Should revolutionaries standin elections ?

I thought i'd share this excelletn piece by A-Fed Scotland who put a very convincing case for organising outside of elections and for me this is the best critique of leftists who stand in elections in a long while and is worth a read. "By Mike Sabot in a personal capacity. The original article by Ben Wray (ISG) is here. http://internationalsocialist.org.uk/index.php/2014/03/the-case-for-an-electoral-party/ The only reliable and sustainable basis on which to build a left party is to orientate it towards the only democratic institutions that everyone can engage in and the only institutions that have democratic authority over society – parliamentary elections. In Scotland that means, most importantly, Holyrood. Generally those in the parliamentary left don’t attempt to justify why they participate in elections and see it not only as a useful form of action but, in fact, the primary means of bringing about fundamental social change. It’s just what socialists do, right? Ben Wray should be thanked for elaborating on this. Nonetheless, I’d argue that his case for an electoral party is contradictory and rests on a number of unfounded assumptions. I doubt I can change his mind, but I do think it’s possible and really important that more people are brought around to libertarian communist politics. That means organising as a class where it matters, outside and against parliament. I’ll try and keep this brief and directly respond to some of the points made. Let’s start at the very end of the piece where it’s said that the broad idea is that of ‘challenging the system at its point of greatest weakness: the governmental level’. It seems a bit odd that I need to make this argument, but assuming we’re talking about capitalism here, surely other socialists would agree that the working class is strongest at the point of production and at work in general. It’s there that we can disrupt capital, through organising we can force our demands on employers, or harm their profits through threats of collective action, and actual striking, go-slows, sabotage etc. This isn’t to say that organising around unpaid labour, in our neighbourhoods and against oppressions isn’t absolutely essential and isn’t just as important to transform society, but we need to try to link these struggles to the strategic site of production and work. By contrast, the influence we can have as a class at the level of government is minimal, except where our extra-parliamentary movements can ‘wring’ reforms out of it. Some leftists will recoil immediately, arguing that ‘parliament isn’t democratic, it doesn’t serve the people and the working class increasingly don’t trust it and don’t vote’. This is all true but it isn’t a convincing argument against engaging in parliamentary elections because there are no alternative democratic institutions which possess anywhere near the same democratic legitimacy in society as parliament does. On the one hand, it’s accepted that parliament isn’t ‘democratic’ but on the other, it still has ‘democratic legitimacy’ and is the only institution that ‘everyone can engage in’. In practice, the mainstream left really does accept and endorse parliament as democracy in action, or close enough, and that it’s possible to control it for progressive ends. Otherwise, why bother? But the critique of the institution isn’t explored because it’s seen as unrealistic to reject something which undeniably a) has real power, and b) is understood to be the political arena by the majority. This is what ‘democratic legitimacy’ really means here. The communist argument would be that you don’t start with what is seen as ‘legitimate’ or not, or where the majority are. It is axiomatic that, outside of a period of mass struggle, most people won’t seriously question existing social relations. Gradualist reform and social democracy will be seen as all that’s on offer. What works and how we can recreate a militant labour movement is a different question entirely. What are some basic points against electoralism? Most people can’t meaningfully engage in it. That’s the point. Representation takes decision-making power away from working class people and invests it in a small minority. This order-giver versus order-taker split is an expression of the wider class society. If they’re to be successful, electoral parties have to become ‘popular’ rather than ‘class’-based. They seek coalitions and try not to appear too radical to attract support. The more mainstream they become the greater the chance of gaining seats. Often these parties are mobilised behind a dominant personality with charisma and oratory skills. How exactly do you avoid the situation where some individuals accumulate more power or importance? Some like to argue that it’s possible to be both ‘on the streets’ and in parliament. In reality, parliament takes first place and tends to push out everything else. Where parties are involved in extra-parliamentary activity it’s usually to its detriment, by co-opting things or exploiting them. Whatever the manifesto of left-wing parties, parliament and government is concerned with the political management of capitalist society. It isn’t structurally possible to challenge capital through the state and it’s questionable to what extent reforms can be passed without the leverage of a militant labour movement, and in this conjuncture. The function of electoral parties on the left, arguing the case for a better-run capitalism – whatever the radical rhetoric – is to demobilize and divert from more serious threats, like rank-and-file direct action. Don’t get me wrong, I am not for becoming like the politicians. I believe representatives should take a workers wage; I believe they should be accountable to the community they are elected from None of these things would let the electoral party off the hook from ‘becoming like the politicians’. A workers’ wage doesn’t challenge the hierarchical relationship of representative to represented. And politicians speak all the time about being accountable but most people know this is meaningless. Only recallable delegates are genuinely accountable. Those who don’t vote aren’t setting up co-operatives to run communities or workers’ councils to run workplaces. Their process of re-engagement and democratic renewal will likely pass through parliamentary elections on their way to participatory democratic control of society, if we are to ever get there. Not voting isn’t important in itself, and for the growing distrust of politicians and the electoral process to achieve anything it would have to find expression in new forms of organising. But it’d be naive to think that participatory or direct democracy is something that will be proclaimed one day by parliament – handed down from above. Rather it needs to be prefigured in whatever struggle we’re involved in. The point is, however apparently dire our situation and despite the broad extra-parliamentary left being a small minority, it is both possible and absolutely necessary that we create new directly democratic institutions. Coming from a revolutionary unionist or syndicalist position, I see unions ‘as associations of workers’, rather than as representatives or service-providers, as probably the most crucial institutional forms for class struggle.* The fact that the trade union movement is so weak means that we actually have an opportunity to go about building a new labour movement controlled from below and rejecting collaboration with bosses. A false dichotomy is sometimes raised by the mainstream left that you either have to accept electoralism or you’re for some sort of revolutionary insurrection tomorrow. Instead, we need to take the long road of trying to spread militant rank-and-file organising, of winning small but significant victories and gaining strength. Whether it’s the IWGB in the Tres Cosas Campaign, the IWW in organising service workers or in setting up rank-and-file networks in, for example, the education sector, SolFed’s campaign against workfare – these are all examples of radical unions ‘as associations’ doing really inspiring work. I’d also add Glasgow SolNet’s direct action victories for private tenants and ECAP’s actions by and for claimants, as examples of union-like structures outside the workplace. Put it this way – what do you think the capitalist elite want us to do? Leave parliament to their mates and focus on extra-parliamentary activism, or challenge for democratic control over society? The question should answer itself. The history of left-wing electoral parties around the world is one where the elites were not threatened by their entry into parliament. In fact, in Britain, the Labour Party was welcomed by many existing parliamentarians as a reasonable, collaborative bunch who would help to control the extremists in the labour movement and work for the national good. They were right. The working class is strong to the extent that it is autonomous and can act in its own class interests outside of the state. Where left-wing electoral parties exist in parliament, the extra-parliamentary left should try to argue the case for class struggle politics with their grassroots, use pressure to gain concessions, and keep up a constant critique of the leadership. * For the difference, see the excellent SolFed pamphlet Fighting for Ourselves, pp 12-13." with thanks to A-Fed Scotland for this excellent critique of electoralism http://scotlandaf.wordpress.com/2014/03/04/quick-reply-to-the-case-for-an-electoral-party/

