Why anarchism as a method of action doesn't work.

[TremulousTetra]

No, "socialist" isn't "socialist". There is no single definition of socialism, there are many definitions. Socialisms.

Look, at this point you are aware of the stupidity of your inserting your own words into my comments and stating that is what I meant to say. Just let it go.

 

[ViolentPanda]

You fucking were, and you cshould know it. Your interpretation is nonsense.

Only to you, seemingly.

you can be a member of the working class and choose not to work with the working classes, ie join the Tory party or the BNP. Or you could be a member of the working classes, and choose not to work with them, preferring to go on living some little anarchist squat in the republic of nowhere. And I stated, the example of Seattle, where anarchist chose not to work with the workers march. That you choose to work with the working classes, DOES NOT automatically place you outside them.

You're a dishonest halfwit.

I haven't claimed that choosing to work with the working classes "automatically" does anything. What I DID say was that taken with your speechifying about the emancipation of the working class being down to the working class, for the SWP, an organisation that isn't OF the working classes, your choice of words was illustrative, insofar as it showed the SWP as imposing themselves on the situation and on the class.
I mean, what are the SWP's working-class credentials? For such a large sect, the SWP has made remarkably little impact on w/c areas, except in terms of shitting up our environment with thrown-away copies of the Socialist Worker and pasted-up posters and handbills. I've seen a fuckload more action from the SpeebyGeebies and even the bloody AWL round here than from the SWP.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Look, at this point you are aware of the stupidity of your inserting your own words into my comments and stating that is what I meant to say. Just let it go.

Let what go? That you're claiming something that no-one else sees?

Bite me.

 

[ViolentPanda]

And this is exactly why any organsation working towards genuine unity would have to guarentee minority rights within its setup - so the respective parts of that organisation could learn to trust through working together, knowing that one organisation - regardless of how they dominate in terms of numbers cannot override genuine concerns of significent minority views. It is how the SA was established - before folk, unfortunately took the desicion to vote away that constitutional setup - on the basis of a hoped for "unity" with the SWP (the mythical 'unity of left groups' hope over experience - seen as more important than the initiation of an organisation that could draw in and genuinely become a beacon for unifying more than just those left groups).

The irony should not be lost on anyone (apart from RMP3)

The irony certainly wasn't lost on me, and neither was the despair that the destruction of the SA induced in many people. A lot of us set aside misgivings and took them on trust, and then paid for it.

What's that old US folk-adage? "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me".

 

[TremulousTetra]

"Packing meetings" - having plenty of members to hand

Precisely, the SWP are guilty of having plenty of members, period. Imagine SW party members voting in an organisation they are part of.... Packing means having the temerity to vote.

to ram through resolutions that favour the SWP over other parties to alliances/compacts/whatever.

SW organise, to vote the way THEY believe will best further our shared aims.
IE >

I don't seek to work with the working class; I am working class. And the feedom in which I believe isn't the individulism to do exactly as I please, in my own interests; instead, it is simply the freedom to act according to my own conscience and judgement (informed but not dictated by comrades), to act in the way which I believe will further our shared aims.

SW claims the same freedom

It happens way too often to be incidental (which is what Swappies tend to claim if you tax them on it), and it's a manipulation of supposedly-democratic fora by a supposedly democratic (ha-fucking-ha!) organisation.

Oh Jesus! Stop making up these fictitious SWP members will you? SW DO ORGANISE, to vote the way THEY believe will best further our shared aims.


So are you saying to me that if anarchists had the majority of members of an organisation, they wouldn't vote in the way which they believed would further our shared aims?

 

[dennisr]

SW organise, to vote the way THEY believe will best further our shared aims.

So are you saying that the SWPs precondition for joining the Socialist Alliance - and the resulting domination by that organisation and the closing of that same organisation was an example of their belief in what "best furthered the shared aims" of the SA ?

Stop lieing RMP3. "Rule or Ruin" is my repeated experience of the SWPs belief system.

 

[TremulousTetra]

I haven't claimed that choosing to work with the working classes "automatically" does anything.

You've already shown, by talking of "working with", showed yourself/your organisation to be outside of "the working-class",

 

[TremulousTetra]

So are you saying that the SWPs precondition for joining the Socialist Alliance - and the resulting domination by that organisation and the closing of that same organisation was an example of their belief in what "best furthered the shared aims" of the SA ?

