SWP expulsions and squabbles

[frogwoman]

I would not be so sure. There are many examples of Communist groups in a life-or-death struggle with the State still able to spare the energy to purge the "trotskyists" or "ultra-leftists" in their ranks.

siege mentality innit?

 

[butchersapron]

Is it me or is this suggesting Seymour wants to drive people to something new but "less left-wing" (like Melenchon is/was with respect to the NPA)




Also how the frig has the NPA returning to a new version of what it was before it coalesced - weakened the far left in the Philippines?

It's mad hyerbole. He wants to say trotsky-fascist-feminist but can't. It really is tawdry that this strong-arming passes for left-political debate. Never mind today and the shit that the class are facing, at any time this is crude.

 

[Random]

siege mentality innit?

And the feeling that the enemies within are the most dangerous ones. Purity is needed to be worthy of history!

 

[bolshiebhoy]

After arguing with Leninists for about 20 years now I still don't understand why the different versions disagree with each other so much. Why do you need to argue so much with other socialists, who also think that there's a need to work for a working class revolution through workplace activity and campaigning? Why do the small socialist groups all spend so much time saying that the others are wrong? I can understand the need to argue against people with politics that translates into very different activity - like arguing against anarchists who just want to build affinity groups, or against christian or Islamic campaigners who want to base activity in faith. But why so much effort in showing that people with near-identical politics are so very very poisonously wrong?

Cause these differences matter and matter most at critical points in history. There are many people in Egypt right now who would broadly agree that what the country needs is a workers government. But they would have all sorts of differences on whether for example that means a violent confrontation with the state at some point, what the attitude to working with fellow workers who are Islamists should be, are the liberals a lesser evil to Morsi, were the Black Bloc a help or a hindrance in the demos over the last few days etc etc. And those differences matter cause they will determine what ultimately happens to the Egyptian revolution, success or defeat. Thank fuck there happens to be a fairly worked out Leninst organistion, the Rev Soc, on the ground arguing their politics with other people on the broadly left side and making sure that the most advanced sections of the Egyptian revolution have a voice at every turn and thank fuck they bothered to separate themselves sufficiently to have a voice. In our tiny-in-comparison struggles that sounds like ridiculous hair splitting. In a major crisis like Egypt it's life and death stuff.

 

[belboid]

"...the Paris Commune of 1871 ... ended ... once the question of political power is posed"

really? That rather changes everything the party said about it before.

 

[frogwoman]

yeah Random some of these polemics are about things i don't even understand the meaning of, i really don't understand dialectical materialism i have to say and the whole 'science' that is built around it, i thought marxism was a political philosophy and a branch of economics and the dialectic thing completely baffles me.

 

[butchersapron]

And the feeling that the enemies within are the most dangerous ones. Purity is needed to be worthy of history!

Behold the mainstream onslaught - two articles. The british army weighs fifteen hundred tons - how are you going to cope?

 

[frogwoman]

And the feeling that the enemies within are the most dangerous ones. Purity is needed to be worthy of history!

They never fully took on board our positions

 

[frogwoman]

Cause these differences matter and matter most at critical points in history. There are many people in Egypt right now who would broadly agree that what the country needs is a workers government. But they would have all sorts of differences on whether for example that means a violent confrontation with the state at some point, what the attitude to working with fellow workers who are Islamists should be, are the liberals a lesser evil to Morsi, were the Black Bloc a help or a hindrance in the demos over the last few days etc etc. And those differences matter cause they will determine what ultimately happens to the Egyptian revolution, success or defeat. Thank fuck there happens to be a fairly worked out Leninst organistion, the Rev Soc, on the ground arguing their politics with other people on the broadly left side and making sure that the most advanced sections of the Egyptian revolution have a voice at every turn and thank fuck they bothered to separate themselves sufficiently to have a voice. In our tiny-in-comparison struggles that sounds like ridiculous hair splitting. In a major crisis like Egypt it's life and death stuff.

i dont think that this is what is being discussed here (agree re egypt tho )

eta apart fromthe stuff about the "most advanced sections" etc but yes this stuff does matter, obscure polemics about dialectial materialism do not though.

