Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

SWP expulsions and squabbles

Pickman's model said:
but it's a particularly shit post as it doesn't give any indication of what he's wanting: so i linked to some random post which fulfilled his criterion.
Click to expand...
you are feigning stupidity surely?
You think the SWP CC have an agenda. Fair comment. I'm just asking, what you think that might be.


Not expecting an answer
 
bolshiebhoy said:
Well yes of course they are a state capitalist ruling class in waiting and the first thing they think of every day is how they can get an inch closer to the day they can line us all up against a wall and start living in their dachas.

Yes they do have an agenda. And if they didn't they'd deserve the sack.
Click to expand...
come on pick and VP, IF this is an incorrect representation of your views, CAN you correct it?
 
ViolentPanda said:
Ah, that old tactic again.
Tell you what, you tell us what you think their agenda is first. :)
Click to expand...
Fighting to end capitalism and war
We live in an world where:
* Half the population lives on less than $2 a day
* 67% of the wealth is owned by just 2% of the population
* The US spends $400 billion a year on weapons
* It would take $324 billion to end extreme poverty worldwide
But this is also a time of hope. Over recent years we have witnessed growing international protest movements demanding ‘another world is possible — another world is necessary’. We have seen millions across the world take to the streets in opposition to Bush and Blair’s war and occupation of Iraq. The SWP has played a key role in all these movements.
For socialism
The present system cannot be patched up — it has to be completely transformed. The structures of the parliament, army, police and judiciary cannot be taken over and used by the working people. Elections can be used to agitate for real improvements in people’s lives and to expose the system we live under, but only the mass action of workers themselves can change the system.
Workers create all the wealth under capitalism. A new society can only be constructed when they collectively seize control of that wealth and plan its production and distribution according to need.
For internationalism
We live in a world economy dominated by huge corporations. Only by fighting together across national boundaries can we challenge the rich and powerful who dominate the globe. The struggle for socialism can only be successful if it is a worldwide struggle.
This was demonstrated by the experience of Russia where an isolated socialist revolution was crushed by the power of the world market — a market it could only contend with by becoming state capitalist. In Eastern Europe and China similar states were later established.
Against racism, imperialism and oppression
We oppose everything which turns workers from one country against those from another. We oppose all immigration controls and campaign for solidarity with workers in other countries. We support the right of black people and other oppressed groups to organise their own defence and we support all genuine national liberation movements. We campaign for real social, political and economic equality for woman and for an end to all forms of discrimination against lesbians, gay men, bisexual and transgender people.
Revolutionary party
Those who rule our society are powerful because they are organised — they control the wealth, media, courts and the military. They use their power to limit and contain opposition. To combat that power, working people have to be organised as well. The Socialist Workers Party aims to bring together activists from the movement and working class. A revolutionary party is necessary to strengthen the movement, organise people within it and aid them in developing the ideas and strategies that can overthrow capitalism entirely.
We are committed to fight for peace, equality, justice and socialism. Join us.
Colin Barker’s Socialist Worker columns
Workers create all the wealth under capitalism
The working class at the centre
Can't we win change through parliament?
What is the real case for socialist revolution?
Internationalism: workers of all countries unite
Oppose all barriers that divide workers
Against imperialism
What is racism and why must we fight it?
Right of the oppressed to organise their own defence
Supporting national liberation struggles
Can there be socialism in one country?
How was the Russian Revolution defeated?
We stand for genuine equality for women
Real equality for gays and lesbians is still to be won
Is there any place for parties in the movement?
We need a party of leaders to change the world
Democracy without centralism will fail
Rank and file organisation is vital in the trade unions
The fight for reforms gives revolutionaries their muscle
 
