Galloway's Workers' Party of Britain

[GroovySunday]

In my experience both Militant and the SWP had some good hard working members who were respected in their workplaces and communities, raised families and were perfectly normal people.

This sort of thing is so typical of the mindset of outright collectivism and of Marxism. No place for variety, no place for individuals. Everyone should conform to your idea of what normal is, thats what you're arrogantly saying. The left has always been elitist and put people in a hierarchy, including working class people. So it doesn't surprise me that a leftie would think in this way.

 

[Smokeandsteam]

Leftie.....

 

[Fozzie Bear]

Collectivism is bad now? Blimey.

 

[Serge Forward]

He's on a weird (but not necessarily unpredictable) trajectory.

 

[Fozzie Bear]

A hyper individualist who feels compelled to get other people on board. The very real threat of a left communist government must be thwarted!

 

[hitmouse]

I’ve never thought of this before, and maybe it’s a false argument. It almost certainly won’t be popular on here, especially with some posters.

Is it possible that the CP was the last time there was a revolutionary party in the UK that was composed mostly of people who weren’t dysfunctional and /or excluded from their communities in some way?

After being raised by parents who where both paid full timers ( morning star and YCL) I dabbled with revolutionary end of politics for a while and am probably somewhat dysfunctional in many ways; I still know people who were, and some who are, involved in revolutionary politics of different left stripes. Now there are a few people who are grounded, sorted and well balanced. But they are the stand out exceptions.

Perhaps with the CP it was just the size of the movement. Perhaps it was because many members between 1900 and, say 1970 genuinely thought they would be part of a system that was actually running the country within a decade. ( rather than just protesting and offering an alternative vision) or perhaps it was the Russian influence keeping it sane by weeding out those they saw as liabilities to their mission?

(Perhaps it’s analogous to how the most effective and dangerous organised crime groups are composed of people who come from societies that are so poor that crime is a rational choice and so people committing crime are drawn from a much wider spectrum of people most of whom are stable and capable. Not irrational and flakey who fail at most things they have tried, including crime? )

Anyway, old commies mostly not mad, modern revolutionaries not so much. Discuss

Are we absolutely sure that A380 hasn't slid a certain poster a behind-the-scenes bung to show up on this thread and start making this post look more compelling?

 

[danny la rouge]

For me, anarchism is located within socialism. In a Venn diagram of the left, there is left>socialist>communist>libertarian/anarchist communist.

In anarchist circles, “Leftist” means something like statist or Marxist-Leninist. But it is not to deny anarchism as being a subset of the wider left (small l, no suffix). I’d be concerned that emphasising individualism and denouncing the left (or worse still, saying “neither left nor right”) would be leading one into murky territory.

There is definitely a balance to be struck between the individual and the collective: that’s what libertarian means. But to deny the collective or to downplay community and society is to place oneself on the right.

 

[A380]

Are we absolutely sure that A380 hasn't slid a certain poster a behind-the-scenes bung to show up on this thread and start making this post look more compelling?

Just a couple of bottles of decent fruit juice was all it took…

 

[PTK]

I guess there was a Methodism to his madchesterness

Very good!

 

[GroovySunday]

For me, anarchism is located within socialism. In a Venn diagram of the left, there is left>socialist>communist>libertarian/anarchist communist.

In anarchist circles, “Leftist” means something like statist or Marxist-Leninist. But it is not to deny anarchism as being a subset of the wider left (small l, no suffix). I’d be concerned that emphasising individualism and denouncing the left (or worse still, saying “neither left nor right”) would be leading one into murky territory.

There is definitely a balance to be struck between the individual and the collective: that’s what libertarian means. But to deny the collective or to downplay community and society is to place oneself on the right.

Yet another good example of why participating in political discussions on here is a complete waste of time, including how many votes a comment like this gets on here. It really is futile.

 

[GroovySunday]

Collectivism is bad now? Blimey.