No!
Our shared aims are the emancipation of the working class, BY THE WORKING CLASS. I have already said, Those inside disagreed how to achieve those aims. Just like the anarchist's in Seattle acted according to their conscience, we voted according to our conscience as to what would be best suited to attracting enough workers to create a mass alliance/party, and facilitating the self activity of the working class.

you know this whole discussion determines really on one issue. Do you believe as John Rees stated in front of 500 people at Marxism, and as was said in many of their publication is, in many of their internal and public meetings over and over, the design for both the Socialist Alliance and respect was a mass organisation?

if you accept that, then logically the SWP being part of a mass party, would make them a minority. An unprotected minority. it logically follows that they Constitution they demanded would by design place SW as a unprotected minority, and still demanded it because they believed that was in the best interests promoting the self activity of a organised working class.

Now if you look above you will see I now believe they were wrong. This probably wasn't feasible. But it is what they said/believed.

I can go on to why they argued they should place themselves in such a precarious position. But it is pointless without dealing the issue above first.

PS. you voted according to your conscience against the changes in the constitution, and even when SWP were not in the Socialist Alliance you've lost the vote. No so-called packing involved. Are you saying everybody in the Socialist Alliance besides the Socialist party voted out of self-interest?

 

[TremulousTetra]

There was me convinced I'd made it abundantly clear.

Perhaps you really are as stupid as some posters claim.

You say that the SWP says "the emancipation of the working class has to be the act of the working class".
Yes?

You say this not very long after coming out with (w/r/t your perception of anarchists, and how "socialists", which of course is your code for the SWP, are so much more, well, socialist than anarchists) "Whether anarchists like it or not, there is a democratic will of the majority. Those who concentrate on the actions of the collective,those who see the emancipation of the working class being the act of the working class, seek to work with the working-class, even when the will majority goes against what they believe would be best for the movement as a whole [ie the real world me]"
See those bolded words? "With the working-class"? You've already shown, by talking of "working with", showed yourself/your organisation to be outside of "the working-class", and yet there you are, trying to influence the working class as to how/when/why they emancipate themselves.

The SWP are not, for the most part, of the working classes. Who the fuck are they to interpose themselves between the working classes and their emancipation?
I'll tell you what they are: Another bunch of leeches looking to gain power through stepping on the working classes. No more and no less.

my comment's wherein the context of a general discussion about socialism and anarchism, with references to the Easter uprising, and in particular Seattle, where THERE IS NO SOCIALIST WORKERS PARTY. I wasn't talking about how the Socialist worker's party behaved more socialist in Seattle, I was talking about socialists. YOU cannot just insert socialist worker, where I actually said socialist, and say that is what I meant. I didn't mean to say socialist worker, I meant to say socialist''s

 

[ViolentPanda]

Precisely, the SWP are guilty of having plenty of members, period. Imagine SW party members voting in an organisation they are part of.... Packing means having the temerity to vote.

No, it doesn't, it means mobilising the membership to deliberately manipulate the outcome of a meeting.

SW organise, to vote the way THEY believe will best further our shared aims.

Even when that means doing so in order to destroy a coalition?

IE > SW claims the same freedom
Oh Jesus! Stop making up these fictitious SWP members will you? SW DO ORGANISE, to vote the way THEY believe will best further our shared aims.

"Fictitious"?

So are you saying to me that if anarchists had the majority of members of an organisation, they wouldn't vote in the way which they believed would further our shared aims?

You're kind of missing the point there. Anarchists don't do entryism.

Fuckwit.

 

[ViolentPanda]

.

Nice bit of selective editing there in post #367.

 

[ViolentPanda]

So are you saying that the SWPs precondition for joining the Socialist Alliance - and the resulting domination by that organisation and the closing of that same organisation was an example of their belief in what "best furthered the shared aims" of the SA ?

Or, rather more likely, what "best furthered the shared aims" of the SWP CC.

Stop lieing RMP3. "Rule or Ruin" is my repeated experience of the SWPs belief system.

And of many.

 

[ViolentPanda]

my comment's wherein the context of a general discussion about socialism and anarchism, with references to the Easter uprising, and in particular Seattle, where THERE IS NO SOCIALIST WORKERS PARTY. I wasn't talking about how the Socialist worker's party behaved more socialist in Seattle, I was talking about socialists. YOU cannot just insert socialist worker, where I actually said socialist, and say that is what I meant. I didn't mean to say socialist worker, I meant to say socialist''s

Putz.

