SWP expulsions and squabbles

[Nigel Irritable]

As we are indulging in a little nostalgia, where is our little friend cockneyrebel? I last remember some very cruel boys and girls on this site being very naughty about his place in the vanguard of electronic interpersonal communication

He's always present in our hearts. And occasionally in our threads.

 

[emanymton]

'the troops will provide a breathng space' was the line in the paper. It - arguably - didnt explicitly support troops going in, but it certainly didnt call for an immediate withdrawal.

As I understand it was kind of 'british out' but if not that then 'troops in'.
It's what of the few things SWP members commonly admit the party got wrong, the initial response to the Poll Tax is another.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

But by the end of the 80’s I had a problem: the poll tax. The SWP took a disgracefully sectarian turn, in active opposition to the non-payment campaign. Let no-one tell you this was a principled position, arguing for action by council workers. It may have started like that but it went on, long after it was obvious that there was going to be a mass campaign of non-payment, as a reflex opposition to anything the Millies were doing. So I ignored the party and worked in the anti-poll tax unions.

I was a bit surprised to see that put so bluntly, but yes, it is an issue where many SWPers will say they got it wrong, at least to start with. "Like refusing to pay your bus fare" etc.

 

[Spanky Longhorn]

It's bizarre, when I was a new member my district organiser 'corrected' me for using sexist language when I used the phrase 'lucky bitch', and when a 16 year old girl joined our branch, we were very conscious of her age and behaved impeccably. We wouldn't even let the poor kid drink.

That was my experience as a member as well, they were genuinely sensible about this sort of stuff, for years when people would talk about the rumours I was very sceptical.

Turns out I was probably wrong.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

Turns out I was probably wrong.

Well, I doubt if you were wrong about most SWP members in most SWP branches being relatively sensible about how they treat young members.

 

[ViolentPanda]

leyton96
The defeat of America in Vietnam was in the interest of the international working class, because the debacle for America meant they couldn't go round the world killing people as willy-nilly as the used to do before the defeat.

Are you taking the fucking piss, you ahistorical wanker? Have a look at what the US were up to even immediately post-Vietnam (let alone the '80s, 90s and '00s), and even a blind man can see they didn't exactly scale back on their ambitions, they just used some proxies along with their own troops.

 

[ViolentPanda]

The SWP is attacking Italian autonomists for reaching a dead end.

This is what's known as "displacement activity". Accuse someone else of doing whatyou've done, in order to shift the focus from you to them. The Swappies have been quite successful at this.

Fine. But when will the SWP admit that in its own British heartland it might have entered a dead end of its own - a steeplechase from one united front to the next for recruits, kept in small branches fed the line by full-time organisers appointed from above, led by master tacticians who have succeeded in making three large splits over the past five years - a cobweb left, if you like.

If one were cynical and/or conspiratastic, one might be drawn to conclude that those master tacticians have mostly just been formulating policy that brings in membership subs/pension contributions.

 

[ViolentPanda]

that only underlines my point. Why do you think Oliver North had to find clandestine means of funding terrorists?

America is the only country in the world to have been fined guilty by the world Court of terrorism point I picked up from Chomsky.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaragua_v._United_States

The American population wouldn't accept a full-blown military intervention until, if memory serves me rightly, Grenada.

An assault on another democracy is an assault on another democracy, whether that's through payola, weapons shipments to insurgents and (as has happened in just about every US "intervention") "military advisors", or through direct and open warfare. You think there weren't US troops in Nicaragua, El Salvador, Honduras, Cambodia, Laos etc along with the money and guns?

 

[ViolentPanda]

How did the SWP support the Taliban?

What form did this support take?

Lord Alex sent them a set of ermine robes.

 

[ViolentPanda]

You've drifted to the right Panda. Clearly you never fully grasped the ideas...

He's always been agin me, ever since he asked me "have you heard of a man called Trotsky?", and I replied "that cunt? I stabbed him in the head with a meat hook, then set some poor mook up with an icepick to take the fall".
No sense of humour, those Swappites!