When you find you disagree with something

Following to my blog post on sectarianism which is deeply ingrained on the British left I thought I’d share a few more thoughts. I have a few times recently raised criticisms or perceived criticisms I tend to see them as more suggestions with a critical tone to help move things forward. I’ve been rebuffed by some of my own comrades in the socialist party not by many just a few I must admit sadly. A few private messages had come to me in a quite sharp tone noting I shouldn’t be raising criticisms of the party and its strategy on a public interenet forum instead I should take any disagreement I have to my regional committee or an elusive internal bulletin which has been promised for months and I’ve still not heard anything about it or how I can access it. Being blind doesn’t help as no doubt it will come out in print form forgetting we have comrades who may not be able to read print but tat is by the by. Its my issue that how democratic centralism is interpreted that any disagreement or public criticisms is a crime and must be kept all in house which troubles me. I suppose for most of the left discussing your differences in public is a "cardinal sin". Minorities within the 'party' are either expected to keep their views to themselves or at best limit the airing of their disagreements with the leadership to closed meetings or the pages of internal bulletins. A monolithic facade of 'unity' must always be presented. The public expression of differences supposedly portrays weakness to those outside your ranks and, worse, serves only to 'confuse workers'. That, at least, is how much of the left have chosen to interpret the Leninist organisational principle of democratic centralism it would seem. We’ve seen just this year how the SWP leadership tried to clamp down on public out cry on how the leadership looked to cover up a allegation on rape I do think although slightly better in terms of democracy our party I feel can still be found wanting to shut down debate and to keep our disagreements in house. Is it a lack of confidence I wonder? Facts that we don’t want to let the class see we have those who are not all 100% signed up to the party line or have questions over things. I do wonder sometimes. I mostly agree with what we say in our programme but when there is a issue which comes up like our attitude towards Left unity and the direction or lack of in TUSC I am shot down for daring to ask valid reasonable questions. In reality of course, nothing could be further from the truth. Democratic centralism - genuine Leninist democratic centralism, that is - while imposing on minorities the duty to abide by democratically agreed decisions, provides also for the fullest public criticism. The party should allow access to its public press for dissenting views as a matter of course. If a particular submission is considered unsuitable, then the author must have the right to publish it themselves - even in the capitalist press. Only in this way can we correct our mistakes and arrive at the truth. If you fear answering public criticisms and would prefer to brush them under the carpet comrades doubts and questions will only grow. Instead of other comrades taking a sharp tone with me how about trying to help me understand or to work with me to understand what I’m saying maybe clarify things in a comradely fashion. As sometimes when you are not feeling like you’re listened to or feel valued in an organisation you will start to talk out in anyway you can. Finding an elusive internal bulletin and talking to a regional committee who are far more experienced than myself and in a way make me feel small and less knowledgeable simply for being a member for a shorter period of time I am not sure why they feel my issues must be channelled down a path convenient to them. Surely they are my disagreements or issues should it not be up to me how I express them. I have tried to explain my frustrations to other comrades but have felt like I’m the stupid one for asking questions or daring to give differing points of view. Comrades our arrogance isnt pretty sometimes we sometimes may be wrong a bit of humility sometimes wouldn’t go a miss. We do not have all the answers and a set way to do things. We’re still a very small party if we were 100% correct on everything we would be far bigger it would be good to remember that sometimes and try to bring people with us rather than writing them off so soon. No comrade or political party is politically infallible I don’t think its right to pretend we ever are. We all have our own beliefs and understandings we all come to conclusions at different times not allowing any form of public criticism as it doesn’t present a unified front in action is sad. As long as it doesn’t hamper the overall thrust of what the party is saying a few questioning critical comrades giving constructive suggestions should always be welcome in my view. Who knows they may actually have some useful points to help.

Call me what you want