 

[dennisr]

you know this whole discussion determines really on one issue. Do you believe as John Rees stated in front of 500 people at Marxism, and as was said in many of their publication is, in many of their internal and public meetings over and over, the design for both the Socialist Alliance and respect was a mass organisation?

Gibberish. You are saying this discussion "detemines weather of not I believe what John Rees said". What the feck are you going on about you idiot?

The actual actions of the organisation say a damn sight more than weasel words from Master Rees. Those actions are repeated again and again. - Its not an occasional mistake - its a political trend.

How does one build this 'mass party' that you say the SWP wanted - by opening up that potential party? - by not denying minority views by control through votes while that party is still small? - by building genuine respect and trust between the various elements of that formation by ensuring that small groups will have a guarenteed voice? Or by shutting those initial democratic debates down? crushing the shoots that could have grown into a genuine mass organisation by stiffling it at its very birth?

All the SWP ever wanted was control. it shut down the SAs - the very organisation that could have grown into a mass organisation. Less than one year later. So much for its stated desire for a "mass party". And now you have the audacity to argue that what went wrong was a result of the friction between the latecomers and the SP who, apparently, wanted a revolutionary party not a mass party! - what utter. dribbling. idiocy.

And that desire for control is really what is so pathetic about this organisation - I mean what was to be gained? - by (or for or on behalf of - or however you wish to put the term...) this working class you claim to love so much - by being the dominant fish in such an incredibly small pond? - by ending up speaking to yourselves? (everyone else having given up listening). What the feck have manipulative stitch-ups like this got to do with furthering the interests of the working class? And idiots like you wonder why we just shook our heads and walked away from the whole sorry mess?

Ironicly, we now find ourselves in a position where we have to argue for the idiots of the SWP being allowed in unity organisations - they are hated so much - understandably - by so many folk that, as a result of bitter experience, these same folk even try and work out ways of being inclusive but not allowing the SWP! (of course I cannot condone that...). But really... How sad is that? How pathetic? Does your organisation never question why it has come to this - when some of the most combative trade unionists existing in the UK today try to avoid you? Do you ever question what mistakes have resulted in such a - frankly - embarrassing and shameful situation?

And the pigs looked like humans and the humans looked like pigs - again. So which is it RMP3 - are you simply a gibbering idiot - or a manipulative lieing troll?

 

[TremulousTetra]

Nice bit of selective editing there in post #367.

something you never do?

I haven't claimed that choosing to work with the working classes "automatically" does anything.

You've already shown, by talking of "working with", showed yourself/your organisation to be outside of "the working-class",

Clearly contradictory statements.

 

[TremulousTetra]

Putz.

Liar.

 

[butchersapron]

Oh god, someone make him stop, for the love of Marx, make him stop!

 

[krink]

So which is it RMP3 - are you simply a gibbering idiot - or a manipulative lieing troll?

from my close reading of this thread (I'm at work so not wasting 'my' time) I'd say he is the former but desperately trying to be the latter.

 

[dennisr]

Oh god, someone make him stop, for the love of Marx, make him stop!

 

[TremulousTetra]

And that desire for control is really what is so pathetic about this organisation - I mean what was to be gained? - by being the dominant fish in such a small pond.

None.

 

[TremulousTetra]

from my close reading of this thread (I'm at work so not wasting 'my' time) I'd say he is the former but desperately trying to be the latter.

Ehem! 13 pages.

 

[dennisr]

None.

why defend such appalling mistakes then? (i am being generous by using the term 'mistakes') why defend it by misrepresenting the views or wishes or hard work of other organisations? - work the SWP destroyed again... - work which put the longer-term interests of the wider working class ahead of the short-term interests of our own organisation.

Honestly you haven't got a leg to stand on. The excuses are pathetic - absolutely pathetic.

 

[dennisr]

Ehem! 13 pages.

the one good point made - good troll - shit politics

 

[TremulousTetra]

btw, determines, decides upon

1. v. de·ter·mined, de·ter·min·ing, de·ter·mines. v.tr. 1. a. To decide or settle (a dispute, for example) conclusively and authoritatively. b. To end or decide, as by ...

