Even more so when you realise he 'believes it' .
The swp religion.
So who said Gluckstein wasn't a zionist ?
Barking: Greens splitting anti-BNP vote
- Thread starter articul8
- Start date
Even more so when you realise he 'believes it' .
The swp religion.
So who said Gluckstein wasn't a zionist ?
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
TremulousTetra
prismatic universe
That I am ill educated is without doubt. However this was a statement of fact.
I know for fact that this is what was said and believed by the rank and file membership between 1986 and 2000. The last bit of analysis is evidently true to me, from the statements of German, and the present faction fighting.
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
I'd go for a dictionary before you start posting your drivel up here any more Wesistance, you're using words without, apparently knowing what they mean. Most notable what a 'fact' is.
Your lack of anaylsis is a bit sad for someone who has spent years in a pseudo-revolutionary organsiation, but what the heck. on your first para, its simply embarassing tbh. Can you honestly not think of any reason why the leadership wouldnt hold say one thing and do another? Every other politician does it, but somehow the beloved SWP are immune? Daftness. OF course they arent too fussed about state bans on demos. Quite the opposite, the BNP & SWP aren't themselves going to be banned, so its no biggie. But if the demo you've called is banned by the state (even tho its going to be quite small and quite possibly outnumbered by the fascists) then you have a double propaganda victory! You're super hard for standing up to the fash, and a real threat to the state cos they've banned you. All without any actual risk, brilliant. That'll really impress the students.
As for the rest, its sheer hypocrisy from one of the most sectarian organisations out there. (Except they redefine sectarianism so it cant possibly apply to them, neat trick). They, like the CP in Spain (tho in a somewhat smaller and clearly more laughable role) adopt the role of the petty-bourgeois and the reformists, they substitute themsevles for those reformists and impose what they think the liberals want to hear. Doing so for too long has obviously rubbed off on some of their (the LP 's particularly) overall politics.
It is also interesting how you refuse to see any psycological reasons for what happens in a small organisation. I uspect its because you are frightened of having to recognise a few home truths. No one (except you, desperately) has tried to say everythng Rees, or whoever, does is down to some sad psychological need, but if you think it has no effect, you are dumber than a dumbbell. getting on, not really that talented at anything, Rees' best hope for the future is as a full-timer in a small leftist sect, few others would have himl et alone pay him any attention and stroke his ego.
Do the SWP want a small front they can control? Naah, they'd like a big front they can control. But if they cant have that, its better to have a small one in their hands than to have a big one in someone elses. I'm sure they convince a few fools, like your good self, that they are making all those groups smaller but much, much better. Actually, they're just making them smaller. And worse.
If the membership continue to behave like nodding dogs, happy and willing to come up with the most ridiculous crap to cover their arses, then the SWP's influence will continue to shrink. Even if they get their acts in gear, its gonna be a toughie. The likes of Smith, Callinicos & Bennett are hardly awe inspiring leaders who'll pul the masses behind them.
Your lack of anaylsis is a bit sad for someone who has spent years in a pseudo-revolutionary organsiation, but what the heck. on your first para, its simply embarassing tbh. Can you honestly not think of any reason why the leadership wouldnt hold say one thing and do another? Every other politician does it, but somehow the beloved SWP are immune? Daftness. OF course they arent too fussed about state bans on demos. Quite the opposite, the BNP & SWP aren't themselves going to be banned, so its no biggie. But if the demo you've called is banned by the state (even tho its going to be quite small and quite possibly outnumbered by the fascists) then you have a double propaganda victory! You're super hard for standing up to the fash, and a real threat to the state cos they've banned you. All without any actual risk, brilliant. That'll really impress the students.
As for the rest, its sheer hypocrisy from one of the most sectarian organisations out there. (Except they redefine sectarianism so it cant possibly apply to them, neat trick). They, like the CP in Spain (tho in a somewhat smaller and clearly more laughable role) adopt the role of the petty-bourgeois and the reformists, they substitute themsevles for those reformists and impose what they think the liberals want to hear. Doing so for too long has obviously rubbed off on some of their (the LP 's particularly) overall politics.
It is also interesting how you refuse to see any psycological reasons for what happens in a small organisation. I uspect its because you are frightened of having to recognise a few home truths. No one (except you, desperately) has tried to say everythng Rees, or whoever, does is down to some sad psychological need, but if you think it has no effect, you are dumber than a dumbbell. getting on, not really that talented at anything, Rees' best hope for the future is as a full-timer in a small leftist sect, few others would have himl et alone pay him any attention and stroke his ego.
