- Inspire thousands of disillusioned people across the country that there is an alternative to poverty, war and exploitation caused by capitalism
- Produce a national, anticapitalist daily paper of the working class
- Get far more media coverage on the TV, radio and newspapers to challenge the lies of the capitalist mainstream politicians
- Fight for mass workers’ action in the trade unions against cuts in jobs, pay and conditions, and do this far more effectively than any existing left grouping. Challenge the union leaders when they hold back action.
- Provide a forum for debate and discussion. Use links in the unions and universities to provide working class analyses of government policy, the economy, social research etc.
- Stand in national and local elections to put out a socialist message to the millions, and counter the racism of parties like the BNP and UKiP
- Organise the unorganised – provide local centres for unemployed youth
- Fight the corner of those who aren’t represented: migrant workers, single-mums, the elderly, school and college students, etc.
- Show the true meaning of internationalism. Link up with and stand in solidarity with the struggles of workers and youth all over the world
- Organise everyone, not just at the polling booths but on the streets and picket lines to struggle against the effects of the crisis and to overthrow the system of capitalism that caused it.
John
Call for a new anticapitalist party
#1 by Mikhail on November 26, 2009 - 12:03 am
Quote
This doesn’t seem much different to the usual message put out by left-wing parties. People living on run-down miserable council estates plagued by scallies and drug-pushers don’t want abstract statements about overthrowing capitalism. They want to know how you can help improve their lives BEFORE the revolution.
#2 by Duncan on November 29, 2009 - 6:07 pm
Quote
Yes all this is well and good but I don’t see how anything on this list distinguishes the ‘Call for a New Anti-Capitalist Part’ from the CNWP.
In fact, it’s unclear how this list represents anything other than ’10 things Workers Power think would be a good idea if they happened’, nothing more than a laudable wish-list.
#3 by Mark on December 1, 2009 - 2:55 pm
Quote
There are several key differences.
Firstly the call for a NAP sets out a strategy of building local committees to organise a party from the grassroots, amongst workers in struggle and working-class communities. The CNWP has never had this perspective, has not called for this and now is really just reduced to lobbying the trade union left(ish) leaders like Bob Crow and Matt Wrack to form a new party. Which both of them have refused to do.
As well the type of party envisioned by the CNWP, a New “Old Labour” party wouldn’t be able to do half these things as it would be tied hand and foot to reformism.
I mean, look at number 4. Fight for mass workers’ action in the trade unions against cuts in jobs, pay and conditions, and do this far more effectively than any existing left grouping. Challenge the union leaders when they hold back action.
Would an Old Labour/CNWP, style party actually challenge the trade union leaders when they sell out struggles like the CWU leaders Billy Hayes and Dave Ward have done? Especially when they are appealing to these sorts of people to form a new party? I think not.
We want a class struggle party, not an electoral alliance or an electoral platform. A party has to fight all year round, not just at elections but on the streets, in communities and in the workplace. The CNWP does not campaign for that sort of party. Hence it has not gotten anywhere in the past 3-4 years it has been in existance.
#4 by Duncan on December 1, 2009 - 4:10 pm
Quote
Perhaps I should come back in 3-4 years time and see if any of the above demands have been realised.
I won’t hold my breath.
#5 by Emma on December 1, 2009 - 7:10 pm
Quote
To be honest, despite these ‘several key differences’, you would do better united than fighting slightly different battles apart, weaker than if you had been joined together.
In the recent Scottish by-election, ther were 3 left candidates: Louise McDaid of the Socialist Labour Party who got 47 votes (0.23%); Kevin McVey of the Scottish Socialist Party who got 152 votes (0.74%); and Tommy Sheridan of Solidarity who got 794 votes (3.86%).
If you’d have joined these efforts a left candidate would have 4.83% of the vote, plus maybe some more who have been convinced by joint campaigning and a lack of confusion, and the candidate might have got their deposit back. They might also have beaten the Lib-dems, the Tories and the BNP, as well as several other candidates.
The ‘key differences’ you state are actually minor and would be better resolved by convincing other, similar movements to try something new and unite, pooling resources and workng together, rather than breaking away, slagging them off and confusing people you could otherwise recruit to the movement.
What does it matter if you’re the People’s Front of Judea, rather than the Judean People’s Front? United we are Strong.
#6 by Mark on December 2, 2009 - 11:48 pm
Quote
These key differences are not minor by any means. There is a world of difference between the electoral platform proposed by most of the left, and the creation of a new working-class party which fights all year round, not just at elections.
One method of building a party is aimed at appealing to left-wing TU leaders to do so. Has this worked? The proof is in the pudding.
Another is the left all getting together (how?) agreeing to hide their differences (again, how and also why?) and working together for a campaign to win seats in parliament (to do what?). I’m sorry but this is totally utopian.
Our method and what we are arguing for is for a grassroots campaign aimed at drawing working-class militants and oppressed groups into an active campaign to build a party, within which we can have the democratic and open debate out over what sort of politics and programme we stand on.
This isn’t a case of “breaking off” and slagging off other groups. We’ve called for the united work and unifying action to get the campaign going, calling for a conference of all socialist groups and trade unions who want to build a new party, local committees at a grassroots level to bring workers together to have these debates and arguments out and settle them democratically, and finally for a slate of anti-capitalist candidates at the election. On this basis we could “unite, pooling resources and workng together”. How else do you propose to achieve this unity?
Agreeing some sort of basic minimum programme that hides all our differences and doesn’t achieve any type of political/organisational unity will mean whatever “unity” we establish will end as soon as the election period is over. By it’s nature an electoral platform is just for elections. After that even if it involved the whole left it would simply fragment into it’s component parts which would take the contacts and member’s they had gathered from this “united” campaign and go and do their own thing, and we would have wasted an opportunity to build a party.
#7 by jimp on December 21, 2009 - 2:32 pm
Quote
I would add two points;
- Organise a national rank and file movement.
- Organise a national anti-fascist defence organisation, based on the working class.
Trackback: Kylie Batt
Trackback: GABRIEL