Tonight I was politically undressed as it were with a right win landlord and a group of lads who were clearly right wing and opposing any sort of left wing idea going. This is my local pub and I felt quite intimidated to be honest feeling that I was in the minority. I took it all on the chin and brushed off any criticism which I felt was the best way to handle it. I clearly am in the minority in society and accept this fact. As I’ve said before this doesn’t as a rule make me straight away wrong and not worth hearing out. As I said before and will repeat time after time Karl Marx and Frederish Engel’s were always in the minority their entire lives and still till this very day correct on many issues so I have no shame in stating my point. I do not go into a new atmosphere looking to preach or push my own views but will defend my views when attacked. Some may say well best to leave it and let things go its not worth it but why just let things go and let the left face another defeat among many others. This all came about since Margaret Thatcher’s death where the local landlord who is clearly Tory and supports the idea of the individual spoke up about herand said what a great woman she was. Clearly I did not agree and looked to put the opposite point of view about the miners and the communities she devastated as any good leftie would. Maybe I should have shut up and said nothing and let things go but I have created a mole hill for myself perhaps by stating openly I’m a socialist and disagreed with Thatcher. I am told constantly I was not alive so how can I have any view on the matter. I reply well were you alive during the world war? So ho can you have an opinion on the war. To which it seems to escalate into all sorts of comments. Perhaps I’m speaking out of turn and I should keep my mouth shut. But I was then told I may not be welcome back in the pub. Is it the case you can be refused a drink if you disagree politically with a landlord. I’ve not come across this before I know there are discrimination laws and what not but simply disagreeing politically can you be refused entry and a drink to a pub? I will have to do more research but does seem harsh though. I always answer well you’re a leftie and all that with well I simply believe in fairness and can’t stand unfairness. Is that such a crime? As a socialist this is my basic principle that we are all equal but some more than others. We live under a capitalist system which’s deeply unfair which people find themselves marginalised by the smallest thing. In pubs and the like I hear lots of racist and homophobic comments and talk. This does offend me as I oppose any form of racism and homophobia not because I am black/ Asian or that I’m gay and even if I was it wouldn’t change anything I simply oppose discrimination. I am blind and as a result I’m disabled and face discrimination on a daily basis I could recount many incidents I’ve been through some that would shock even my nearest family fact is it goes on and will forever we live under a system of exploitation and greed. But I am a decent person I do genuinely feel I like to help people out that are my basic goal now as a socialist. I find happiness in helping others and others less fortunate than myself. Anyway I can help anyone I will. On the way back tonight from the pub I’d had a few drinks but someone was helping a friend home who’d had a few drinks themselves and was clearly struggling. I offered to help, knowing I am blind and cannot offer too much help I still went out of my way to offer support if I could. This is not to raise myself up as some sort of martyr or anything but was offered out of genuine concern and offering of help I didn’t hope to gain anything from this or anything just to see if I could help So many people have lost that basic level of human solidarity now any offer of help from someone they don’t know is alien to them and they do not know how to react. I believe many people are not alienated from society and society has as a result alienated them. Its time to reclaim good will and human solidarity. As workers we all face the same attacks. Whether your black, white, gay, straight, disabled or not you are all my fellow human beings who I stand by I do believe there are mostly good people out there and that there is good in most people but its what we do as a class which matters. Workers have the power to change society and running down of left/ socialist ideas is quite deliberate. I’ve been called all sorts, leftie, Trotskyist, commy, scrounger you name it I’ve been called it. Names are a name for a reason I personally do not worry about a name or a label it’s we do and interact with others which matters. Convincing others is no easy task that a socialist society would be better than what we have but it is certainly I’m not going to be bullied out of or intimidated out of. We all have different political views I accept that and respect others I would never revert to physical force or under hand tactics. You win a political debate on politics alone not the personal getting personal and resulting in insults means you’ve lost I’m afraid I’m not about to loose my nerve now.

