to the comments made by Anonymous. Anonymous misleadingly seeks to imply that I intended some of the terminology to have a more general application. If I thought the CWI in general had a ‘child-like’ approach to Marxist theory, then I would have said so. <br /><br />Making and understanding these distinctions is important to effective political discussion. Anyone who can be bothered to re-read my comments, and who examines how certain of my phrases are then quoted and used by Anonymous, will see that he/she has unfortunately chosen to take a dishonest (or at least very careless) approach to this exchange.<br /><br />But the fact remains I do not think Trotsky and Trotskyism has much to offer the left in terms of how to re-build under the very difficult political circumstances that have prevailed since the fall of Communism.<br /><br />I concluded that trying to convince an organisation that defines itself as ‘Trotskyite’ that Trotsky and Trotskyism were best left to historians would almost certainly be a colossal waste of time.<br /><br />That didn’t, and still doesn’t, seem to be an unreasonable conclusion. <br /><br />So, let’s move on….Michael Fnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-82165591212804730842010-02-27T11:20:28.046+00:002010-02-27T11:20:28.046+00:00On the CWI’s approach to ideas and debates and tak...On the CWI’s approach to ideas and debates and taking up other ideas, is there any other international Marxist tendency that is so open, so much on display? Just go the websites of the SP/CWI, where the ideas, programme, policies and perspectives of the CWI and its sections, and vital debates inside the CWI, particularly over the last 20 years, are presented and discussed. <br /><br />On issues that Michael raises – Stalinism, 1917 and the role of Lenin and Trotsky, social democracy, Kenysism etc, there are volumes of commentary, analysis and debate. On the general approach of Marxism today, the CWI produced an entire book, as well many articles, books and other material. <br /><br />Michael may not agree with all or any of these ideas or think the discussion sufficient or taking into account other ideas, including those from academia, and so on. But then Michael chose never to bring any other viewpoints and ideas to the SP membership (except for his one welcome discussion on ‘productive and non productive' labour). No attempt to start a debate. No attempt to critique the CWI analysis. <br /><br />Of course, the SP/CWI will take into account the work of academics where they bring something new to the movement and discussion and also on occasion to contrast our ideas and methods with those hostile to Trotskyism. (It is pity that Michael never saw fit to discuss with SP comrades presenting a critique of the academics, he cites, and their works, in the pages of the SP’s journals – it may have been useful and instructive, even if there was no agreement between Michael and other SP members on these matters).<br /><br />By the way, why does Michael appear to think the CWI entirely bases its class characterization of Stalinism on “what Max Shachtman wrote in the 1930s”? The Trotskyist movement grappled with this issue for decades and to some extent still does. It is well-known that Ted Grant initially took a state capitalist position after WW2, only to change to a “degenerated workers’ state” position. Anyone reading online CWI material can see the ongoing discussions and debate in CWI ranks on the class character of China today.<br /><br />As far as Michael’s own views are concerned, from what we can tell he now seems to favour academic relativism and some sort of a-historical, post-modernist approach: “But knowledge and debate in relation to any particular political topic is rarely settled.” Michael goes on: “Historical and political understanding inches along on the basis of new evidence or on the basis of re-evaluations of existing evidence.” <br /><br />“Rarely settled”?” inches along…”? Of course, new light can be shed on every event and process and, as Michael puts it, “Knowledge and understanding is dynamic and historical – dialectical even”. But we can define processes and events and we can make categories. A worker is worker, a boss is a boss. We live in class society. We need a mass class-conscious revolutionary socialist party to lead the working class and all oppressed strata to change society, 1917 was a historically justified and hugely progressive development etc,<br /><br />Maybe this is all so much rigid dogma to Michael. Going by Michael’s comments above, and his earlier postings that reflected pessimistic, mechanical and static perspectives, we can see the theoretical and political distance he has drifted from Trotskyism. To continue along this present trajectory can lead only to the complete repudiation of whatever remains of the political convictions that Michael espoused previously.<br /><br />SP members hope this is not the case. We hopoe Michael will contribute to the Marxist movement and will work with CWI members where possible.