The Workers' Party seem to be De Leonist (even if they are split from the De Leonist SLP). In short they are a halfway house between us and anarcho-syndicalism. But I have never studied this much (perhaps others who have can comment). The big industrial union idea seems passe to me and the notion of syndicalism smacks of corporatist state capitalism even though they deny it.

Yes, we know of the GCI . They were the first ever split from the ICC, based in Belgium. We used to call them anarcho-Bordigist but have not followed their recent trajectory. For a time they were very successful but have had a lot of splits themselves largely (it seems) due to their intellectualoid attitude (like a lot of groups [in particular Francophonia seems more cursed by them] they create a competitive urge in which everyone tries to be more clever than the last one). The lack of a revolutionary working class in the present means that there is great scope for all kinds of ideological speculation and the GCI seems to have been one of the fruits of this.

Yes I know that. I read their site but it makes no sense since they are obviously more heavily influenced by De Leonism than anything (even if they are not directly from the SLP). Have you had any correspondence with them? Might be useful to discuss.

Good. Looked at their positions and apart from the industrial unionism bit they don't seem a hundred miles from the positions of the Communist Left (internationalism comes further down their priorities than for us as far as I can glean but they get there in the end). Have you had any dialogue with them?

I don't know what happens on our site sometimes. I posted a question to you re whether it was worth engaging in an exchange of positions with the WP last night but today it is not there!

I would not describe them as idiots although we once repeated Marx in calling them "parliamentary cretins" . They have a clear understanding of what socialism really is and a good critique of state capitalism (which we agree on). The problem is they think that parliament can bring about socialism by the working class voting for it. As if the bourgeosie would allow it! As one sympathiser put it this is a bit like saying you can get to the moon on a bicycle. They refuse to accept that revolution is what changes mass human perception (as in the German Ideology). They also think that because we take inspiration from the October Revolution (even if it ultimately failed) that all we are advocating is a re-run which we adamantly do not. There are two threads on the forum on this One I cannot find just now is called "what's wrong with the SPGB" which had some long exchanges with some of their members. There is also this one started by someone else.

leftcom.org

Understanding how the "95 year old failure" of the only successful proletarian revolution came about is essential even if we are aware that the conditions for the next revolutionary wave are not going to be the same. Otherwise we are not making any contribution at all.

Polemical exaggeration is one of the worst aspects of debates between so-called "marxists". It means there is no debate in meaningful sense. But in the case of the SPGB and our supposed "apologising" for Lenin is to hide the paucity of their own arguments. We don't see the issue as one about Lenin per se but about the revolution and the counter-revolution. Lenin and the Bolsheviks made enormous contributions to both. From the internationalist opposition to the war to their deep rooted preparation of the working class for the fight for socialism they were giants. When the isolation of the revolution became more and more marked they took over from the working class and became the managers of the counter-revolution paving the way for the Stalinist state. Lenin's writings often reflect both processes but he neither made nor unmade the revolution all on his own. But read our pamphlet on Class Consciousness and Communist Organisation (I think it is on the site) to get the full picture and see if you disagree with it.

It was the most important experience the working class has ever had so far, with enormous lessons and indications for what not to to do next time round eg the party must never ever substitute itself for the class. It's absurd to say Lenin was the grave-digger of the revolution! Do you not think the bourgeoisie had a hand? Do you not think the failure of the revolution to spread internationally; and the failure of revolutionaries to have proper communist partys up and running in advance, played a part? In 1917, when Lenin realized what the class had achieved in self-organization, in coming up with the soviets, and proclaimed ALL POWER TO THE SOVIETS, he was being a superb revolutionary, in total touch with his class.

When he got involved in the putting down of the Kronstadt rebellion, he was wrong, the revolution was already lost and the Bolsheviks were falling into the hands of the bourgeoisie. The criticism I make Sandman, is of your opening question. Until final success the proletariat is condemned to defeat in all it's assaults on capital. It can't achieve partial revolutionary goals, unlike the bourgeoisie did. So yes, the first revolutionary wave was a failure, but a glorious failure full of lessons for next time. And it wasn't all Lenin's fault. Think about it!