A distinct lack of genuine political debate

In todays modern fast moving ever changing society we find ourselves in a state of low class contiousness due to a lack of struggles up till now as we had been part of a boom time. Things are changing but i wanted to touch on something which has become increasingly clear to me.

The lack of genuine political debate is very evident to me. The fact that all political parties the main ones i mean Labour, tory and Lib dems are very similar in their nature and similar in the system they support. The exploititive system of capitalism. Some support it more than others but be under no doubt none want to do away with it or even begin to discuss if there is a better way for all of us.

There is multiple reasons why i think this is. They all wish to manage capitalism the best and each election they battle with eachother on tiny differences in who can manage capitalism better than the other. New labour did do a good job of this from a capitalist point of view they helped the rich get even richer than ever before giving tax cuts to the rich and deregulating the banks.

The lack of a genuine voice for workers and working class people and the poor is very striking i feel. Not that a mass workers party would find it any easier to get their ideas out ther as the mass media is still owned and controlled by the rich capitalist barons.

But having a mass party of workers organised in trade unions too all standing up for workers and popularising other ideas like socialism and socialist ideas such as a shorter working week with no loss of pay, a mass affordable house building scheme to tackle our shortage of affordable homes for all, nationalisation of the commanding heights of the economy and major utilities including energy water etc. All of these ideas could be given a mass hearing if a new workers party was formed.

The fact is we have to try doubley hard to get our ideas out ther to people. People still read papers like the sun and the daily mail sadly it is not about condemning them for daring to read such papers that is their choice but about us engaging with them and steering their ideas in a friendly socialist manner. Asking them questions and engaging in real debate is waht is needed.

Take BBC question time on a thursday night meant to be the highlight of the week and the height of political debate. I frankly do not see any debate on there at all anymore. You have lib dems, tories and labour all argueing who can screw over the poor the most. None of them speak up for ordinary workers and any questions an audience asks they are baffled with science and fobbed off. This is not good enough and a change is needed.

Such ideas of socialism and trade unionism have been down trodden for years and years and it will take a while to get the ideas back into peoples minds. Big struggles like strikes on november the 30th and more like that will do wonders to increasing peoples understanding and contiousness of the unfair world around us that we live under.

Having our own media will be a start i feel. In the socialist party we produce our own weekly paper produced by working class people for working class people not for a profit but to spread the ideas of our party and to popularise ideas that can improve the situation we all live under.

The wealth is there in society we in Britain are one of the worlds richest nations i simply do not accept there is no money left. There is if it is distributed fairly among all in society not concentrated among a elite few.