 

[sihhi]

Yup. In the presence of numerous witnesses several of whom were female party members. The incident was in London though not on the South Coast. If my memory serves me correctly I recall her saying that the other women thought she deserved it for cheating on him.

What do you make of this kind of letter appearing in the Socialist Worker?

"Women in struggle
As a feminist, I’ve always felt really proud when I see women at the front of struggles. The Grunwick strike was an early example of this for me. But the pride deepened when I saw, how the women workers were supported by miners, union branches and socialists—both men and women. We are indeed all in this together—fighting, organising, winning against every attack. Emma Hall, North London"

There's been a number of emotion-heavy type letters about women associated with the SWP fighting back. On one level I suppose the past few months have meant the SWP is forced to be positive about feminism in its publication, OTOH it seems pretty empty.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Yup. In the presence of numerous witnesses several of whom were female party members. The incident was in London though not on the South Coast. If my memory serves me correctly I recall her saying that the other women thought she deserved it for cheating on him.

Looks like some Swappies are fairly into "bourgeois morality" when it suits them.

 

[ibilly99]

Hitchens on Trotsky who he continued to admire long after he left the shores of the International Socialists.

It [World War I] had crucially undermined the autocracy, the Romanov dynasty. And I think it had very much discredited the Russian Orthodox Church, for which he [Lenin] had a particular dislike. But he was very willing to finish those jobs, all three of them, to wipe out the Romanov family, to rebuild the army, and under Trotsky’s leadership of the Red Army, and to seize the opportunity to confiscate church property and to dissolve, as far as possible, the influence of the church.
One of Lenin’s great achievements, in my opinion, is to create a secular Russia. The power of the Russian Orthodox Church, which was an absolute warren of backwardness and evil and superstition, is probably never going to recover from what he did to it.




The difficulty was that he also inherited, and partly by his measures created, even more scarcity and economic dislocation. The Bolsheviks had studied what had happened to the French revolution and they knew there was a danger of autocracy developing in their own ranks, and they were always on the look out for another Bonaparte. And the person who most looked like Bonaparte to them was Trotsky, who had flamboyance and military genius and charisma.​

 

[Oisin123]

There's some awful rubbish going on here in between the fresh stuff. The 'in 1969 the SWP ate my hamster' type rant makes me want to a) give up on this thread and b) start sticking up for them.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

Always happens when there's no news for a day or two and no bolshiebhoy to keep people focused.

 

[leyton96]

There's some awful rubbish going on here in between the fresh stuff. The 'in 1969 the SWP ate my hamster' type rant makes me want to a) give up on this thread and b) start sticking up for them.

In 1969 the SWP DID eat my hamster!
Then in 1982 an article appeared in Socialist Worker totally condemning hamster cuisine. There quickly followed a short lived but energetic protest campaign outside local hamster eateries.

Defend that Oisin, defend that!

 

[TremulousTetra]

For what it's worth, I don't think the SWP's support to Taliban forces actually meant anything practical or physical.
But "the horrible politically disgusting Taleban, having a victory over Russian imperialism" was not in the "interests of the working class" as you claim - that victory meant a massive backlash against half the working-class and then some (all non-Pushtun minorities) - killing dead all progressive, working-class ideas as well as even slightly rebellious, slightly anti-fundamentalist people.

I think the distinction between what the SWP said said, and what you're saying, is "international".
So yes you're right about the working class in Afghanistan, but the victory over Russian imperialism had effects for the working class way beyond Afghanistan. What about the working class of Hungary, Czechoslovakia, all those working classes that gained independence from the Russian Empire, by the collapse of the Russian Empire?
The defeat in Afghanistan played a major role in the collapse of the Empire, and more importantly in the CONFIDENCE of those working classes to rise up against the obviously failing Russian Empire.
Again, I'm not saying that socialist worker is right, I'm not saying that argument is wrong. All I'm saying is, if you look at the post and what it said about the socialist worker having no consistent line,

Yep, Neither Washington nor Moscow (itself another example of the tradition not really existing, this coming from the Shachtmanite ISL) turned out to really just mean Not Washington.

I have clearly proved that is wrong. They did have a consistent line.


