Anarchists outmanouvered to the left on Lisbon by Trots?
Sep 30 2009 15:10
Quote:
The Socialist Party correctly criticises those trade-union leaders who are calling for a 'Yes' vote in the referendum on the Lisbon Treaty on 2 October. There can be no justification for anyone who claims to defend the interests of working people endorsing a treaty aimed at fine tuning the mechanisms of the imperialist European Union. It is, however, hardly surprising that some trade-union bureaucrats - after working hand-in-glove with the bosses for over 20 years of 'Social Partnership' - would decide to sign on as promoters of the Lisbon Treaty.The centre-page article in the September issue of the The Socialist advocates a 'No' vote on the basis that 'the European Union has undermined the wages and conditions of workers across the continent'. In fact each national capitalist class has been waging its own campaign to drive down popular living standards - to blame the EU for this is to obscure the real dynamics of the bourgeois offensive.
Your article does correctly note that the Posting of Workers Directive (which came into force a decade ago) along with the court decisions on its enforcement (Laval, Viking, Rüffert, Luxembourg) have been used to justify the 'race to the bottom' that is hurting workers across Europe. But the Socialist Party is very wrong to push the notion that the Lisbon Treaty will 'significantly further the creation of a European Union which favours the interests of big business'. It is merely a continuation of business as usual for the European bourgeoisie - as your own supporting arguments make clear.
You put forward the nationalist-reformist argument that the Lisbon Treaty would make it 'more difficult for mass protest and popular pressure in countries to challenge developments in the EU by pressurising their elected governments'. Changes in bourgeois rule can sometimes make a significant difference to the terrain on which the class struggle is fought, but clearly not in this case.
The adoption of the Lisbon Treaty would make no significant difference to the ability of the working class to wage class struggle. Nationalist 'solutions' to the problems faced by working people can only weaken the labour movement. Whether it is better to vote 'No' or spoil your ballot in this referendum is a tactical question that boils down to how socialists can best promote class consciousness within the proletariat given current political circumstances.
The present political context is sharply defined by a rising tide of nationalism being pushed by elements of the ruling class and the trade-union bureaucracy as a response to the crisis. The poisonous chauvinism expressed by the 'British Jobs for British Workers' slogan vividly illustrates how nationalism is a form of capitalist ideology that is counterposed to the internationalist class consciousness required for the self-emancipation of the working class.
The majority of Europe's capitalists favour a 'Yes' vote. However, a significant minority of the bourgeoisie across Europe advocate 'No', represented in Ireland by Sinn Fein, the likes of Declan Ganley, and recently the UK Independence Party, which spent €180,000 on posting a 'No' vote leaflet to every household in Ireland. A 'No' vote in these circumstances buys into the petty nationalism represented by Sinn Fein and the trade-union bureaucracy.
Socialists must seek to develop a strategy, and the associated tactics, to enable the working class to defeat the capitalists' attempts to offload the costs of their economic crisis. Victorious defensive struggles by workers can help create conditions for going over to the offensive and ultimately launching a struggle to overturn the whole rotten capitalist system.
In this referendum the International Bolshevik Tendency is calling for working people to spoil their ballots. This tactic allows workers to reject bourgeois-nationalist demagogy while also registering opposition to capitalist squabbles over re-jigging the EU.
On 2 October 'Spoil Your Ballot!'
Alan Davis
for the International Bolshevik Tendency
29 September 2009
Oh god, embarrassing.
Sep 30 2009 17:22
#2
Great position should we not all do that in any major election now? Trots coming out with some class A shit.
Oct 1 2009 16:13
#3
Er, the title should be changed to "WSM outmanouvered to the left on Lisbon by some Trots".
Oct 1 2009 23:05
#4
Why? once you read a thread you get full context. I am also unaware of any anarchists calling for a spoilt ballot on Lisbon?
Oct 1 2009 23:38
#5
Surely "being outmanouvered to the left" is only a problem if you think that the most "left" position is always, under all circumstances, the best one. And that's a line of thinking that leaves you at insurrectionism on the one hand or passive ultra-leftism at the other.
Oct 1 2009 23:49
#6
IrrationallyAngry wrote:
Surely "being outmanouvered to the left" is only a problem if you think that the most "left" position is always, under all circumstances, the best one. And that's a line of thinking that leaves you at insurrectionism on the one hand or passive ultra-leftism at the other.
while there is something to this statement, calling ultra-leftism "passive" is a baseless straw man.
By the way, angry, I just remembered that you never responded to my post here:
http://libcom.org/forums/theory/wsm-leaflet-march-against-governments-handling-economic-crisis-23022009?page=2#comment-319051
Oct 1 2009 23:59
#7
I read it as him saying there is such thing as passive ultra leftism (which there is) rather than ultra leftism per se being passive?
Oct 2 2009 00:45
#8
IrrationallyAngry wrote:
Surely "being outmanouvered to the left" is only a problem if you think that the most "left" position is always, under all circumstances, the best one. And that's a line of thinking that leaves you at insurrectionism on the one hand or passive ultra-leftism at the other.
I could have just as easily said "obscure trot group holds more coherent position on libson than irish anarchists". I mean, pointing out the treaty doesnt matter and calling for a no is pretty confusing.
Oct 2 2009 02:24
#9
weeler wrote:
I could have just as easily said "obscure trot group holds more coherent position on libson than irish anarchists". I mean, pointing out the treaty doesnt matter and calling for a no is pretty confusing.