 

[sihhi]

eta: I still don't see the massive difference between the SWP, the SP and the AWL, the WP, etc etc.

I would not be so sure. There are many examples of Communist groups in a life-or-death struggle with the State still able to spare the energy to purge the "trotskyists" or "ultra-leftists" in their ranks.

To sum up:-
AWL are Labour loyalists - coherent.
SP are left trade union bureaucrat loyalists - coherent.
SWP are rank and file leader loyalists - coherent.
WP have split.

You're changing what you said. Purging internally is not the same as hassling or directing attacks against opponent/competitor socialists.
It's borne out from the experience of the Indian Emergency, Zia in Pakistan, South Korea, Turkey, Nigeria when the military takes over - the socialist groups do stop fighting one another - at least for a few years (unless part of them support the coup like in India which can get complicated).

 

[butchersapron]

Cause these differences matter and matter most at critical points in history. There are many people in Egypt right now who would broadly agree that what the country needs is a workers government. But they would have all sorts of differences on whether for example that means a violent confrontation with the state at some point, what the attitude to working with fellow workers who are Islamists should be, are the liberals a lesser evil to Morsi, were the Black Bloc a help or a hindrance in the demos over the last few days etc etc. And those differences matter cause they will determine what ultimately happens to the Egyptian revolution, success or defeat. Thank fuck there happens to be a fairly worked out Leninst organistion, the Rev Soc, on the ground arguing their politics with other people on the broadly left side and making sure that the most advanced sections of the Egyptian revolution have a voice at every turn and thank fuck they bothered to separate themselves sufficiently to have a voice. In our tiny-in-comparison struggles that sounds like ridiculous hair splitting. In a major crisis like Egypt it's life and death stuff.

How on earth does that come from or reflect what random is on about? These are just social/political conversations that everyone involved is having.

 

[eoin_k]

Am I the only person who found all the references to the SA a couple of pages ago a bit 'night of the long knives'?

 

[butchersapron]

Wait till you see the NSSN stuff.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

I can see the point in taking up practical issues like that. What I'm on about is the hours and hours and hours spent by these top Marxist thinkers in proving that someone has got some interpretation of the dialectic wrong. Who cares?

I think you must be thinking of some other SWP and Socialist Party because the two groups I know of by that name really don't go in for extended polemics with other groups on the left very often, and certainly not on wildly abstract topics like that.

 

[Random]

i dont think that this is what is being discussed here (agree re egypt tho)

No indeed. That kind of discussion, about relationship to Islam, to the use of force, etc is exactly the kind of important discussion that is needed. It is linked to practical tasks.

 

[emanymton]

I think you must be thinking of some other SWP and Socialist Party because the two groups I know of by that name really don't go in for extended polemics with other groups on the left very often, and certainly not on wildly abstract topics like that.

Yes this is more of a CPGB type of thing to do.

 

[butchersapron]

It would be ridiculous to assert that the working class is finished.

How handy then, that everyone else is asserting that. Everyone but you.

 

[Random]

I think you must be thinking of some other SWP and Socialist Party because the two groups I know of by that name really don't go in for extended polemics with other groups on the left very often, and certainly not on wildly abstract topics like that.

What I keep on remembering is a discussion I had with a socialist at a stall one demo. He was explaining why I should join his group; but at the end, he had basically alo made the argument for me joining the socialist group over the other side of the field, or the stall just by the main road. The basic decent argument for joining a socialist (trotskyist) group is one that applies to almost all of them. So why your group? Why are you better?

Theeeeeen the abstract and/or historical stuff has to be rolled out.

 

[bolshiebhoy]

How on earth does that come from or reflect what random is on about? These are just social/political conversations that everyone involved is having.

Because the argument was "Why do you need to argue so much with other socialists, who also think that there's a need to work for a working class revolution through workplace activity and campaigning?" Sorry but that lowest common denominator approach isn't enough. If Rev Soc had followed it they'd be in Hamdeen Sabahi's much larger group (most of whom are decent enough leftists and jan25 veterans in their own right) now and nobody would be making revolutionary arguments loudly in Egypt.