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-23149922415069290392010-02-27T10:37:48.478+00:002010-02-27T10:37:48.478+00:00As far as Michael’s own views are concerned, from ...As far as Michael’s own views are concerned, from what we can tell he now seems to favour academic relativism and some sort of a-historical, post-modernist approach: “But knowledge and debate in relation to any particular political topic is rarely settled.” Michael goes on: “Historical and political understanding inches along on the basis of new evidence or on the basis of re-evaluations of existing evidence.” <br /><br />“Rarely settled”?” inches along…”? Of course, new light can be shed on every event and process and, as Michael puts it, “Knowledge and understanding is dynamic and historical – dialectical even”. But we can define processes and events and we can make categories. A worker is worker, a boss is a boss. We live in class society. We need a mass class-conscious revolutionary socialist party to lead the working class and all oppressed strata to change society, 1917 was a historically justified and hugely progressive development etc,<br /><br />Maybe this is all so much rigid dogma to Michael. Going by Michael’s comments above, and his earlier postings that reflected pessimistic, mechanical and static perspectives, we can see the theoretical and political distance he has drifted from Trotskyism. To continue along this present trajectory can lead only to the complete repudiation of whatever remains of the political convictions that Michael espoused previously.<br /><br />SP members hope this is not the case. We will follow with interest his public opinions.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-56502412930923893012010-02-27T10:36:39.369+00:002010-02-27T10:36:39.369+00:00On the CWI’s approach to ideas and debates and tak...On the CWI’s approach to ideas and debates and taking up other ideas, is there any other international Marxist tendency that is so open, so much on display? Just go the websites of the SP/CWI, where the ideas, programme, policies and perspectives of the CWI and its sections, and vital debates inside the CWI, particularly over the last 20 years, are presented and discussed. <br /><br />On issues that Michael raises – Stalinism, 1917 and the role of Lenin and Trotsky, social democracy, Kenysism etc, there are volumes of commentary, analysis and debate. On the general approach of Marxism today, the CWI produced an entire book, as well many articles, books and other material. <br /><br />Michael may not agree with all or any of these ideas or think the discussion sufficient or taking into account other ideas, including those from academia, and so on. But then Michael chose never to bring any other viewpoints and ideas to the SP membership (except for his one welcome discussion on ‘productive and non productive' labour). No attempt to start a debate. No attempt to critique the CWI analysis. <br /><br />Of course, the SP/CWI will take into account the work of academics where they bring something new to the movement and discussion and also on occasion to contrast our ideas and methods with those hostile to Trotskyism. (It is pity that Michael never saw fit to discuss with SP comrades presenting a critique of the academics, he cites, and their works, in the pages of the SP’s journals – it may have been useful and instructive, even if there was no agreement between Michael and other SP members on these matters).<br /><br />By the way, why does Michael appear to think the CWI entirely bases its class characterization of Stalinism on “what Max Shachtman wrote in the 1930s”? The Trotskyist movement grappled with this issue for decades and to some extent still does. It is well-known that Ted Grant initially took a state capitalist position after WW2, only to change to a “degenerated workers’ state” position. Anyone reading online CWI material can see the ongoing discussions and debate in CWI ranks on the class character of China today.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-51610159653743575072010-02-27T10:33:45.479+00:002010-02-27T10:33:45.479+00:00For Michael, the CWI/SP, and Trotskyism, in genera...For Michael, the CWI/SP, and Trotskyism, in general, it seems, is now all so much sterile dogma, a “child-like belief in the existence of a ‘genuine Marxism and its methods’.” <br /><br />Interestingly, Michael did not reply to my earlier query about where he now puts himself on the Left spectrum, how he describes his political viewpoint and whether that means playing an active role in workers’ movement and politics etc. Is Michael still a Marxist (‘genuine’, academic or otherwise?).<br /> <br />Michael’s is agitated over the term “genuine” Marxism, as he attempts to caricature the CWI as a closed, dogmatic, rigid organization, with no scope for learning and developing Marxism etc.