That's a different criticism. The IBT position is a typically stupid piece of purist Spartism. It is however entirely coherent.
Oct 6 2009 13:00
#10
weeler wrote:
Why? once you read a thread you get full context. I am also unaware of any anarchists calling for a spoilt ballot on Lisbon?
Because, particularly given what irrationally angry is leaving unsaid, it is essentially an identical position to the largest trot group in Ireland - the SP. Or perhaps they aren't really a trot group.
To be fair I reckon if Organise! actually had any southern members and gave enough of a fuck we'd be calling for a spoilt ballot. Or maybe we'd just continue to not give a fuck and our position would be be closer to "aye, whatever".
I can remember the WSM being incensed at the deletion of articles 2 and 3 from the Irish Constitution, my infantile response was let the bastards delete the whole thing for all I care - I mean seriously why the fuck would anarchists give a flying fuck about the claims of the southern government to sovereignty of the whole island of Ireland?
There was a referendum on that n'all that they were campaigning about.
Oct 6 2009 17:23
#11
I don't think that it actually is an identical position to that of the Socialist Party. What they advocate is identical, but their analysis, while overlapping with ours, is also a bit different.
I do think that there are bits in their analysis that seem to point in different directions, so if weeler had criticised them on the grounds of coherency rather than being less ultra-left than the IBT I might have agreed with him.
Oct 6 2009 18:54
#12
IrrationallyAngry wrote:
I don't think that it actually is an identical position to that of the Socialist Party. What they advocate is identical, but their analysis, while overlapping with ours, is also a bit different.I do think that there are bits in their analysis that seem to point in different directions, so if weeler had criticised them on the grounds of coherency rather than being less ultra-left than the IBT I might have agreed with him.
Both of your positions are mystifying reactionary bollocks, it's just such opportunist crap is to be expected of an electoral reformist Socialist Party that sees socialism as nationalisation writ large, it isn't expected from apparent libertarian communists, but then again neither has protesting about the removal of Articles 2 & 3, supporting candidates in Union leadership elections or raising demands for nationalisation.
Oct 6 2009 21:41
#13
Quote:
I can remember the WSM being incensed at the deletion of articles 2 and 3 from the Irish Constitution
]
Well, your memory is pretty faulty. In fact it sounds more like fantasy than faulty recollection.
For those who don't know the articles, which were deleted by referendum as part of the peace process, were:
Article 2: The National territory consists of the whole island of Ireland, its' islands and its' territorial seas.
Article 3: Pending the re-integration of the national territory and without prejudice to the right of Parliament and Government established by this constitution to exercise jurisdiction over the whole of that territory, the laws enacted by Parliament shall have the like area and extent of application as the laws of Saorstat Eireann [26 counties] and the like extra-territorial effect.
Nobody in the WSM got incensed. That's just rubbish.
What the WSM actually said <http://struggle.ws/ws93/art23_38.html> was:
"In an upcoming referendum anarchists will oppose the deletion of Article 2. We do so, not because we support the 26 county state over the 6 county one, but because we are opposed to the partition of Ireland. The Article recognises the partition of Ireland and we want to see a united Ireland. For this we will oppose its deletion.
"We, however, won't get too excited about Article 3. To support the claim of the Dublin government is to support the authority of one set of bosses over another. We, who want to get rid of the division into bosses and bossed, won't do this."
In the event the two deletions were put together in one vote as part of the Good Friday agreement.
The WSM position <http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/once/peace_ref.html> was very clear:
"The proposed amendments to Articles 2 & 3 of the Southern Constitution mean nothing to us. They were put into De Valera's 1937 constitution to give it a bit of nationalist window dressing while the Southern ruling class made its peace with British imperialism and got on with the business of exploiting the working class. Articles 2 & 3 have never made one whit of difference to the real lives of anyone on this island.
"Those urging rejection of the agreement have no alternative to offer, just more of the same conflict that has ruined tens of thousands of working class lives. The republican forces of the 32 County Sovereignty Committee, Republican Sinn Fein (RSF) and Irish Republican Socialist Party (IRSP) have nothing but increased communalism and sectarian tension to offer. The loyalist opponents - whose rallies are attended by vocal supporters of the Loyalist Volunteer Force (LVF) death squads - want a return to a time when Catholics lived in fear and on their knees.
"In a typically undemocratic manner we are not being allowed to support or oppose the many individual componants of the agreement, we are only allowed to vote for or against the entire complex package. The Workers Solidarity Movement calls for abstention from this referendum. Neither a 'yes' vote nor a 'no' vote will advance the cause of workers unity and socialism."
Oct 6 2009 21:53
#14
Okay then youse would have opposed Article 2 being removed, definitely nothing retarded or in conflict with Internationalism in that.
Oct 6 2009 22:17
#15
That is quite possibly the most confused statement I have ever read.
EDIT: The WSM statement that is.
Oct 6 2009 21:59
#16
The thing about a United Ireland is that inherently means a division of the UK too?
In citing the removal of the border between the North and South (a border that to all intents and purposes doesn't exist beyond political and legal jurisdiction) as some sort of internationalist justification you overlook the fact that it raises another border between the North and the rest of the British Isles.
Oct 6 2009 22:32
#17
So the WSM position in both of these examples is incoherent and contradictory then.
I.e. with both their position seems to be "both options are as bad as each other, but we support the nationalist option", which seems very bizarre, but not altogether unsurprising seeing their usual form unfortunately.
Yes, it's a lot better than the WSM position. It is consistent, and not self-contradictory at least!