SWP expulsions and squabbles

[chilango]

Oh, ResistanceMP3 seeing as you're here...have the SWP split yet?

 

[ViolentPanda]

Well, it's now past midday tomorrow, so time to show RMP3 up as a bit of a cunt.

Post of RMP3 complimenting me on (to paraphrase) being communicative:
"you know, you are the only anarchist on here, who can actually talk about what you think. Every single one I have come across, define them self, by what they are against, rather than what they are for."
(from the "Griffin and BNP strategy" thread).

So, what was that you were saying about me?
Ah yes, in post #9583 you said

it is strange though, that in a few years (three for me) the SWP explain their politics clearly enough that most members could predict what would be in socialist worker, what would be the line on many issues, before it was printed. And yet in 10 years on here I
still don't have a Scooby Doo about the politics of many of this forums leading members.

When asked to name any such poster you replied in post #9589:

violent panda

So, thanks for providing a fine example of your deceitful mendacity!

You plum.

 

[TremulousTetra]

Oh, ResistanceMP3 seeing as you're here...have the SWP split yet?

nice one comrade.
And they cannot really have split, they cease to exist four years ago according to one for
um member Chilango :-p ;-)

 

[TremulousTetra]

Well, it's now past midday tomorrow, so time to show RMP3 up as a bit of a cunt.

Post of RMP3 complimenting me on (to paraphrase) being communicative:
"you know, you are the only anarchist on here, who can actually talk about what you think. Every single one I have come across, define them self, by what they are against, rather than what they are for."
(from the "Griffin and BNP strategy" thread).

So, what was that you were saying about me?
Ah yes, in post #9583 you said


When asked to name any such poster you replied in post #9589:


So, thanks for providing a fine example of your deceitful mendacity!

You plum.

I wasn't actually saying anything about you, paranoid. Someone said they could explain anybody's politics, so I just fired your name. Could have been anybody's.

Having said that, that was a long time ago panda and,,,,,,, You've changed. :-p

 

[sihhi]

more thoroughly disgusting details of the smith case from scribbling s, http://peoplesplaindealer.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/swp-we-need-to-talk-about-karl.html

bunch of fucking degenerates.

It's the madness of in-house rehabilitation combined with excessive confidentiality hidingthe truth from potential vulnerable/target members of your own party, let alone the wider movement.

"A ‘disputes committee’ was held at SWP HQ in London. One woman said he spoke to her in a deeply, shockingly inappropriate way. Another woman said he tried to sexually assault her. Finally, a former member told the committee that he had in fact both hit and raped her. The Committee that heard these allegations appears to accept they were true. Some of the women say they were asked unreasonable questions , like whether they had been drinking."

"Joseph Choonara of the Socialist Workers Party Central Committee was sent to explain to a regional meeting of Yorkshire members that Karl had been suspended for “Serious Sexist Behaviour”. Members recall he said Karl had ‘done a lot for the party, was a great organizer and they hoped he'd be back soon’ Karl was expected to rehabilitate himself by reading SWP books on women’s liberation : He was to be assigned a party member to visit him regularly and check on progress..... This wasn’t a local branch out of its depth. Karl’s reading rehabilitation was discussed by Central Committee members in the Party’s London headquarters"

"Some members in Yorkshire knew about the evidence, but were told to keep it “confidential”. Others were left confused about the what Karl was accused of doing, so continued to invite him to social events: Members who knew the gravity of the accusations were shocked to see Karl at SWP ‘socials’ like a picnic, invited by their unknowing comrades."

"Eventually the SWP members who knew the true nature of the allegations told their confused comrades the full story: The “confidentiality” had caused some members to feel isolated. They felt that members who didn’t know the full truth blamed them for causing a popular organiser to be suspended."

 

[TremulousTetra]

ViolentPanda you were wrong. This is what I was asked

Tell you what, you come up with a list of posters and I'll give you a summary of their politics. I await your PM.

he didn't give me a summary of your politics? Can't say I'm surprised. :-D

 

[ViolentPanda]

I wasn't actually saying anything about you, paranoid. Someone said they could explain anybody's politics, so I just fired your name. Could have been anybody's.

Three short sentences, and yet you still manage to contradict yourself. You weren't saying it about me, but you "fired" my name.

That's because you're an ignorant mendacious trotbot fuckwit.

Having said that, that was a long time ago panda and,,,,,,, You've changed. :-p[/quote]

No, I've stayed the same. Unlike you, I don't have to keep shifting my views along with the tide of Swappite diktat.

 

[TremulousTetra]

Three short sentences, and yet you still manage to contradict yourself. You weren't saying it about me, but you "fired" my name.

That's because you're an ignorant mendacious trotbot fuckwit.