The idea that those who come to lead revolutionary parties are motivated by a secret desire for power, privilege, and status comes up a lot in discussions of parties like the SWP. I suppose because it seems to offer an explanation for the sort of carry-on that this thread it concerned with. Ultimately, though, such views are conservative and Hobbesian, although shared by a lot of anarchists. One obvious problem with the idea is that joining a revolutionary party, learning the political language of the party, and climbing its leadership ladder is a lot more unrewarding than working towards being a leader of a mainstream party. Or even just working your way up the corporate ladder. Still, hypothetically, lets imagine a farsighted aspirant Stalin/Stalina decides to mimic a sincere, self-sacrificing, revolutionary. They are not spotted by the membership of the party, because of their hard work and mastery of the politics of the party. They are not spotted by the class, thanks to advocacy of policies that successfully bring the revolution closer. Then the glorious day comes, insurrection places him or her into the position of a commissar of the newly formed workers' government.Now our aspirant dictator reveals his or her true colours and demands the right to imprison dissidents, to give themselves extraordinary advantages, and to have new university courses dedicated to praising their career.
The risen working class therefore tell him or her to fuck off.
We need a better theory as to what has gone wrong here and Tom Walker's most recent offering would be a more interesting basis for discussion than 'a ruling class in waiting'.
 
Oisin123 said:
The idea that those who come to lead revolutionary parties are motivated by a secret desire for power, privilege, and status comes up a lot in discussions of parties like the SWP. I suppose because it seems to offer an explanation for the sort of carry-on that this thread it concerned with. Ultimately, though, such views are conservative and Hobbesian, although shared by a lot of anarchists. One obvious problem with the idea is that joining a revolutionary party, learning the political language of the party, and climbing its leadership ladder is a lot more unrewarding than working towards being a leader of a mainstream party. Or even just working your way up the corporate ladder. Still, hypothetically, lets imagine a farsighted aspirant Stalin/Stalina decides to mimic a sincere, self-sacrificing, revolutionary. They are not spotted by the membership of the party, because of their hard work and mastery of the politics of the party. They are not spotted by the class, thanks to advocacy of policies that successfully bring the revolution closer. Then the glorious day comes, insurrection places him or her into the position of a commissar of the newly formed workers' government.Now our aspirant dictator reveals his or her true colours and demands the right to imprison dissidents, to give themselves extraordinary advantages, and to have new university courses dedicated to praising their career.
The risen working class therefore tell him or her to fuck off.
We need a better theory as to what has gone wrong here and Tom Walker's most recent offering would be a more interesting basis for discussion than 'a ruling class in waiting'.
Click to expand...
a link to Tom Walker's most recent offering please?
 
Oisin123 said:
The idea that those who come to lead revolutionary parties are motivated by a secret desire for power, privilege, and status comes up a lot in discussions of parties like the SWP. I suppose because it seems to offer an explanation for the sort of carry-on that this thread it concerned with. Ultimately, though, such views are conservative and Hobbesian, although shared by a lot of anarchists. One obvious problem with the idea is that joining a revolutionary party, learning the political language of the party, and climbing its leadership ladder is a lot more unrewarding than working towards being a leader of a mainstream party. Or even just working your way up the corporate ladder. Still, hypothetically, lets imagine a farsighted aspirant Stalin/Stalina decides to mimic a sincere, self-sacrificing, revolutionary. They are not spotted by the membership of the party, because of their hard work and mastery of the politics of the party. They are not spotted by the class, thanks to advocacy of policies that successfully bring the revolution closer. Then the glorious day comes, insurrection places him or her into the position of a commissar of the newly formed workers' government.Now our aspirant dictator reveals his or her true colours and demands the right to imprison dissidents, to give themselves extraordinary advantages, and to have new university courses dedicated to praising their career.
The risen working class therefore tell him or her to fuck off.
We need a better theory as to what has gone wrong here and Tom Walker's most recent offering would be a more interesting basis for discussion than 'a ruling class in waiting'.
Click to expand...
I think you may have misread the anarchist criticisms as the idea of a ruling class in waiting as being the result of a collection of malevolent individual impulses and motivations rather the more fleshed out reality of it being argued that it's the inevitable structural outcome of an a form of organisation that bases itself on the idea of leaders and led (whatever the icing, "the best fighters", or the "memory of the class" etc), of degrees of consciousness, with a key, a shortcut and an award ceremony for reaching the highest level (that is, party membership).

There are, of course, anarchists and others who argue what you suggest, but if we are going to move forward, best to tackle the better arguments. Not chief among them is the idea that the SWP CC are genuinely revolutionary leaders because they really really believe it.
 
I don't think anyone would argue that the CC don't genuinely believe in the politics - anyone suggesting otherwise is being a bit daft. It's perfectly possible for them to really share those ideals and engage in all kinds of Machiavellian power grabbing type stuff too.

