Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

SWP expulsions and squabbles

Lenin and Trotsky actually fucked it up bigtime - from the very best of revolutionery motivations.
How? According to you, by trying to have a revolution! What drivel. As no one has ever made a succesful world revolution, the logic of your argument is thaty we should reject every notion about party building and revolution making that has gone before - as they havent succeeded. But that would be nonsensical.

The point is surely to learn from the RR, work out what worked and what didnt. Same as for Germany. Its not about dumping everything to fit with modern fads, or to become simple reformists because of the defeats.
 
No, that's not my point at all. Nice try though :rolleyes:
Sorry, but it is absolutely the subtext of your argument. Its not 'smart' is what you wrote. You introduced the term. It is what the SP has always said, essentailly that the class arent prepared to accept it so bluntly stated, so lets not push it too far.
 
Sorry, but it is absolutely the subtext of your argument. Its not 'smart' is what you wrote. You introduced the term. It is what the SP has always said, essentailly that the class arent prepared to accept it so bluntly stated, so lets not push it too far.

No it isn't, and it doesn't matter how many times you assert that it is, it won't be so. It's about how and under what conditions you want open borders.
 
The point is surely to learn from the RR, work out what worked and what didnt. Same as for Germany. Its not about dumping everything to fit with modern fads, or to become simple reformists because of the defeats.

Of course, but don't be blind to what's new in the present conjuncture because your only template is one that is nearly 100 years old. That - as I intepret it - was the point Owen Jones, amongst others, was trying to make - not that revolution was somehow old hat.
 
Open borders as an aim = great. Open borders right now = not so great. I'm in agreement with the 'thick workers' on that one.

Why pick only on no5? Exactly the same thing/quasi-problem with the other points "No to cuts – fund jobs and services by taxing the rich" as an aim is great. "fund jobs and services" right now without mass working-class struggle = not so great - all the jobs and services will be in high-profitability (or ultimately profit-generating) sectors, particularly defence and biomedical services.
 
Why pick only on no5? Exactly the same thing/quasi-problem with the other points "No to cuts – fund jobs and services by taxing the rich" as an aim is great. "fund jobs and services" right now without mass working-class struggle = not so great - all the jobs and services will be in high-profitability (or ultimately profit-generating) sectors, particularly defence and biomedical services.

Good point.
 
You're an idiot. Open borders under socialism = great. Open borders under neoliberalism = not great.

Socialism now = bring it on.

Nothing to do with the SP by the way, it's what I've always thought.
Jesus Christ.

frogwoman - we were talking about why the left repeatedly fails. Here you go.
lol, so you dont support open borders in capitalism. We live in a capitalist society, so you oppose open borders. Therfore, you support bourgeois immigration controls. You cant have it both ways.

You're right, this is why the left fails, the refusal of left reformists to think their politics through.
 
Anyway, some more SWP analysis here:

I felt really uncomfortable with the way that so much of the coverage consisted of equally anti-feminist rivals gloating over the demise of one of their competitors. As vile as the SWP leadership have shown themselves to be, I don’t think the Galloway fanboys who hosted that leaked transcript are much better, and the publication that carried Tom Walker’s brave and important letter of resignation also gave space to an unspeakably awful article arguing that “rape is not the problem”, and concluding that “far from being insufficiently feminist, the SWP has been too soft on feminism”. To write anything about the political situation on the left in the UK at the moment without mentioning the SWP would be to ignore the elephant in the room, but I felt like if I wrote anything substantial on the topic, I might accidentally say something that would give even the slightest bit of comfort to either the loyalists still defending the indefensible, or the Newman/Demarty misogynist boys’ club eagerly celebrating the fact that a rape had led to some difficulties for a political organisation that they disagree with.
 
lol, so you dont support open borders in capitalism. We live in a capitalist society, so you oppose open borders. Therfore, you support bourgeois immigration controls. You cant have it both ways.

You're right, this is why the left fails, the refusal of left reformists to think their politics through.

You can call me a reformist all you want, I doesn't bother me one jot. I'm not part of the more wadical than thou brigade.

No to the bourgeois NHS. No to the bourgeois welfare state.
 
there are more Chileans than Mexicans, but there are a few. PLenty of other migrants too, of course. Not sure what your point is, really.

That economic migration under capitalism isn't something to be uncritically celebrated. Most 'thick workers' already get this. Shame you don't.
 
lol, so you dont support open borders in capitalism. We live in a capitalist society, so you oppose open borders. Therfore, you support bourgeois immigration controls. You cant have it both ways.

You're right, this is why the left fails, the refusal of left reformists to think their politics through.

What should the response be to Scotland's independence? Should there be "bourgeois immigration controls" between Scotland and the rump UK, or should all current citizens liable to a passport be able to be citizens in both countries?
 
You can call me a reformist all you want, I doesn't bother me one jot. I'm not part of the more wadical than thou brigade.

No to the bourgeois NHS. No to the bourgeois welfare state.
I note you have refused to actually respond, just thrown your rattle out of the pram.

Point out where my argument goes wrong if you can.
That economic migration under capitalism isn't something to be uncritically celebrated. Most 'thick workers' already get this. Shame you don't.
Where has anyone - even that RevSoc statement - said it should be 'uncritically celebarated'. Dont make things up, it only weakens your (already weak) argument.
 
Back
Top Bottom