Go back through the thread, someone said that the SWP were baggy. Prepared to recruit people who hadn't been "vetted" about their politics. I think Chilango said "Does it ever occur to you that such coherence is not a good thing?" You can claim that the coherence is a bad thing, but you cannot claim "there is no way these multiple contradictory positions can be reconciled under a political and theoretical 'tradition'". I quite clearly have reconciled them from the perspective of the SWP.

It really does underline that for all the talk about an "IS Tradition" from both camps the reality is that there is no such thing as an IS Tradition. For sure, there is acres of print down through the decades purporting to be IS theory but when you look at the various twists and turns the British SWP have taken during the same time you'd be hard pressed to find any sort of continuity.

So the IS Tradition is neutral in a conflict between "state capitalist" North Korea and American Imperialism, then it is pro "state capitalist" North Vietnam a decade later. Then in the '80's it backs reactionary Islamic jihadists against the "state capitalist" USSR.

During the early stages of the Socialist Alliance the SWP is "uncompromising" on the issue of open borders and migrant rights, then when it is in a position to actually put such a position on a national platform in Respect it suddenly has nothing to say on the matter.

It is a "at the heart" of the LGBT struggle one minute but then such things become 'shibboleths' in other circumstances

It refers to the IRA as the "cutting edge" of the struggle against imperialism in the 70's and 80's but by the late 90's it has a position largely indistinguishable from the "Queens Own Socialist Party"

Now, I make no comment about the rights and wrongs of those positions in themselves, that's for another thread(s). My point is that there is no way these multiple contradictory positions can be reconciled under a political and theoretical 'tradition' beyond the fact that a certain brand name called, "The IS Traditon" held them at one point or the other.

It reminds you on a much less grander scale of Lord Palmerston's comments that Britain has no permanent allies only permanent interests. The "IS Tradition" has no permanent ideas or practice only permanent interests, which is to be as visible as possible and recruit.
Groucho Marx probably sums it up better: "Those are my principles and if you don't like them.., well, I have others!"

 

[TremulousTetra]

Whatever.

The US changed the way it way it carried out military ops post Vietnam. It got better at it. It learnt.

Hardly something to justify cheerleading in a war.

But that's by the by really.

Who do support out of the IS Network and the SWP?

Go on, pick a side....

if those were better methods of military operations, why didn't use them in Iraq and Afghanistan?

It's a rubbish argument. Not only were the American population anti-war, sections of the American ruling class were steadfastly against military invasions, and America had to build up gradually. Grenada, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan before it could pile into Iraq in the way it did.

Vietnam was quite clearly a major political and military defeat for the American ruling class, and American imperialism.

 

[TremulousTetra]

I imagine 10 years on the same bulletin board as you might be a factor...

it would give me great mirth to claim that was due to me , but he is angry when I'm not even here.

He's just a sad sad angry old man.

 

[TremulousTetra]

You've drifted to the right Panda. Clearly you never fully grasped the ideas...

no he just started mimicking The Boss

 

[andysays]

Socialist worker putting the interests of the working class, before the 'purity' of their politics. Even to the point of supporting the horrible politically disgusting Taliban, having a victory over Russian imperialism.

WTF!!! ...

Maybe this point has been addressed and resolved in the last seven hours (I'm catching up after being out most of the day) but in what crazy fucked up world view does "putting the interests of the working class first" equate with "supporting the" as you rightly say "horrible politically disgusting Taliban"???

Just because it involves "having a victory over Russian imperialism"??? Is this the beginning of the "my enemy's enemy is always my friend, no matter how fucking vile and objectively anti-working-class they may be" bullshit???

If you wanted a classic example of how it's all gone horribly, horribly wrong, look no further

 

[TremulousTetra]

This is second hand - comes from my much older brother who was in the SWP in the 80s. But he told me, and he has no reason to lie about it, that the front page of the socialist worker did carry an article supporting the introduction of British troops at least once (years before he joined too but he claims to have seen it). I think it was also him who told me that at one of the university archives (I'm thinking Leeds for some reason but might be wrong) some hack must have gone in there and done a bit of Winston Smith style 'corrections' by tearing off said front page. Again, it's second hand but he has absolutely no reason to have lied and I think it would probably be fairly easy to check too.