<br /><br />The CWI is not just its programme and policies today, but bases itself on the collective experience of the working class internationally, the experiences and lessons of the four internationals and on the ideas of the great Marxists. The CWI is proud of its achievements – real, concrete achievements that made a difference to workers’ lives (for example, poll tax, Liverpool, former MPs and MEP, water charges in Ireland). These were not accidental but derive from the CWI’s understanding and application of Marxism. <br /><br />The CWI has never claimed to have all the answers or expertise, or never to have made mistakes. The CWI- a ‘committee’ not the mass international, which yet has to be built - does and will work with others in broad formations, where possible and useful, on a principled basis (TUSC, in Britain, today, for example). The CWI will grow partly by collaboration and sometimes merging with other Marxist and left revolutionary trends (already including those from a Mandelite and Moreonite tradition etc). The CWI will welcome the active involvement of intellectuals, as long as they put themselves on the side of the working class. I am sure we will not agree on all issues, including historical issues but there will be an agreement to construct a new mass international on the basis of revolutionary Marxism. The CWI will also differentiate itself sharply from other trends. Or does Michael think classic Stalinism and Maoism – with all their crimes against the working class - are just the same as the Marxism of Trotskyism and that, in best post-modernist practice, they all have a right to be considered the same, as all ‘genuine’?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-71194370068143477232010-02-27T10:30:36.614+00:002010-02-27T10:30:36.614+00:00I intend this to be my last words on Michael Fishe...I intend this to be my last words on Michael Fisher’s public resignation from the SP/CWI and his comments on political differences, unless Michael raises new very contentious issues or makes statements that I do not regard as factually true and which demand answering. (It seems many internet warriors on the left have a tendency for robustness and polemics in cyberspace but will be found wanting when they have had the opportunity to put their differences to their comrades in organized democratic discussion and debate).<br /> <br />Michael seems upset by my “mode of expression”. It reminds us of Trotsky’s comments in the 30s concerning the US SWP political petty bourgeois opposition which made all sorts of wild allegations and then complained about the ‘tone’ of the opposition during debates. Yet Michael’s comments show he is not averse to employing some “rhetorical dross” (and outright caricature) e.g. “the CWI’s planetary capacities”, “naive faith in a particularly dogmatic interpretation of Marxism” etc.<br /> <br />Having fired the first shots (online) – publicly attacking the CWI’s method of internal debate and discussion and its “core” theory and ideas – Michael can hardly be surprise when SP members reply firmly and point out the glaring contradictions in his account. <br /><br />Michael did himself no favours in the eyes of his former comrades, “after 23 years activity” in the CWI, by the manner of his leaving the SP/CWI and his airing of differences. Michael’s actions do a disservice to his own past role. <br /> <br />This is no “assumption of other peoples’ [SP members] views” on my part. I have had communications with several CWI comrades, in Ireland and Britain, most of whom know Michael, and they all expressed disappointment, frustration and even dismay at Michael’s public resignation on this blog, and his sweeping, contemptuous denunciations of the internal life of the SP/CWI and its approach towards theory, history and ideas.<br /> <br />Michael now tantalizingly states: “Anonymous raises some important points” …and does not address them. But he does now concede it was wrong of him not to first raise his differences inside the SP/CWI (“Should I have done more to advance these views within the CWI? Yes.”)<br /> <br />Unfortunately Michael goes on: “Does my inaction render the points invalid. I don’t think so. But others will disagree.” This is tilting at windmills. No-one said Michael’s decision not to put his ideas to democratic discussion and debate “rendered them invalid”. No doubt, we will not agree with Michael on his differences - if we ever get to see them in full - but our point concerned Michael’s approach towards open debate and discussion and his caricature of SP/CWI internal life.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-28804877977626765522010-02-26T06:25:14.488+00:002010-02-26T06:25:14.488+00:00Re: the comments from Anonymous
