======================================================================
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
======================================================================
It should be mentioned that Nat was subbed here for many years and like
so many others was more of a lurker than a poster. While I had some
friendly exchanges with him over the years and even wrote 2 or 3
articles for his magazine, we both understood that I was a
neo-Cochranite with little interest in old school Cannonism. Going
through the archives, I found this interesting post from him that showed
an openness to a project in Britain that was in line with my own
thinking even as he welcomed it as a kind of effort to recreate the
halcyon days of American Communism.
---
Dear Comrade Hardy,
Put me on your list. I am very much in favor of reviving the spirit of
class solidarity that often takes the tactical form of the workers
united front. The kind of more or less "permanent" united front that you
describe that can be summarized by your own words which appear in your
posting below. You write:
"Does this mean people should leave their existing groups? No, no one
has to give up their existing organisation, all can remain in their
groups, but, we believe they and their organisations should join the
ACI. This does not mean that the ACI is merely a regroupment initiative,
neither is it only a united front. But it is trying to provide a space,
for discussion, for practical collaboration, that can clarify our
differences, and carefully move towards political unity where we agree."
However, the kind of organization you describe was first brought into
existence by William Z. Foster, James P. Cannon and other members of the
American section of the Third International in 1920. It went by the name
of the Trade Union Educational League. To refresh my memory--its been a
very long time since I had first become aware of this page in working
class history--I googled its name and got the following description of
the TUEL (thanks to Wikipedia):
"March 1923 issue of The Labor Herald, official organ of the Trade Union
Educational League.
"The Trade Union Educational League (TUEL) was established by William Z.
Foster in 1920 as a means of uniting radicals within various trade
unions for a common plan of action. The group was subsidized by the
Communist International via the Communist Party of America from 1922.
The organization did not collect membership dues but instead ostensibly
sought to both fund itself and to spread its ideas through the sale of
pamphlets and circulation of a monthly magazine. After several years of
initial success, the group was marginalized by the unions of the
American Federation of Labor, which objected to its strategy of "boring
from within" existing unions in order to depose sitting union
leaderships. In 1929 the organization was transformed into the Trade
Union Unity League (TUUL), which sought to establish radical dual unions
in competition with existing labor organizations."
As you can see, this was a formation primarily oriented to the unions,
which was in accord with objective and subjective factors prevailing at
the time. We live in a different world today, but a world in which the
need for a powerful revival of the spirit of comradely and collaborative
relationships between competing--not opposing-- working-class economic
and political organizations is more important than ever before. Yes,
our differences are very important. But there is no good reason why we
should not "strike together" on those matters with which we are in
agreement. In line with the principle underlying the workers' united
front--"Strike together but march separately."
As you are probable well aware, by 1929 when Wikipedia reports that the
TUEL was dissolved and the Trade Union Unity League (TUUL) was created
to take its place, the Stalinist leadership of the Comintern replaced
the workers' united front with the pro-capitalist "popular
front"--otherwise known as the very opposite of class independence and
class solidarity. It all began in 1924, just months after Lenin died
when Stalin adopted the slogans reflecting his anti-Leninist strategy of
"Socialism in one Country" and "Peaceful Coexistence with World
Imperialism."
Please keep me informed of developments as they occur. I am a member of
the editorial committee of Socialist Viewpoint magazine with a small
bi-monthly magazine. Check it out by googling Socialist Viewpoint. We
will do what we can to help reach your/our anti-capitalist goals.
Comradely, Nat Weinstein
On Jul 3, 2012, at 4:06 PM, Louis Proyect wrote:
http://anticapitalists.org/2012/07/03/the-case-of-the-anticapitalist-initiative/
What is the Anticapitalist Initiative and where is it going?
Simon Hardy | July 3, 2012 | 0 Comments
Has the left woken up?
Anyone who thinks the British left is in a good state needs to take > a
reality check. Despite the biggest capitalist crisis for a generation,
there is a desperate lack of new thinking and a failure to reappraise
old assumptions. We need to use the next few months to get take stock of
where we are going and reflect upon how we might build a stronger, more
united, left.
The potential for the left is certainly very real. We have a series > of
historic opportunities; to build a mass movement against austerity, to
build a strong revolutionary alternative to Labour, to revitalise the
union movement, and to forge new organisations and movements in defence
of the oppressed. But front-building and lack of a critical mass (in the
sense of a united fightback) to deliver victories against the austerity
offensive obstruct our collective ability to advance and fritter away
these crucial opportunities.
I would go so far as to say that we risk losing much of what has > been
gained in the last decade of struggle. The left has proven it can help
mobilise the numbers, but if we can’t score some victories that capture
new ground then why should more people get involved? A radical departure
from the way the left normally works is required.