Do the SWP want a small front they can control? Naah, they'd like a big front they can control. But if they cant have that, its better to have a small one in their hands than to have a big one in someone elses. I'm sure they convince a few fools, like your good self, that they are making all those groups smaller but much, much better. Actually, they're just making them smaller. And worse.
If the membership continue to behave like nodding dogs, happy and willing to come up with the most ridiculous crap to cover their arses, then the SWP's influence will continue to shrink. Even if they get their acts in gear, its gonna be a toughie. The likes of Smith, Callinicos & Bennett are hardly awe inspiring leaders who'll pul the masses behind them.
TremulousTetra
prismatic universe
being a bigoted, is blinding your ability to read.
1. I never mentioned, the SW CC/leadership, purposely trying to avoid your obsession, merely stating “I know for fact that this is what was said and believed by the rank and file membership between 1986 and 2000.” .
2. I never mentioned the Banning of demonstrations, merely reiterated the bog standard socialist position on the Banning a fascist parties.
The simple fact is you yourself corroborate the SW comrade;
that was my only point. The UAF is not merely a front organisation, as compromises have to be made in order to maintain a united front of many disparate political views. You are right, there are indeed other forces within the united front.
Your whacky speculation about the mass brainwashing of thousands of people by the SWP CC, is not relevant to a discussion of anti fascism, or in any way undermines my original comments. If you must vent your obsession with the SW CC, please don’t “bleed it over every thread”. Try and keep them to threads relevent http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=305877&page=12 .
Larry O'Hara
Well-Known Member
Why the Greens are Right to stand--my opinion
I realise many of you have already made up your minds, but here, in summary form, is my view of why the Greens are right to stand against both the BNP & New Labour in Barking http://www.borderland.co.uk/preview_002.htm
I realise many of you have already made up your minds, but here, in summary form, is my view of why the Greens are right to stand against both the BNP & New Labour in Barking http://www.borderland.co.uk/preview_002.htm
The39thStep
Urban critical thinker
Where is all this clamour from non UAF members about banning fascist parties or indeed from the SWP about not banning? Its abstract as banning the BNP isn't on anyones agenda. The only facsist group that is anywhere near even being suggested as banning fodder is Blood and Honour.
TremulousTetra
prismatic universe
I fully agree that the greens should stand. If they do provide a split to the anti-fascist vote, they also provide a split to the anti establishment vote, and head 'somewhat' in the same direction as all those who want to get rid of the rotten system. I also agree with large chunks of what you're saying, and so my criticisms are directed at, the specific points, rather than your entire article.
The first thing is to recognise, this notion, that the only way forward against fascism, is to fight for an outright victory through destruction of capitalism, seems to throw away one of our few advantages against the fascists. In footballing terms, a draw is better than a defeat. Because a victory for the fascists, will see a continuing consolidation of their position as a serious political force on the political landscape UK. The immediate effect of this, is to drag the politics to the right, in some spheres. It promotes non-answers, to the problems the working class people face. And given a the complete destruction of the left in this country, it leaves it [bnp] as the only significant poll of attraction IF the circumstances, that cannot be ruled out, where the ruling class can no longer rule in the same way, and the working class are no longer prepared to be ruled in the same way, revolution, occur. Griffin makes it quite clear to his cadre, this isn't about preparing for power, is about preparing for civil war.
The reason the left has "had little to say to the white working class", is because there isn't one. Right from the labour left through to the revolutionary socialist, they have disappeared. And despite the un-organised lefts bleating, the disappearing of these 'obstacles', these 'witting or un-witting tools of the state', there has been no emergence of un-organised left opposition.
Larry O'Hara
Well-Known Member
on its own, the Green Party isn't such a vehicle--but as part of a radical coalition, it has something to offer. Socialism will be ecologically sensitive--or it will not be at all...
Larry O'Hara
Well-Known Member
I fully agree that the greens should stand. If they do provide a split to the anti-fascist vote, they also provide a split to the anti establishment vote, and head 'somewhat' in the same direction as all those who want to get rid of the rotten system. I also agree with large chunks of what you're saying, and so my criticisms are directed at, the specific points, rather than your entire article.
