Blog

on 14th September 2010 at 19:20, Marie Lynam said:

Hello friend
This was an achievement. It is probably happening all over the country.
Forward to regional alliances of all such anti-cuts campaign, and their assembling nationally. We should care to develop Labour Left activists prepared to argue against the view that another Workers Party is necessary.
I do not believe this is necessary, or that it is possible.
Of course, history shall give us the answer in due course, I am sure.
But for the moment, capitalism is looking for scapegoats to cover-up its war preparations. So it is the Islamists, then the Latinos, (the Blacks from time to time), then the immigrants, then the benefit scroungers (from whose ranks the banks have been magically removed), then it is the Romas, then those who do not want to work, then the teachers who hide their incompetence behind ‘special needs’ structures in the schools (costly this, worse than free milk for the kids), etc.

Let us be clear: capitalism prepares for war. The rise of people who defend the nazis is only one indication of it. The other is the terrible torture constantly inflicted by imperialism and its threats on North Korea, Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, etc. Even Russia and China are surrounded by US bases that have adopted the ‘strike first’ policy. And what silence in the Left, and in the LRC about it. Quick, let’s have CND and antiWar movements, in every anti-cut committees.

Why am I saying this? Because war is coming like 2 and 2 makes 4. This is the lesson of history when capitalism crashes.

And why am I saying this? Because the coming war is determining the delays, the rhythms, the stages in our task of revolutionizing Labour.

The lack of the study of history in the LRC leads the comrades into pessimism, parochial views, impressionism and impatience. This is how we get people - even on the platforms of our own LRC meetings! - posing the need for a New Party, an alternative to Labour. Mind that I am not saying these people should be silenced. But the LRC itself must put its own people on its platforms. Those who want a New Party can speak, from the floor. And it is the duty of the LRC comrades and speakers to reason why it is not advisable to create a New Party now.

To start with, every organisation that has competed with Labour to this day, has failed. To continue the argumentation, the reason why we are not in Socialism is because Labour is the obstacle to it. Hence the way to go to Socialism is to remove the obstacles that inhabit Labour and the Trade Unions. And finally, I will argue, the war is coming, and there is no time to create a Socialist Party. The going to Socialism will pass through the revolutionizing of Labour.

But comrades, how many times have you heard these ideas discussed scientifically?

It is not excluded that war will bring a situation that completely by-passes Labour. For the present immobilism in the Labour leaderships (Diane Abbott less, but she is not prepared for any of this)may turn out to be so durable that people will explode from below and build something new. But this would be in uprisings - not now when it is a matter of getting prepared. For the time being, the workers stay in their Trade Unions, regardless of the very bad leaderships indeed; and they stay centralised in Labour, still vote Labour, after all the crimes of the Labour leaderships. (Anti Union laws/Iraq, etc).

However, of course I may be wrong.

But I would hope that comrades would want to study these questions scientifically, and not leave to events the power to decide, and us to react to events instead of leading them.

Warm greetings, Marie Lynam GMB, P.Charter, personal capacity.

on 15th September 2010 at 14:26, George Deacon said:

Marie

Thanks for the comment and much i agree with.  I am organising a meeting in October under the banner of the lrc that will take up the questions you suggest in your piece.  You would be very welcome to speak at the meeting

best

George Deacon

on 15th September 2010 at 22:41, Marie Lynam said:

Thanks George
I would gladly speak.
It would be important, I think, to explain the historic importance of Labour, the centralisation of the masses around Labour, the way the Trade Unions created Labour - unlike the rest of Europe and the world where the Workers Parties created Unions. Hence you have a pro-Communist CGT in France, the pro-Socialist CFDT, the Christian Democratic FO, etc.

It would be important therefore to explain that the leadership for socialist transformation has to come from where the working class/Trade Unions meet ‘Labour’, which is not necessarily the present structure of wards/GMCs/Regionals etc, but the start of new structures so that the Labour National Conference is the clear and simple expression of the membership, un-dominated by the parliamentary and careerist Labour layers linked to the administration of capitalism.

Then how do we help operate such a change? The Trade Unions cannot do it with the structure that they have at present. If I pass a resolution in my GMB branch, and it has to go to the Region, the Region meets every 6 months and passing a resolution is like pissing in the sea. Then, suddenly, you get the GMB leadership taking national political positions, and you can see that your branch was never consulted, or perhaps through some respected individuals only, and this extremely indirectly. The support of GMB for Ed Mileband falls from the sky, as far as I am concerned. Neither have I seen a single line from the GMB leadership to explain why this gent is better than Abbott. In a word, the working class in the Union branches has no say. As for the working class in the workplaces, they even have less of a say - or those that have some influence are already respectable figures, with positions in the Union; people that are not challengeable at workplace level and who the workers support because this is the only shield they have against the arrogant impunity of the boss.

As long as the Unions have such structures, there will be worthies getting at the top of them, climbers that make deals with the bosses and the capitalist governments - interested in the collective strength of the workers solely as a bargaining chip to justify their positions of well-off power brokers between the workers and the bosses.

To challenge this set up forms part of the task of building Socialism. When the workers base can express itself freely in its trade Unions, the latter will no longer be the machinery that they are today. And when the Trade Unions can express themselves freely in Labour, Labour will no longer be the administrator of capitalism.

To struggle for these aims is to struggle for Socialism.

Socialist greetings
Marie Lynam
(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)