Anonymous raises...Re: the comments from Anonymous <br /><br />Anonymous raises some important points. Unfortunately, clarity is not helped by the mode of his/her expression:<br /><br />a) The quasi-Biblical solemnity (‘the deed is done’, ‘the League of Abandoned Hopes’). This is what it must feel like to be instructed in one’s sins by a priest.<br /><br />b) The arrogant assumption of other peoples’ views (‘SP members will genuinely hope’, ‘it remains disappointing to SP comrades’).<br /><br />c) The child-like belief in the existence of a ‘genuine Marxism and its methods’. <br /><br />d) The clumsy use of a Shakespearean quotation to imply a frame of intellectual reference much wider than that suggested by the rest of the text. <br /><br />Setting all the rhetorical dross to one side, the key criticism appears to be that my disagreements are nothing new. As I had not claimed originality I am not sure why this point is being made. Leninism and Trotskyism have certainly been subject to much criticism and abuse over the years – some of it utterly baseless (from Stalinists and some historians such as Robert Service) and some of it worthy of further discussion (the work of Samuel Farber, Hal Draper and Marcel van der Linden comes to mind).<br /><br />But knowledge and debate in relation to any particular political topic is rarely settled. Historical and political understanding inches along on the basis of new evidence or on the basis of re-evaluations of existing evidence.<br /><br />So, for example, I think Trotsky’s analysis of the Soviet Union is wrong, not because of what Max Shachtman wrote in the 1930s, but because our understanding of the historical dynamics and political consequences of Soviet economic development in the 1920s and 1930s is so much better than it was 70 years ago. The work of historians such as Donald Filtzer and sociologists such as Simon Clarke (both Marxists – but whose ‘genuineness’ has yet to be measured) provides, to me at least, sufficient reason to conclude that Trotsky’s analysis was probably wrong.<br /><br />It is possible to advance an argument that appears superficially similar to that held by others, but which is rooted in new evidence and alternative forms of reasoning.<br /><br />Only the most sterile and dogmatic mindset would assume that because Shachtman was wrong 70 years ago that the validity of Trotsky’s analysis is therefore settled. Knowledge and understanding is dynamic and historical – dialectical even.<br /><br />The point applies to many of the other issues I have raised. But the simple passage of time does not mean that the quality of analysis increases. So, for example, the 1975 book by Richard Hyman and Richard Price on the industrial politics of the British CP in the 1920s, and their implications for the conduct of the General Strike, is considerably more useful and reliable than Peter Taaffe’s book published in 2006.<br /><br /><br />Should I have done more to advance these views within the CWI? Yes. Does my inaction render the points invalid. I don’t think so. But others will disagree.<br /><br />Anonymous agrees that the years ahead will judge who is correct. I hope so. <br /><br />Should the CWI fulfil the predictions of one of its founders by becoming ‘the decisive force on the planet’ then I will be both staggered and pleased. However, I sincerely doubt the CWI’s planetary capacities and so cannot remain a member.<br /><br />Most members of the CWI, even those few hampered by a naive faith in a particularly dogmatic interpretation of Marxism, are genuine and dedicated fighters for a better world. Even though we disagree on many things, I hope to be able to work with them where and when I can.Michael Fnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-70933525394992204712010-02-25T12:57:37.868+00:002010-02-25T12:57:37.868+00:00Michael Fisher’s justification for not openly disc...Michael Fisher’s justification for not openly discussing his differences inside the SP remains unsatisfactory and disappointing for SP members. When you put together all his cited differences, they do indeed indicate fundamental differences. But did Michael come to these conclusions all at once, over the last few months, when he was thousands of miles away from the SP (E&W) in Australia? Or, as is much more likely, did Michael develop them over a period, during his 20 years plus membership of the CWI? If the latter, then it remains disappointing to SP comrades that Michael chose never to raise these important differences inside the party, as they arose. Amongst other things, it indicates an unfortunate attitude by Michael towards the SP membership.<br /><br />Anyway, the deed is done. Michael clearly has fundamental differences with the SP/CWI. But concerning the manner of Michael’s leaving the SP/CWI, and the way he chose to announce his differences and resignation, a line of Shakespeare’s comes to mind: “Nothing in his life, <br />Became him like the leaving it.”<br /><br />Michael said: “There is a long tradition of individuals leaving socialist groups without pursuing their disagreements – of which I am a part.”