I've asked for a link, and nobody is provided one. Are these people lying?
seems you're wrong. http://www.marxists.de/ireland/swaug69/index.htm

The attitude of the International Socialists to the introduction of British troops in August 1969 has been a subject of much controversy on some parts of the left. The usual allegation is along the lines that Socialist Worker either called for the introduction of troops or welcomed them. The articles below are from the first issue of the paper after the deployment of troops. Whether the line adopted was correct or not, it should be clear from the articles that the allegations described above are false and that the IS didn’t regard the troops as the solution of the crisis.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

There's some awful rubbish going on here in between the fresh stuff. The 'in 1969 the SWP ate my hamster' type rant makes me want to a) give up on this thread and b) start sticking up for them.

I though what was going on, was that people were pointing out that the SWP/IS tradition has proved itself to be so internally contradictory that it doesn't actually constitute a coherent and sustained tradition.

Taking a different tack some have also been suggesting that that there is insufficiently unique/innovative content to make it a distinctive tradition.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

 

[ViolentPanda]

it would give me great mirth to claim that was due to me , but he is angry when I'm not even here.

He's just a sad sad angry old man.

Nope, he's really not. He's passionate.
I can see how someone as keen on dogmatic politcs as you are might wish to view that passion as anger, though, as it would mean you could (and do) brush off whatever he posts without having to analyse what he's saying and why - without having to exercise the slightest bit of reflexivity.

The above-mentioned lack of self-awareness and self-analysis is why you are treated as a joke by many posters in UK P & P. You've all the political acumen of a broken 8-track cartridge, and you repeat the same old bollocks as often as one.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I though what was going on, was that people were pointing out that the SWP/IS tradition has proved itself to be so internally contradictory that it doesn't actually constitute a coherent and sustained tradition.

Taking a different tack some have also been suggesting that that there is insufficiently unique/innovative content to make it a distinctive tradition.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

So, more like a schism, then?

 

[ViolentPanda]

no he just started mimicking The Boss

I don't mimic anybody. I leave that to you with your constant "I agree with Cliff when he said" and "I agree with Harman when he said".

And who's "the boss"?

 

[TremulousTetra]

He's always been agin me, ever since he asked me "have you heard of a man called Trotsky?", and I replied "that cunt? I stabbed him in the head with a meat hook, then set some poor mook up with an icepick to take the fall".
No sense of humour, those Swappites!

neither have you by the look of it, don't give up your day job,

 

[ViolentPanda]

WTF!!! ...

Maybe this point has been addressed and resolved in the last seven hours (I'm catching up after being out most of the day) but in what crazy fucked up world view does "putting the interests of the working class first" equate with "supporting the" as you rightly say "horrible politically disgusting Taliban"???

Just because it involves "having a victory over Russian imperialism"??? Is this the beginning of the "my enemy's enemy is always my friend, no matter how fucking vile and objectively anti-working-class they may be" bullshit???

If you wanted a classic example of how it's all gone horribly, horribly wrong, look no further

As someone said earlier, defeating Russian imperialism to replace it with Pushtun imperialism.
Of course, more accurately, "defeating Russian imperialism" merely opened the door to Saudi colonialism, in terms of opening up a new frontier to which the Saudis could conveniently export their more fanatical citizens.

 

[discokermit]

The above-mentioned lack of self-awareness and self-analysis is why you are treated as a joke by many posters in UK P & P. You've all the political acumen of a broken 8-track cartridge, and you repeat the same old bollocks as often as one.

and still you quote, still you engage. you know exactly what's coming, so why do it?

it's fucking this thread up (as it does any other he contributes to). you know this will happen, so i can only conclude that you're just as bad as him, if not worse.

this is pissing me off now, page after page of utterly irrelevant, boring shit.

 

[ViolentPanda]

neither have you by the look of it, don't give up your day job,

I see that you still haven't worked out that just because you don't get a joke, it doesn't mean that it contains no humour.

I bet you'd have thought it was funny if Alex Callinicos had said it, though.