The first thing is to recognise, this notion, that the only way forward against fascism, is to fight for an outright victory through destruction of capitalism, seems to throw away one of our few advantages against the fascists. In footballing terms, a draw is better than a defeat. Because a victory for the fascists, will see a continuing consolidation of their position as a serious political force on the political landscape UK. The immediate effect of this, is to drag the politics to the right, in some spheres. It promotes non-answers, to the problems the working class people face. And given a the complete destruction of the left in this country, it leaves it [bnp] as the only significant poll of attraction IF the circumstances, that cannot be ruled out, where the ruling class can no longer rule in the same way, and the working class are no longer prepared to be ruled in the same way, revolution, occur. Griffin makes it quite clear to his cadre, this isn't about preparing for power, is about preparing for civil war.
The reason the left has "had little to say to the white working class", is because there isn't one. Right from the labour left through to the revolutionary socialist, they have disappeared. And despite the un-organised lefts bleating, the disappearing of these 'obstacles', these 'witting or un-witting tools of the state', there has been no emergence of un-organised left opposition.
1) Griffin's strategy is complex--both parliamentary & extraparliamentary. Gramscism of the Right...
2) The organised left as a whole is in headlong retreat into the social margins--despite pockets of support. As Zizek has argued, the Left is in that sense a bit like the Church in post-Enlightenment Europe. Strong enough to resist certain things, but no hegemonic force currently.
The only way the Left can ever revive is if failed Last Century Left nostrums are ditched, and the painful lessons of the 20th Century are learnt. Most Left sects are like the Bourbons, as Karl Marx had it--while they have forgotten nothing from history, they have learnt nothing either.
One of the key debates today is on the limitations of the internet as a model of social and political discourse--there is some fascinating work being produced, but with the noble exception of Habermas' critique of Web 2.0, little has any Leftist contribution of consequence.
Jean-Luc
Well-Known Member
More and more candidates seem to be lining up to have a go at defeating Griffin in Barking. It doesn't look as if any party thinks that defeating him is the priority of priorities. Perhaps it isn't anyway?
O'Hara is spot on http://www.borderland.co.uk/preview_002.htm
but the one thing not being said is how this whole nonsense along with the EDL is dominating the thoughts and actions of the liberal left. 79 all over again. Griffin will be 'defeated' ( 'Victory over Fascism!!' will crow the SWP ignoring a probably highest ever fascist vote for this area) and yet we will see a new parliament dominated as never before by free marketeers ready as Thatcher did on 1979 to launch a new onslaught against the rest of us. got the left are muppets. the fall for the distraction the slight of hands the smoke and mirrors over and over and over and over again.
but the one thing not being said is how this whole nonsense along with the EDL is dominating the thoughts and actions of the liberal left. 79 all over again. Griffin will be 'defeated' ( 'Victory over Fascism!!' will crow the SWP ignoring a probably highest ever fascist vote for this area) and yet we will see a new parliament dominated as never before by free marketeers ready as Thatcher did on 1979 to launch a new onslaught against the rest of us. got the left are muppets. the fall for the distraction the slight of hands the smoke and mirrors over and over and over and over again.
audiotech
wav, aiff, mp3, ogg, flac
As I understand it, O'Hara is calling for people to join the Green party, whilst also calling for alliances with 'Labour Party rebels who have strong anti-fascist principles'?
I'm not entirely convinced that this is, as you term "spot on"? Are any Labour party rebels, few and far between from what I can see, likely to form alliances with others and move away from Labourism?
Furthermore, if this was to happen, how is it likely to have any appeal to the disaffected, disenfranchised white working class now, or at any time in the future without a major schism happening within the Green party?
I'm not entirely convinced that this is, as you term "spot on"? Are any Labour party rebels, few and far between from what I can see, likely to form alliances with others and move away from Labourism?
Furthermore, if this was to happen, how is it likely to have any appeal to the disaffected, disenfranchised white working class now, or at any time in the future without a major schism happening within the Green party?
Larry O'Hara
Well-Known Member
Some will. some won't--my aim is certainly not sectarian...
as this point illustrates...
We're talking about people who have already broken with Enver Hodge's Labour establishment locally anyway.
Who says anything about a major schism? I'm talking about a tactic against the BNP/New Labour in that locality. Don't judge other parties by (low) 'Last Century Left' standards.