Having said that, that was a long time ago panda and,,,,,,, You've changed. :-p

No, I've stayed the same. Unlike you, I don't have to keep shifting my views along with the tide of Swappite diktat.

you got it completely and utterly wrong. See above.

 

[sihhi]

in response to John McDonnell's recent tweet that he won't be speaking at Recruitathon this year.

It costs just £15 for 5 days and nights - if you are under 18.

All 5 days of Marxism
Waged: £55
Unwaged: £30
HE student: £30
FE/school/under 18: £20
Special Offer: £5 off these prices if you sign up before 31 March

And you get free accommodation at a party member's home:

Do you want free accommodation? No Yes
This will usually mean sleeping on a floor or sofa (see the Practicalities page for more on accommodation).

A full-time organiser - trusted figure appointed from above:

Inappropriate comments. SWP Students in the city were bothered [the full-time organiser] kept inviting himself to stay overnight in their shared house because he ‘couldn’t’ get back to his own nearby town after an evening meeting or protest – especially as he on occasion barged into bedrooms. They even threw him out once, but he kept coming back.

 

[andysays]

That's because you're an ignorant mendacious trotbot fuckwit.

That has a certain ring to it...

 

[Spanky Longhorn]

It costs just £15 for 5 days and nights - if you are under 18.

And you get free accommodation at a party member's home:

Has he got a spare room?

 

[leyton96]

When Harman invoked the memory of the murdered Vietnamese Trotskyists, the horror of the img led VSC leadership was that a representative of the Vietnamese govt. was on the platform.
In 2004, a group of Iranian leftist a walked from Manchester to London to take part in an anti war demonstration which focused for its slogans on the threat of war against Iran. The SWP dominated leadership of the stwc denied them a speaker at the rally, as this would embarrass their guest, a representative of the Iranian govt.
Is this the proud is tradition, which once could identify a potential Stalinist bureaucrat state capitalist in a peasants black pyjamas, but now cannot see a clerical fascist when they are butchering workers on the streets?

It really does underline that for all the talk about an "IS Tradition" from both camps the reality is that there is no such thing as an IS Tradition. For sure, there is acres of print down through the decades purporting to be IS theory but when you look at the various twists and turns the British SWP have taken during the same time you'd be hard pressed to find any sort of continuity.

So the IS Tradition is neutral in a conflict between "state capitalist" North Korea and American Imperialism, then it is pro "state capitalist" North Vietnam a decade later. Then in the '80's it backs reactionary Islamic jihadists against the "state capitalist" USSR.

During the early stages of the Socialist Alliance the SWP is "uncompromising" on the issue of open borders and migrant rights, then when it is in a position to actually put such a position on a national platform in Respect it suddenly has nothing to say on the matter.

It is a "at the heart" of the LGBT struggle one minute but then such things become 'shibboleths' in other circumstances

It refers to the IRA as the "cutting edge" of the struggle against imperialism in the 70's and 80's but by the late 90's it has a position largely indistinguishable from the "Queens Own Socialist Party"

Now, I make no comment about the rights and wrongs of those positions in themselves, that's for another thread(s). My point is that there is no way these multiple contradictory positions can be reconciled under a political and theoretical 'tradition' beyond the fact that a certain brand name called, "The IS Traditon" held them at one point or the other.

It reminds you on a much less grander scale of Lord Palmerston's comments that Britain has no permanent allies only permanent interests. The "IS Tradition" has no permanent ideas or practice only permanent interests, which is to be as visible as possible and recruit.
Groucho Marx probably sums it up better: "Those are my principles and if you don't like them.., well, I have others!"

 

[butchersapron]

Yep, Neither Washington nor Moscow (itself another example of the tradition not really existing, this coming from the Shachtmanite ISL) turned out to really just mean Not Washington.

 

[belboid]

It really does underline that for all the talk about an "IS Tradition" from both camps the reality is that there is no such thing as an IS Tradition.

other than Vietnam, all of the thingws you quote as being contrary to the 'tradition' have come in the last few years. but as everyone knows, those standing in the IS Tradition reject everything since.......well, okay, there are one or two possible dates, but it certainbly includes everything in the last ten years!

And on Vietnam, it is, of course, debatable, but that one was merely a proxy war whereas the other was a genuine NL movement is certainly something that can be argued for consistently and logically.

 

[TremulousTetra]

It really does underline that for all the talk about an "IS Tradition" from both camps the reality is that there is no such thing as an IS Tradition. For sure, there is acres of print down through the decades purporting to be IS theory but when you look at the various twists and turns the British SWP have taken during the same time you'd be hard pressed to find any sort of continuity.

I'm not saying the SWP is right, you pays your money and you takes your pick politically. What I'm saying is it is completely coherent to me, an ex-member.