 

[TremulousTetra]

im sure you see this kind of sectarianism in anarchism tho.

anarchism doesn't exist.

 

[bolshiebhoy]

No indeed. That kind of discussion, about relationship to Islam, to the use of force, etc is exactly the kind of important discussion that is needed. It is linked to practical tasks.

And the Leninst argument that annoys you so much is that you need a group of people in a separate org to have been arguing those things for a long while to make their voice heard when it counts.

 

[butchersapron]

Because the argument was "Why do you need to argue so much with other socialists, who also think that there's a need to work for a working class revolution through workplace activity and campaigning?" Sorry but that lowest common denominator approach isn't enough. If Rev Soc had followed it they'd be in Hamdeen Sabahi's much larger group (most of whom are decent enough leftists and jan25 veterans in their own right) now and nobody would be making revolutionary arguments loudly in Egypt.

The argument isn't yours. That's the point. You partaking of it does not make it yours and it doesn't mean that you have to be a leninist party to have those debates. They are happening and on the whole, they're happening outside of your favoured group.

 

[Hocus Eye.]

I see via Twitter that the 'Open Letter to the SWP CC' now has more signatories to it than earlier. In a few hours it has gone from 17 names to 29.

 

[butchersapron]

What I keep on remembering is a discussion I had with a socialist at a stall one demo. He was explaining why I should join his group; but at the end, he had basically alo made the argument for me joining the socialist group over the other side of the field, or the stall just by the main road. The basic decent argument for joining a socialist (trotskyist) group is one that applies to almost all of them. So why your group? Why are you better?

Theeeeeen the abstract and/or historical stuff has to be rolled out.

What was this clown doing on a stall ffs.

 

[Random]

To sum up:-
AWL are Labour loyalists - coherent.
SP are left trade union bureaucrat loyalists - coherent.
SWP are rank and file leader loyalists - coherent.
WP have split.

The only real thing that separates these groups is that they have different small groups in their leadership, who are using a different hand of cards from the pack of trotskyist socialist tactics. The SP were in Labour before. the SWP were once not in Labour, and now are, etc. All the groups think that the unions' leadership are not to be trusted, hope lies in the rank and file, etc. it's all splitting hairs when it comes to real politics.

 

[TremulousTetra]

your whole approach to 'debate' is a lie. stop trying to side-track a discussion with your usual trick of re-raising an argument you lost many months ago

fuck off RMP3. just fuck off.

Why do you think I'm stifling the glee filled contributions to the thread?

PS. I've just won that debate again.

 

[butchersapron]

Yes this is more of a CPGB type of thing to do.

To try to do, them and the AWL. They are just ignored though.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

What I keep on remembering is a discussion I had with a socialist at a stall one demo.

I'm not sure that this is really a solid foundation to be building your conclusions on.

Yes, there are many basic socialist arguments which would amount to reasons to join any socialist group from the ICC to the SWP. And then, if those arguments are accepted, there are reasons why you might agree with the opinions of one group over another and it's not particularly odd for partisans of that group to explain why they think that their ideas and strategies and theories are better to someone who is wondering what group to join.

 

[bolshiebhoy]

The argument isn't yours. That's the point. You partaking of it does not make it yours and it doesn't mean that you have to be a leninist party to have those debates. They are happening and on the whole, they're happening outside of your favoured group.

I think you do but that's a whole thread in it's own right so I'll back off now

 

[sihhi]

It's mad hyerbole. He wants to say trotsky-fascist-feminist but can't. It really is tawdry that this strong-arming passes for left-political debate. Never mind today and the shit that the class are facing, at any time this is crude.

Isn't the hyperbole an act of lunacy?

'Hi we're a bunch of people who consider our not investigating rape impartially is like the NPA siding with Melenchon and not Laguilier and that has weakened the far left squatter organisations in Brazil.'

It just screams self-centred and mad. Is it just me?