<br /><br />I agree …and they often go onto a path that leads to abandoning revolutionary socialist politics. There can be all sorts of reasons given (including genuinely held political differences, of course), and motivations for, individuals abandoning Trotskyism and revolutionary Marxism. It is never done in a vacuum. The pressures of bourgeois ideas and society, pressure of the retreat of left intellectuals on certain layers, tiredness from the active struggle and party building in more complex, difficult periods, pressures to conform and adapt to the bureaucracy and structures of the official union and labour movement... and many end up in the camp of a “League of Abandoned Hopes”.<br /><br />Sometime those leaving Trotskyism will cite, as Michael does, that they “disagree with many core positions”. We’ve heard it before. A split in the US SWP in the 30s, began over a questioning of the ‘dialectic”, as Trotsky pointed out, and ended up with the split’s main proponents ending up in the camp of imperialism. <br /><br />Michael can explain, if he wishes, where he now puts himself on the Left spectrum, how he describes his political viewpoint and whether that means playing an active role in workers’ movement and politics etc. <br /><br />Going by Michael’s other postings, he appears to now hold to a quite pessimistic and static perspectives. But SP members will genuinely hope that Michael still adheres to Marxism, although clearly not of the character of the CWI and Trotskyism, and that Michael will contribute to the broad Marxist and workers’ movement. <br /><br />Michael now headlines the “core positions held by the SP/CWI” that he differs with (though not all of them, apparently) but again he does not actually explain them. Perhaps this will come later. Nevertheless we can now make a fair assumption about Michael’s opinions going by the tenor of his short descriptions. With all due respect, I doubt there is anything particularly new in Michael’s arguments e.g. “the class nature of the Soviet Union; the democratic status of Lenin and Trotsky’s politics; the viability of Leninist party building under contemporary conditions…”) that have not already been discussed and debated many times before and, in my opinion, comprehensively answered by the Trotskyists in defence of genuine Marxism and its methods – including defence of 1917, analysis of the rise of Stalinism, defence of democratic centralism etc – against the attacks of social democratic reformists, bourgeois academics and commentators (e.g. Robert Service’s new book on Trotsky), Stalinists, ultra lefts and anarchists (as Michael says, “I could go on.”).<br /><br />Finally, I do agree with Michael at least on one issue: that “the years ahead will judge” who is correct (just as, in my opinion, the previous years have proved the correctness of Trotskyism on key historical issues that Michael highlights).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-32173908550079867062010-02-25T12:33:18.639+00:002010-02-25T12:33:18.639+00:00But the point is Mike that the points you raised a...But the point is Mike that the points you raised about the internal regime of the SP and its seriousness to discuss theory have been shown to be false with numerous examples given by several comrades.<br /><br />I myself remember your document being circulated on productive and unproductive labour being circulated and a serious discussion amongst Welsh comrades taking place on the topicEFComradehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03448737785635608861noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-40837412943757214152010-02-25T00:09:46.484+00:002010-02-25T00:09:46.484+00:00There is a long tradition of individuals leaving s...There is a long tradition of individuals leaving socialist groups without pursuing their disagreements – of which I am a part. <br /><br />No doubt the reasons for this vary from case to case.<br /><br />In my case I had come to disagree with many core positions held by the SP/CWI on such issues as: the class nature of the Soviet Union; the democratic status of Lenin and Trotsky’s politics; the nature of the British Labourism; the viability of Leninist party building under contemporary conditions; the sources of socialist consciousness; the interpretation of key historical events such as the British General Strike and the events of 1968. <br /><br />I could go on.<br /><br />If I disagreed on this or that issue then it would make sense to pursue these disagreements via the internal structures.<br /><br />But I didn’t. I came to disagree on a large number of core political issues that are closely bound-up with the particular history, traditions and leadership of the SP/CWI. The scale and nature of my disagreements were such that I concluded I had very little in common with the particular politics represented by the SP/CWI.