The only person on here who never seems to have grasped this is RMP3, though it appears he's got Oisin123 for company now.
 
SpineyNorman said:
I don't think anyone would argue that the CC don't genuinely believe in the politics - anyone suggesting otherwise is being a bit daft. It's perfectly possible for them to really share those ideals and engage in all kinds of Machiavellian power grabbing type stuff too.

The only person on here who never seems to have grasped this is RMP3, though it appears he's got Oisin123 for company now.
Click to expand...
To me, it's interesting to see how a self-recruiting closed group operates within a wider open group, what traits it looks for in the way it sponsors the mobility of those from the open group into the closed group and what traits it then produces and reproduces to keep both the closed group going as a closed group and the open group open to allow it to pick talent from. And the real killer, what interests the closed group then has.

There's a number of potentially clashing dynamics there - they are often dealt with by reducing the central core group down in numbers whilst expanding their influence/power. Has that happened in the SWP since Cliff died? Who now are the people really running it? It seems to me there are fewer and fewer people running things.
 
butchersapron said:
I think you may have misread the anarchist criticisms as the idea of a ruling class in waiting as being the result of a collection of malevolent individual impulses and motivations rather the more fleshed out reality of it being argued that it's the inevitable structural outcome of an a form of organisation that bases itself on the idea of leaders and led (whatever the icing, "the best fighters", or the "memory of the class" etc), of degrees of consciousness, with a key, a shortcut and an award ceremony for reaching the highest level (that is, party membership).

There are, of course, anarchists and others who argue what you suggest, but if we are going to move forward, best to tackle the better arguments. Not chief among them is the idea that the SWP CC are genuinely revolutionary leaders because they really really believe it.
Click to expand...

Good point about structure not individual impulse, and it would go off topic too much to chase it on this thread. But I think it was Serge said something like 'there are the political equivalents to harmful bacteria in every organisation, it takes certain conditions for them to flourish. I still stand by the idea that workers who have gone through a revolution will have a very low tolerance for self-serving 'leaders', whether such types have arrived by impulse or structure. Even during events a long way short of revolution we can see something like Serge's idea in practice: the SWP I joined during the miner's strike was a lot more lively, irreverent, and scathing towards bullshit than it seems to have become. And from reading their materials, old IS members say the same about the late 60s, early 70s.
 
SpineyNorman said:
I don't think anyone would argue that the CC don't genuinely believe in the politics - anyone suggesting otherwise is being a bit daft. It's perfectly possible for them to really share those ideals and engage in all kinds of Machiavellian power grabbing type stuff too.

The only person on here who never seems to have grasped this is RMP3, though it appears he's got Oisin123 for company now.
Click to expand...

Woa, did I say something to associate myself with RMP3? Damn. :(
 
Sorry if this question has already been asked on the thread, but when did the IS/SWP introduce the slate system for appointing/electing its CC?
 
Oisin123 said:
Good point about structure not individual impulse, and it would go off topic too much to chase it on this thread. But I think it was Serge said something like 'there are the political equivalents to harmful bacteria in every organisation, it takes certain conditions for them to flourish. I still stand by the idea that workers who have gone through a revolution will have a very low tolerance for self-serving 'leaders', whether such types have arrived by impulse or structure. Even during events a long way short of revolution we can see something like Serge's idea in practice: the SWP I joined during the miner's strike was a lot more lively, irreverent, and scathing towards bullshit than it seems to have become. And from reading their materials, old IS members say the same about the late 60s, early 70s.
Click to expand...
I would agree with that, albeit i would probably make it a social thing rather than a party thing, but i would expect it to make it's effects (beneficial when true, harmful when not) that much more effective or felt within a party.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

ElizabethofYork
Men’s violence against women and girls is a national emergency
34 35 36 37 38
Replies
1K
Views
44K
The39thStep
The39thStep
Smokeandsteam
Facebook: Australia content ban, SWP removal and related news
2 3 4
Replies
115
Views
8K
NoXion
NoXion
S
Tory songs and bands
4 5 6 7 8
Replies
210
Views
10K
Wilf
Wilf
W
all these “So and so’s time is up” threads.
2 3
Replies
89
Views
4K
wow
W
J
To save the UK economy this is what Sunak and Hunt should be doing
Replies
18
Views
1K
bimble
bimble
Back
Top Bottom