Life after the SWP?

[Lo Siento.]

they don't actually say vote Labour do they? They say Vote Labour with No Illusions, Build a Socialist Alternative.

So you believe it makes no difference to the UK body politic, whether workers are voting for a party created by workers, or a openly capitalist party? The rejection of the Labour Party of the 1970s, and the voting into office of Margaret Thatcher had NO effect upon the balance of class forces? How far would you go with this logic, it doesn't matter whether it's a fascist government, economic liberal, or' socialist' (capitalist workers party) government?

Is a strawman argument about which people can feel good about themselves in knocking down , without actually dealing what is actually said by the SWP .

What do you think about Chilangoism, where he argues you should sit and listen to people first, not just harangue people about the "one true path to" revolution?

For me the slogan Vote Labour with No Illusions, Build a Socialist Alternative, is about starting a dialogue with workers on the streets, in workplaces wherever, who may be considering voting Tory, about how that is not any kind of solution. And about starting a dialogue with those who are voting for a capitalist workers party, that a Socialist alternative is needed. It's about engaging with the working class on their terms. If they are not their terms, and they are already revolutionaries, good, join us.

I repeat, it is a fallacy that the SWP TELL anyone to vote Labour.

"Vote Labour with No Illusions, Build a Socialist Alternative," however you dress it up, is still (a) a call to vote Labour and (b) an announcement that you're going to vote Labour. We're all aware of the theory behind it. Do you think it's been particularly successful, historically?

 

[october_lost]

No, it's not successful, because the minute labour are electected and do something that's not on the SWPs radar, they come out with "we didn't vote for this..." knowing full well if you vote for Brown, Blair, et al what they are going to give.

The precedence for what should be viewed as the correct tactic is by the CNT in Spain who attempted to repel both right and left wing governments. Your starting point should be asserting your class interests - and call for votes for the labour party doesn't do that.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

they don't actually say vote Labour do they? They say Vote Labour with No Illusions, Build a Socialist Alternative.

So you believe it makes no difference to the UK body politic, whether workers are voting for a party created by workers, or a openly capitalist party? The rejection of the Labour Party of the 1970s, and the voting into office of Margaret Thatcher had NO effect upon the balance of class forces? How far would you go with this logic, it doesn't matter whether it's a fascist government, economic liberal, or' socialist' (capitalist workers party) government?

Is a strawman argument about which people can feel good about themselves in knocking down , without actually dealing what is actually said by the SWP .

What do you think about Chilangoism, where he argues you should sit and listen to people first, not just harangue people about the "one true path to" revolution?

For me the slogan Vote Labour with No Illusions, Build a Socialist Alternative, is about starting a dialogue with workers on the streets, in workplaces wherever, who may be considering voting Tory, about how that is not any kind of solution. And about starting a dialogue with those who are voting for a capitalist workers party, that a Socialist alternative is needed. It's about engaging with the working class on their terms. If they are not their terms, and they are already revolutionaries, good, join us.

I repeat, it is a fallacy that the SWP TELL anyone to vote Labour.

They have said vote Labour. The hectoring instruction went further; not just vote Labour but do so in the expectation of failure (we will tell you what to think while you're carrying out a futile action). And they didn't stop there; vote Labour, do so in the expectation of failure and simultaneously build a particular orgaisational alternative to the party you're calling for a vote in favour of. Three confused and contradictory instructions; no invitation to dialogue....just poor poor leadership.

Louis MacNeice

 

[chilango]

...and this goes back to the point. The Party's need to take a position that it can they argue for. Unnecessary. If they'd bothered listening to people they'd find know that.

 

[TremulousTetra]

"Vote Labour with No Illusions, Build a Socialist Alternative," however you dress it up, is still (a) a call to vote Labour and (b) an announcement that you're going to vote Labour. We're all aware of the theory behind it.

thank you. At last somebody admits the truth.

Hey, none of the left are successful. That is not my point. I'm just saying if people want their attacks upon the SWP to be taken seriously, perhaps they should tell the truth.

 

[TremulousTetra]

No, it's not successful, because the minute labour are electected and do something that's not on the SWPs radar, they come out with "we didn't vote for this..." knowing full well if you vote for Brown, Blair, et al what they are going to give.

The precedence for what should be viewed as the correct tactic is by the CNT in Spain who attempted to repel both right and left wing governments. Your starting point should be asserting your class interests - and call for votes for the labour party doesn't do that.

I think you make a valid point, worthy of discussion.

Particularly with the movement of new Labour to the Neo economic liberal agenda, it seems difficult to see how they can be considered any kind of workers party, even if it is a capitalist workers party. However, they still have those formal links to the workers movement ,the trade unions et cetera.

I don't like what the workers have produced, the workers movement in its current state, but I don't think you can just ignore it, ignore what workers are saying. In my opinion, workers consciousness has moved towards the boss's agenda since the 1970s . Thatcherism played a major role in "manufacturing this consent". That's why I think you cannot just ignore an election campaign.

In my opinion, unless you can put up a real alternative, you have to make a choice from what is in front of you. otherwise it's like going to a football match between Arsenal and Chelsea, and shouting Fulham.