 

[Athos]

RU VP's glove puppet?

go on admit, you don't know. your just repeating what the big boys have told you say.


pssss, dont believe everything VP says.

Yeah, that's right, because he's the only person who has suggested the SWP is vanguardist.

Anyone who has any experience of your party knows that it tries to hijack movements and place itself at the centre. If the SWP can't gain control, it would rather see the whole thing torn apart. The SWP's actions have demonstrated that it wants nothing more than to control each and every working class grouping.

I'm sure there's plenty VP and I disagree about. However, I'm sure we can concur that you're a knob. Something which, no doubt, we have in common with most people who have had dealings with you.

 

[TremulousTetra]

why defend such appalling mistakes then? (i am being generous by using the term 'mistakes') why defend it by misrepresenting the views or wishes or hard work of other organisations? - work the SWP destroyed again... - work which put the longer-term interests of the wider working class ahead of the short-term interests of our own organisation.

Honestly you haven't got a leg to stand on. The excuses are pathetic - absolutely pathetic.

You are right, there was no motivation to control the SA. wanting to control the SA, was like wanting to control an empty sweetshop, pointless. so changing the constitution was not about control, there was other reasons all there in the publications for you to read.

if you attack the real reasons for not giving minority groups a veto, I might agree with you, only then in the short term.

btw who voted to change the SA constituion?

 

[TremulousTetra]

Yeah, that's right, because he's the only person who has suggested the SWP is vanguardist.

NO! because the SWP are a vanguard party. Just not VP's interpretation of Vanguardism. go on, get him to define it, it's hoot.

 

[TremulousTetra]

1. v. de·ter·mined, de·ter·min·ing, de·ter·mines. v.tr. 1. a. To decide or settle (a dispute, for example) conclusively and authoritatively. b. To end or decide, as by ...

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/determine

 

[TremulousTetra]

Gibberish. You are saying this discussion "detemines weather of not I believe what John Rees said". What the feck are you going on about you idiot?

The actual actions of the organisation say a damn sight more than weasel words from Master Rees. Those actions are repeated again and again. - Its not an occasional mistake - its a political trend.

How does one build this 'mass party' that you say the SWP wanted - by opening up that potential party? - by not denying minority views by control through votes while that party is still small? - by building genuine respect and trust between the various elements of that formation by ensuring that small groups will have a guarenteed voice? Or by shutting those initial democratic debates down? crushing the shoots that could have grown into a genuine mass organisation by stiffling it at its very birth?

All the SWP ever wanted was control. it shut down the SAs - the very organisation that could have grown into a mass organisation. Less than one year later. So much for its stated desire for a "mass party". And now you have the audacity to argue that what went wrong was a result of the friction between the latecomers and the SP who, apparently, wanted a revolutionary party not a mass party! - what utter. dribbling. idiocy.

And that desire for control is really what is so pathetic about this organisation - I mean what was to be gained? - by (or for or on behalf of - or however you wish to put the term...) this working class you claim to love so much - by being the dominant fish in such an incredibly small pond? - by ending up speaking to yourselves? (everyone else having given up listening). What the feck have manipulative stitch-ups like this got to do with furthering the interests of the working class? And idiots like you wonder why we just shook our heads and walked away from the whole sorry mess?

Ironicly, we now find ourselves in a position where we have to argue for the idiots of the SWP being allowed in unity organisations - they are hated so much - understandably - by so many folk that, as a result of bitter experience, these same folk even try and work out ways of being inclusive but not allowing the SWP! (of course I cannot condone that...). But really... How sad is that? How pathetic? Does your organisation never question why it has come to this - when some of the most combative trade unionists existing in the UK today try to avoid you? Do you ever question what mistakes have resulted in such a - frankly - embarrassing and shameful situation?

And the pigs looked like humans and the humans looked like pigs - again. So which is it RMP3 - are you simply a gibbering idiot - or a manipulative lieing troll?

If the SA became a mass party of 10 or 20000 workers with a basicly old labour outlook, the SWP 1000 revolutionaries would have been in a minority, wouldn't it?

 

[Athos]

NO! because the SWP are a vanguard party. Just not VP's interpretation of Vanguardism. go on, get him to define it, it's hoot.

So, you pulled me up for saying that the SWP is vanguardist, and suggested that I got the idea from VP. Whereas, in fact, you acknowledge that the SWP is a vanguard party. What was your point, again?