<br /><br />In such circumstances I made a decision that there was little point in engaging in a very time consuming and probably fruitless individual battle of ideas. Maybe my judgement on this and other questions is wrong. I don't think I am but events in the years ahead will judge.Michael Fishernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-60215956602709089322010-02-24T11:56:32.189+00:002010-02-24T11:56:32.189+00:00Just noticed this thread and Michael Fisher’s decl...Just noticed this thread and Michael Fisher’s declaration he's resigned from the CWI/SP and his headlined political reasons for his decision. <br /><br />I understand that Michael never formally raised these differences inside the SP, at any time, and neither did he ever formally tell the CWI/SP he had resigned. <br /><br />What does that say about a serious approach to discussion and debate (which Michael claims is lacking inside the SP)? <br /> <br />Michael, who puts so much emphasis on understanding the “core theoretical position”, decided not to bring his views to the attention of SP members. <br /> <br /> Michael claims that there is a “lack of serious internal discussion on questions of history and theory” inside the SP. But, as 'PaulK' pointed out earlier on this blog, this sweeping claim by Michael does not at all tally with the approach the SP took towards questions of economic theory that Michael himself raised a few years ago (“serious” discussion, and SP resources, were given over to debating Michael's views - held only by him inside the SP - on 'productive and non-productive' labour etc).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-84314804245381285432010-02-22T15:19:44.827+00:002010-02-22T15:19:44.827+00:00Ok I take your point that i'm not going to be ...Ok I take your point that i'm not going to be able to convince you, but I do still feel that you are tarring all Labour Students with the same brush which is a pity.<br /><br />As someone that has been involved with both Socialist Students and Labour Students I have to say I don't think that Socialist Students do mobilise youth. <br /><br />I guess most of this does come from different peoples experience. Everyones Favourite Comrade you have shared your experience now I am going to share mine.<br /><br />Socialist Students on campus have been well hardly seen, and I can't say that I think that they have had an overwheming presence at local industrial disputes. I agreed wholeheartedly with YFJ campaign but this campaign was so disorganised it barely got off the ground here.<br /><br />In confronting the EDL well I can tell you there were Labour Students at the Stoke march, I can also tell you that there were a team of Labour Students campaigning in areas like Longton and Meir against groups like the EDL and BNP. <br /><br />You say that you didn't see one young member of Labour but its not like we have a sign above our heads saying we are members of the Labour Party.<br /><br />I do not gleefully ignore Labour Students attacks on the NUS in fact I shouted from the rooftops in my union that I disagreed with them. I don't take pride in it, however I don't think i'm here to send apologies for every mistake Labour Students has made. As for Labour Students attacking the left, I have to say that I went to NUS conference I had my Labour Students voting list put in my hand a number of 'the left' that we attack were on that list. Anyway, the point I was trying to get across is that it is getting better and moving to the left. This is based on my membership for the past 3 years and gradual improvements that I have seen in this period (and especially this year).<br /><br />I also apologise if I came across that I thought Wes Streeting was the only careerist (thought i'm sure I did give more than one example). There are more but the argument that you seem to be making is that all Labour Students are careerists and aren't really socialists, if this was the case they would join Socialist Students. <br /><br />'Its not about how big you are its what you do that counts'I 100% agree. This brings me to what have my club done in two years, fought for better wheelchair access on campus, ran campaigns about tuition fees, fought against prescription charges, raised awareness about domestic violence (all of this without national Labour Students help)among a number of other things. Our membership is just above that of Socialist Students (and I mean just), many members are member of both Labour Students and Socialist Students, however in my experience we engage with young people more, which is highlighted by the numbers we have at meetings and out campaigning compared to Socialist Students.<br /><br />Labour can't mobilise youth I disagree. I also disagree about your point to do with size and resources. I have not once got financial help from National LS. They don't provide me with my campaign materials, posters, website for my club, its all sourced from members. On a local level I have not gained any resources from LS and my Labour Student club has done it all themselves, its a level playing field, yet we can still engage with large numbers of youth. So these resources that you talk about, really they aren't there at a local level.