In my opinion the slogan is a pragmatic honest viewpoint . whether it is the correct one is besides the point . it is honest, whether it is right or wrong.

 

[chilango]

In my opinion, unless you can put up a real alternative, you have to make a choice from what is in front of you. otherwise it's like going to a football match between Arsenal and Chelsea, and shouting Fulham.

If you're a Fulham fan what are you doing at an Arsenal v Chelsea match?

 

[butchersapron]

Telling arsenal and spurs to fine support your teams but build a real fulham support.

 

[TremulousTetra]

They have said vote Labour. The hectoring instruction went further; not just vote Labour but do so in the expectation of failure (we will tell you what to think while you're carrying out a futile action). And they didn't stop there; vote Labour, do so in the expectation of failure and simultaneously build a particular orgaisational alternative to the party you're calling for a vote in favour of. Three confused and contradictory instructions; no invitation to dialogue....just poor poor leadership.

Louis MacNeice

:-D well whenever I've been selling socialist worker with this slogan on, the people I have met they've not had any trouble understanding the nuances of this pragmatic approach to the election before us. Some, who despite me "telling them what to think" :-D still voted Tory, and some who were convinced not to.

The whole point of the slogan, and the newspaper, is that they are tool SWP comrades use to provoke dialogue between the comrades and anybody about them.

 

[chilango]

...the analogy stands though.

You do not have to pick a Party in elections. If, like most of us here, you think that the Labour Party is just another capitalist party (albeit perhaps enough of a lesser evil to consider, reluctantly, voting for personally) there is nothing to be gained from calling for others to vote for it.

But, groups like the SWP are obsessed with "having a position" and intervening to argue for that position. Picking sides in foreign wars, picking sides in capitalist elections etc. You can discuss these, and the issues behind them, without having "a position". Just as sometimes the Anarchist position of "Don't Vote!" is equally counter-productive (...and I know not all anarchists take that position).

This is the kind of behaviour that has led to the fragmentation of the Left. look at the Trots. They all agree on 99% of stuff. Yet manage to find that 1% is a position that they have to take sides on, to argue, and so on.

Now, I don't particularly care whether the Trots fragment or unite, but I'm sure you do.

 

[chilango]

What I'm trying, incoherently, to say is there is a difference between having ideas and trying to apply them, and posturing.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

:-D well whenever I've been selling socialist worker with this slogan on, the people I have met they've not had any trouble understanding the nuances of this pragmatic approach to the election before us. Some, who despite me "telling them what to think" :-D still voted Tory, and some who were convinced not to.

The whole point of the slogan, and the newspaper, is that they are tool SWP comrades use to provoke dialogue between the comrades and anybody about them.

So it's not a Leninist paper then?

Louis MacNeice

 

[TremulousTetra]

If you're a Fulham fan what are you doing at an Arsenal v Chelsea match?

Ahhh, whats a revolutionary doing being involved with elections? Chilangoism? Abstain?

 

[chilango]

...and I know that what I'm saying might come across as "wishy-washy" and somewhat at odds with the fact that I do have strong opinions, and these are at least partly based upon quite serious revolutionary traditions; and that I will, and do, argue from that perspective. But, y'know...

 

[TremulousTetra]

So it's not a Leninist paper then?

Louis MacNeice

"the paper is the scaffolding upon which the party is built".

I'm not saying they are right or wrong, just if you want to attack them, attack them for what they do and say ,don't make shit up. Looks dishonest. ;p

 

[butchersapron]

I'm fulham but i support arsenal. See what results that little intervention will get you/has got you.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

"the paper is the scaffolding upon which the party is built".

I'm not saying they are right or wrong, just if you want to attack them, attack them for what they do and say ,don't make shit up. Looks dishonest. ;p

No shit being made up, but it is instructive that you don't know the purpose of a Leninist paper (or the purpose of scaffolding for that matter). I'll leave you to your obviously blissful ignorance.

Louis MacNeice

 

[TremulousTetra]

...and I know that what I'm saying might come across as "wishy-washy" and somewhat at odds with the fact that I do have strong opinions, and these are at least partly based upon quite serious revolutionary traditions; and that I will, and do, argue from that perspective. But, y'know...

hey, I'm not judging. It is a perfectly valid position, abstention. Just trying to be clear on what you do in an election campaign.

So would you raise this viewpoint?

 

[chilango]

Ahhh, whats a revolutionary doing being involved with elections? Chilangoism? Abstain?

Depends.

On a personal level I may, or may not, vote in any given election.

...and I certainly wouldn't start telling people how to vote, or not to vote, or calling for support (however "critical") for any party. Not in normal circumstances anyway. There may yet be exceptions.

I don't have a "position" on elections that I would argue for every time they roll around. That they're all wankers is a given, I rarely come across supporters of any party. Reluctant, tactical voters perhaps. But little to no partisans.

 

[TremulousTetra]

No shit being made up, but it is instructive that you don't know the purpose of a Leninist paper (or the purpose of scaffolding for that matter). I'll leave you to your obviously blissful ignorance.