If we seize this opportunity then the gains could be phenomenal.
But this will not be an easy task, and will require a flexibility > and
tolerance not regularly seen on the British left, but is an absolutely
necessity, if we are to overcome the isolation and marginalisation that
has plagued us for decades.
This is why some organisations and activists got together to launch the
Anticapitalist Initiative.
We want to change the culture on the left and introduce some “common
sense” thinking into the equation. As such, although we are only just
starting out, I think we have made excellent progress.
Some people are asking what direction is the ACI heading in?
That is a very good question and people involved in the initiative have
different ideas. At the moment the ACI is a space for discussion and
organisation: a place for people to gather and think about how we can do
things differently.
Some critics have argued that it won’t be possible to build a common
organisation given the differences that exist amongst the socialists,
anarchists, libertarians, and anti-cuts campaigners who have joined the
project. Others have said that unity can only be successful if a Marxist
programme is adopted at the outset. Meanwhile others still, who are
involved in the initiative, see it as a step towards a
Leninist-Trotskyist organisation and a new working class party.
These are important debates and I don’t intend here to give a > lengthy
reply to these positions, but merely state my position, and how I think
the Anticapitalist Initiative should develop in the future.
Ultimately, I believe that a political organisation is necessary, > not
yet another micro-socialist grouping on the left, of which there are
obviously many, but a large, broad-based revolutionary grouping: a
genuine realignment of the left.
I know this won’t be easy and I don’t naively believe everyone and
anyone can unite in the same organisation. Neither do I want to
trivialise the important differences we have about the strategy we need
to transcend capitalism.
But, in the first instance, I believe we can bring together
organisations and individuals who want to build democratic campaigns,
rather than the fronts that litter the British left, that fight
bureaucracy in the unions and overcome sect divisions by building a
plural, dynamic organisation.
Does this mean people should leave their existing groups? No, no one has
to give up their existing organisation, all can remain in their groups,
but, we believe they and their organisations should join the ACI. This
does not mean that the ACI is merely a regroupment initiative, neither
is it only a united front. But it is trying to provide a space, for
discussion, for practical collaboration, that can clarify our
differences, and carefully move towards political unity where we agree.
If our aim is to actually work towards unity in a serious and practical
way, then it’s foolish to think that we should rush to try and impose a
Marxist programme (and there are many differences on what exactly such a
programme would look like) in the first instance. A programme worthy of
the name, could not emerge fully formed from day one, but has to be a
product of dialogue, of collective discussion, among much wider layers
of activists, about the challenges we face.
I want the ACI to provide a space for that discussion to take place.
That’s why we shouldn’t be worried at this stage about whether the
differences within the ACI on strategy are so great it makes a common
organisation impossible. We want to build the ACI in such a way as those
differences can co-exist and be subject to continual fraternal debate
and argument.
It would be a mistake for anyone to write off this new initiative, > it
is still in the process of being formed and deciding what its political
line is. I think there is a lot of room for people from the libertarian
tradition as well as people who are closer to Bolshevism or Trotskyism,
and there is certainly room for people who are on the left but do not
consider themselves in either category. The ACI is what people want to
make of it as a democratic forum of debate and discussion. People who
write such an initiative off before it has even got off the ground are
displaying a terribly pessimistic and cynical view.
The fact of the matter is that the successes for the left in recent
times have occurred because there has been a serious attempt to overcome
divisions and create a more credible united force.Examples include
Syriza, Antarsya, P-Sol, NPA, Front de Gauche, Die Linke, Left Bloc,
United Left (Spain).
Naturally, we can and should debate the weaknesses and strengths of each
separate organisation and why some suceeded and others failed, but they
all point to shared experience of the left in recent years, that if we
are to make any headway in the national arena then we must forge a
credible and united organisation.
Will we all agree on every policy and bullet point of any future
organisation or network? No, but I am sure we can all agree that we are
weaker divided – and the welfare state is being torn down around our ears.
So if you want to be part of the alternative then come to Rebellion > on
the 14 July at Nailour hall in North London.
There will be plenty of space there to discuss key issues facing us
today and how we can go forward.
We cannot promise any spectacular breakthroughs but we can promise a
decent, honest debate about what to do next. If you are looking for an
alternative and feel that the left needs a new way of doing things, then
I hope to see you there.
About the Author (Author Profile) Simon Hardy is a supporter of the >
Anticapitalist Initiative and was a spokesperson for the National
Campaign Against Fees and Cuts during the student movement of 2010-11.
He is one of the contributors of 'It Started in Wisconsin: Dispatches
from the Front Lines of the New Labor Protest' (Verso 2012). You can
follow him on twitter <at> Simon_Hardy1
________________________________________________
Send list submissions to: [email protected]
Set your options at:
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