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-66079273456411222362010-02-21T20:28:48.908+00:002010-02-21T20:28:48.908+00:00but isn't that the point, the SP were able tom...but isn't that the point, the SP were able tomobiise youth where Labour can not<br /><br />and considering the difference in size and resources that itself speaks volumesEFComradehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03448737785635608861noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-6188959408049981002010-02-21T20:25:54.314+00:002010-02-21T20:25:54.314+00:00thats my exact point I am an organiser for Sociali...thats my exact point I am an organiser for Socialist Students and most of our work has taen place away from campus. <br />Socialisr Students along with YFJ were far the biggest organised youth groups confronting the EDL?WDL can't say I saw one young member of Labout at allEFComradehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03448737785635608861noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-12897300123371452492010-02-21T20:03:38.657+00:002010-02-21T20:03:38.657+00:00I agree with you EFC, however there is a group cal...I agree with you EFC, however there is a group called 'Socialist Students' and it was them I was referring to. I am aware of the 'Youth Fight for Jobs' campaign and it does seem to be a positive and right step to take in the circumstances.<br /><br />I have no beef with the SP, but was just pointing out that their student work is beyond poor. I do think this is to do with the full-timers in this respect as the SP work in other arenas, while I may disagree with some perspectives is generally sound.<br /><br />The NUS is certainly not the best arena for struggle thanks to Streeting and his cronies, but it is an arena none the less.<br /><br />RichardAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-69536561851987608292010-02-21T16:11:21.534+00:002010-02-21T16:11:21.534+00:00I hate to break this to you but not every young pe...I hate to break this to you but not every young person is a student particuarly as student numbers have dropped in the last decae an in my opinion neither is the NUS the best arena for struggleEFComradehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03448737785635608861noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-65862723489734149442010-02-21T15:47:23.323+00:002010-02-21T15:47:23.323+00:00The SP are particularly weak in the field of stude...The SP are particularly weak in the field of student politics, certainly by the standards of the SWP and even the disproportionately influential AWL and their fronts. Their interventions at conference have been misguided at times and lack a coherent direction and strategy, hence the other student groups tend to dismiss or ignore them as a force.<br /><br />This largely because there is no clear direction, nor a coherent orientation toward students. Delegates at conference often do not stick together, there is rarely anything in the way of informed discussion or caucus and, it has to be siad, the 2 full timers are neither dynamic, show any leadership or even seem to know what is going on (sorry, don't mean to be personal, but they are woeful, politically!). <br /><br />RichardAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-48077054586769323762010-02-21T14:57:38.139+00:002010-02-21T14:57:38.139+00:00I didn't approve the comment so how it got ema...I didn't approve the comment so how it got emailed out is a mystery. But anyway it seemed too yah boo sucks to me, which is the kind of debate I wish to avoid.Philhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06298147857234479278noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-13702644023596477012010-02-21T14:52:37.002+00:002010-02-21T14:52:37.002+00:00A new post appeared in my e-mails but it has not a...A new post appeared in my e-mails but it has not appeared here nevertheless I will respond to it anyway. The post sai<br /><br />"Most young people don't want anything to do with the Socialist Party either. How many members?"<br /><br />Well I would argue that the SP proably has more active youth that the Labour Party fro my experience. When you add that together with the youth of the rest of the far left in particular the SWP we can see that the majority of politically active youth are outside of the Labour Party.<br /><br />Whilst it is true that the SP is numerically small I don't think that is a true reflection of the situation at all. I take no joy in saying that the SP is small but on the other hand look at what we are able to do with such small forces, I do not think it is necessary to give a list of them.<br /><br />When I first attended a branch meeting in 2003 it was a shock to me. I had for a few months been campaigning alongside SP members before I attended the branch ans seeing all that they were able to do in that time I expected at the very least to see 50 people at the meeting upwards to 100.