Louis MacNeice

ha, that old technique. LOL

 

[chilango]

hey, I'm not judging. It is a perfectly valid position, abstention. Just trying to be clear on what you do in an election campaign.

So would you raise this viewpoint?

I wouldn't do anything in an election campaign.

 

[TremulousTetra]

Depends.

On a personal level I may, or may not, vote in any given election.

...and I certainly wouldn't start telling people how to vote, or not to vote, or calling for support (however "critical") for any party. Not in normal circumstances anyway. There may yet be exceptions.

I don't have a "position" on elections that I would argue for every time they roll around. That they're all wankers is a given, I rarely come across supporters of any party. Reluctant, tactical voters perhaps. But little to no partisans.

see this anarchist leaflet, telling people to vote no?
http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/wsm/pdf.html
are they telling people what to do? I don't think so.

I never went to people saying, you have to vote Labour, and then walk away. It's absolutely stupid to paint socialist worker comrades as doing this.

The slogan, propaganda, is about creating a dialogue on the streets, in the workplaces wherever you use the tool, the paper. it's about listening, as well as talking. It's about trying to ascertain what "the word on the street is " :-D, as much as trying to engage with people and move consciousness to the left. It's about having a organic relationship in your own workplace, with your fellow workers.

Well, where I lived you could pin a red rose on a donkey and it would get elected Labour. Up and down the country there are many similar wards. I come across very few people who are completely apolitical. at an election time I would go into the local bus station , hospital, steelworks, further education college, tram depot, mosque [ as I did all year] and use the paper to get into real conversations with people about what they thought about things , and what I thought about things. they would actually come to me in disputes, and asked for support, and the party would give it.

 

[TremulousTetra]

I wouldn't do anything in an election campaign.

Fair enough comrade.

I would.

 

[TremulousTetra]

I'm fulham but i support arsenal. See what results that little intervention will get you/has got you.

see the post above butchers. Everybody knew I was in SWP member, and they were interested in why my paper said vote Labour, but build a socialist alternative. Got into conversations with real people, not twats like you. :-*

 

[chilango]

see this anarchist leaflet, telling people to vote no?
http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/wsm/pdf.html
are they telling people what to do? I don't think so.

Yes.

Yes, they are.

Now, referendums are a different kettle of fish than elections. I think they sometimes can have more scope for involvement/engagement.

But, yes the WSM are "telling people what to do" in that leaflet.

They, in many ways, act like an anarchist "Party". The fact that I am a lot more likely to agree with what they are saying than with what the SWP says doesn't change that.

 

[butchersapron]

see the post above butchers. Everybody knew I was in SWP member, and they were interested in why my paper said vote Labour, but build a socialist alternative. Got into conversations with real people, not twats like you. :-*

Sure they did.

That's your skill. Just look at your record.

 

[chilango]

The slogan, propaganda, is about creating a dialogue on the streets, in the workplaces wherever you use the tool, the paper. it's about listening, as well as talking. It's about trying to ascertain what "the word on the street is " :-D, as much as trying to engage with people and move consciousness to the left. It's about having a organic relationship in your own workplace, with your fellow workers.

You don't need a slogan to have dialogue. Having a shit slogan, one that can easily seen as dishonest and/or incoherent, actually hinders dialogue.

My first encounters with the SWP, like many people's, was seeing them on the street shouting slogans at passers by, whilst brandishing bits of paper with said slogan.

That's not dialogue. It's preaching.

 

[TremulousTetra]

Yes.

Yes, they are.

Now, referendums are a different kettle of fish than elections. I think they sometimes can have more scope for involvement/engagement.

But, yes the WSM are "telling people what to do" in that leaflet.

They, in many ways, act like an anarchist "Party". The fact that I am a lot more likely to agree with what they are saying than with what the SWP says doesn't change that.

OK. In my honest opinion that's a silly interpretation of events. But hey, you probably think my interpretation is silly.

Where I lived if you went round to TELLING people what to do, you would probably get a crack on the chin. They didn't have any problem with the paper slogan vote Labour ,but build a socialist alternative, on the basis it was telling them what to do. They would argue with you politically but they knew the difference between somebody stating a position, and giving them an instruction.

 

[TremulousTetra]

You don't need a slogan to have dialogue. Having a shit slogan, one that can easily seen as dishonest and/or incoherent, actually hinders dialogue.

this forum is the only place that issue has ever been raised in over 20 years. No one, absolutely no one on the streets, in the workplaces I have sold the paper, could not understand the logic of the DEBATE. They may not agree with it, but they didn't have the problems you do.

My first encounters with the SWP, like many people's, was seeing them on the street shouting slogans at passers by, whilst brandishing bits of paper with said slogan.

That's not dialogue. It's preaching.

so you never saw passers-by stop and talk to them?

 

[Louis MacNeice]

So what did Lenin see as the purpose of the paper in what is to be done; an invitation to discussion or the necessary, centrally directed, organisational trainer, educator and instructor?

I can see why you'd want to write your own imagined tradition, but it is not the one the SWP claims to stand in.

Louis MacNeice

​

​

​

​

​

​

​