Yeah, I'm completely against all forms of collectivism, thats exactly what I said

 

[PTK]

Yet another good example of why participating in political discussions on here is a complete waste of time, including how many votes a comment like this gets on here.

But you love us all really.

 

[Magnus McGinty]

I thought ‘left’ meant the left side of the house.

 

[Monkeygrinder's Organ]

He's on a weird (but not necessarily unpredictable) trajectory.

Strong 'crypto enthusiast in a few weeks' vibes.

 

[danny la rouge]

Yet another good example of why participating in political discussions on here is a complete waste of time, including how many votes a comment like this gets on here. It really is futile.

All your exchanges end like this. Have you ever considered that rather than everyone else in the world deliberately trying to misunderstand you out of malice, maybe you don’t explain yourself well?

 

[The39thStep]

Yet another good example of why participating in political discussions on here is a complete waste of time, including how many votes a comment like this gets on here. It really is futile.

There's another poster on here that says the same . perhaps you should meet up or at least decide it's a waste of time meeting up as nothing will come of it.

 

[Magnus McGinty]

Is that ‘other poster’ also himself?

 

[Serge Forward]

Is that ‘other poster’ also himself?

If yes, he got himself banned for being a truculent eejit.

 

[The39thStep]

Is that ‘other poster’ also himself?

No that friend of his has been banned. I had in mind another.

 

[andysays]

All your exchanges end like this. Have you ever considered that rather than everyone else in the world deliberately trying to misunderstand you out of malice, maybe you don’t explain yourself well?

No, it's the children who are wrong...

 

[Fozzie Bear]

Yeah, I'm completely against all forms of collectivism, thats exactly what I said

Give us some examples of ones you are in favour of then?

 

[DaveCinzano]

WORKERS' DEFENCE LEGIONS NOW!

 

[JimW]

Never got over being turned down by the cunts' collective.

 

[PTK]

I was going to join a choir, but I am opposed to all forms of collectivism. Why should I sing the songs THEY want me to sing?

 

[Idris2002]

WORKERS' DEFENCE LEGIONS NOW!

Romani Ite Domum

 

[Pickman's model]

Yet another good example of why participating in political discussions on here is a complete waste of time, including how many votes a comment like this gets on here. It really is futile.

You post in political discussions but you don't participate in them

 

[_Russ_]

No that friend of his has been banned. I had in mind another.

Logged in to check ...apparently the song ain't about me..oh well

 

[PTK]

You post in political discussions but you don't participate in them

Like a kind of catalyst?

 

[Pickman's model]

I’ve never thought of this before, and maybe it’s a false argument. It almost certainly won’t be popular on here, especially with some posters.

Is it possible that the CP was the last time there was a revolutionary party in the UK that was composed mostly of people who weren’t dysfunctional and /or excluded from their communities in some way?

After being raised by parents who where both paid full timers ( morning star and YCL) I dabbled with revolutionary end of politics for a while and am probably somewhat dysfunctional in many ways; I still know people who were, and some who are, involved in revolutionary politics of different left stripes. Now there are a few people who are grounded, sorted and well balanced. But they are the stand out exceptions.

Perhaps with the CP it was just the size of the movement. Perhaps it was because many members between 1900 and, say 1970 genuinely thought they would be part of a system that was actually running the country within a decade. ( rather than just protesting and offering an alternative vision) or perhaps it was the Russian influence keeping it sane by weeding out those they saw as liabilities to their mission?

(Perhaps it’s analogous to how the most effective and dangerous organised crime groups are composed of people who come from societies that are so poor that crime is a rational choice and so people committing crime are drawn from a much wider spectrum of people most of whom are stable and capable. Not irrational and flakey who fail at most things they have tried, including crime? )

Anyway, old commies mostly not mad, modern revolutionaries not so much. Discuss

The most dangerous and organised crims end up running the show, and are dignified in the UK as the monarchy, house of Lords, government, captains of industry etc

 

[Pickman's model]

Like a kind of catalyst?

More malignant cyst