<br />I was shocked to see there was about 10, for a few seconds it was extremely off putting but then I realised, If these 10 people were able to do what they have done imagine would we could do once we are bigger!<br /><br />Its not about how big you are its what you do with it that counts.EFComradehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03448737785635608861noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-39522892772320189992010-02-21T14:16:13.363+00:002010-02-21T14:16:13.363+00:00If that is your explanation of the left within Lab...If that is your explanation of the left within Labour Students then I thank you whole heartedly for proving ME correct. <br /><br />It makes absolutely no difference what you call yourself it is what you do that counts, and what have they done.<br /><br />The NUS Wales office is literally a 2 minute walk from the locations of pretty much all Labour Movement demonstrations in Cardiff but I am yet to ever see Estelle Hart engage in any campaigning activity.<br />Nor do I see any of the others usuing their profile within the NUS to mount a campagin against fees or cuts which the NUS leadership is not doing. So all it does for some of them to call themselves trots is to give left cover to the leadership.<br /><br />Your dismissal of streeting as just one person is extremely disingenuous a best. It is on par as saying Blair or Brown are just one person. Whilst technically this is true they are the elected leadership for Labour an the sameis true of Streeting within Labour Students because of his position within NUS that is what counts.<br /><br />While you are able to only provide me with 3 very weak examples you gleefully ignore the attacks that Labour Students have engaged in against the left within the NUS.<br /><br />and bying saying that the fact ex-trots means there is room for the left is blantantly wrong. It is like saying that because there are ex-paid cymru members in the tories it means that the tories support Welsh independance!<br /><br />Meanwhile most young people want nothing to o with Labour because they see them as no different from the main parties`EFComradehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03448737785635608861noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-14430330641130741802010-02-20T18:37:39.670+00:002010-02-20T18:37:39.670+00:00Phil, I don't plan on being *just* a Labour pa...Phil, I don't plan on being *just* a Labour party bod. I do anti-fascist and trade union stuff too. That will ensure I have plenty that keeps me busy during the quiet times of the electoral cycle.<br /><br />Dominic, cheers for the long and considered response. There are a couple of things I would take issue with your contribution.<br /><br />1) As far as I know the SP has not produced an analysis explaining roughly when and how Labour passed from a bourgeois workers party to a straight party of capital. Did it happen once Blair was elected Labour leader? Was it the abolition of Clause 4? Was it when Labour came to power in 1997? <br /><br />2) Obviously I dispute your characterisation of my resignation. I know full well that faction fighting is time consuming, exhausting, and that the cards are stacked against you when you're fighting on a fundamental strategic issue - not least because you know most people disagree with you, but also that those who meet any challenge from the base have the luxury of being full time activists. And seeing as my differences had emerged at a time when immediate action was necessary, there was no time to wait an age until the next members bulletin was produced. Had I gone down your recommended route I'd have undertaken work I think is politically mistaken and ultimately damaging to the wider interests of the labour movement. A split, even a small scale one, would have left behind it a legacy of bitterness and rancour. I've yet to see one resolved amicably in my 15 years on the far left.<br /><br />Re: Militant in the early 90s, after the split with the Grantites initially Militant adopted a twin track approach - open work in Scotland and Liverpool, but everywhere else they remained in Labour. In some areas there were still Militant supporters in Labour as late as 1994 (that year Wally Kennedy was elected as a Labour cllr). So the open turn wasn't initially unambiguous.<br /><br />Was Militant right to leave Labour when it did? I don't know. I will say that the influence Militant built during the 80s was contingent on them being in Labour. But I don't think being in Labour would necessarily have seen Militant decline any less than it did in the 90s. You just have to look at Socialist Appeals fortunes - they more or less stayed the same. However, because Militant were bigger it is not beyond the realms of possibility that some of its members could have been selected to contest seats, just as Wally Kennedy was.Philhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06298147857234479278noreply@blogger.com