So the IS Tradition is neutral in a conflict between "state capitalist" North Korea and American Imperialism, then it is pro "state capitalist" North Vietnam a decade later. Then in the '80's it backs reactionary Islamic jihadists against the "state capitalist" USSR.

makes complete sense.
"With both North and South Korea sponsored by external powers, the Korean War was a proxy war." Between Russia and America, so a curse on both your houses, neutral.
Vietnam was an independence movement, against American imperialism. A victory for Vietnam would weaken American imperialism, and it did for over a decade or was it two decades?
Same logic as above, but this time undermining Russian imperialism. Which it did.

During the early stages of the Socialist Alliance the SWP is "uncompromising" on the issue of open borders and migrant rights, then when it is in a position to actually put such a position on a national platform in Respect it suddenly has nothing to say on the matter.

I've explain this so many times, I'm not going to bore people again.

It is a "at the heart" of the LGBT struggle one minute but then such things become 'shibboleths' in other circumstances

again, this has been explained many many times.

It refers to the IRA as the "cutting edge" of the struggle against imperialism in the 70's and 80's but by the late 90's it has a position largely indistinguishable from the "Queens Own Socialist Party"

I have a problem with this one, because I'm not quite clear what you're talking about.

Now, I make no comment about the rights and wrongs of those positions in themselves, that's for another thread(s). My point is that there is no way these multiple contradictory positions can be reconciled under a political and theoretical 'tradition' beyond the fact that a certain brand name called, "The IS Traditon" held them at one point or the other.

It reminds you on a much less grander scale of Lord Palmerston's comments that Britain has no permanent allies only permanent interests. The "IS Tradition" has no permanent ideas or practice only permanent interests, which is to be as visible as possible and recruit.
Groucho Marx probably sums it up better: "Those are my principles and if you don't like them.., well, I have others!"

well if you want to read up on it, it's all there in black-and-white in thousands, probably hundreds of thousands of publications.

 

[sihhi]

The "IS Tradition" has no permanent ideas or practice only permanent interests, which is to be as visible as possible and recruit.

In 1964 and 1966 Labour Weekly calls for a Labour vote, but Socialist Worker as it becomes is against it in 1970. It is in favour of British troops into northern Ireland in 1969, but becomes Troops Out at some point in the 1970s. Again each of these things needs its own thread - but there is no unchangeable IS tradition.

 

[TremulousTetra]

Yep, Neither Washington nor Moscow (itself another example of the tradition not really existing, this coming from the Shachtmanite ISL) turned out to really just mean Not Washington.

we have is in actual fact the victory of the Taleban undermined Russian imperialism.

 

[TremulousTetra]

leyton96 I think where you're going wrong is viewing it as the SWP should be cheerleading antistate capitalism? Is nothing to do with state capitalism, it's to do with imperialism, and the interests of the international working class.
The defeat of America in Vietnam was in the interest of the international working class, because the debacle for America meant they couldn't go round the world killing people as willy-nilly as the used to do before the defeat. Likewise for Russia, it virtually broke Russian imperialism.

 

[sihhi]

"With both North and South Korea sponsored by external powers, the Korean War was a proxy war." Between Russia and America, so a curse on both your houses, neutral.
Vietnam was an independence movement, against American imperialism. A victory for Vietnam would weaken American imperialism, and it did for over a decade or was it two decades?
Same logic as above, but this time undermining Russian imperialism. Which it did.

Afghanistan was a proxy war as well - US and Pakistani militarism on one side versus Soviet militarism on the other. But no "curse on both your houses neutral" why not?

 

[chilango]

The defeat of America in Vietnam was in the interest of the international working class, because the debacle for America meant they couldn't go round the world killing people as willy-nilly as the used to do before the defeat.

That worked out well.

 

[sihhi]

we have is in actual fact the victory of the Taleban undermined Russian imperialism.

With a victory for Pakistani and Pushtun imperialism.

 

[TremulousTetra]

In 1964 and 1966 Labour Weekly calls for a Labour vote, but Socialist Worker as it becomes is against it in 1970. It is in favour of British troops into northern Ireland in 1969, but becomes Troops Out at some point in the 1970s. Again each of these things needs its own thread - but there is no unchangeable IS tradition.

I can see Louis MacNeice, unless is a complete hypocrite, coming in and telling you all offer this, I mean you're not really discussing a rape allegation, you're just using the allegation to beat up the IS tradition,,,,,,,,,,, but.

Do you have a quote for that position in 1969 please? The Nationalists supported troops in, I don't remember the IIS tradition doing so. If they did, they soon realised why it was a big mistake, and explained it as such.

 

[TremulousTetra]

That worked out well.

slightly dishonest of you there. I gave a clear indication I wasn't suggesting you had to accept the argument, just that there was a clear logic that was applied to all three conflicts.

It was either 10 years or 20 years before America invaded another country wasn't it? How is that not a good thing?

You know from several of you, it is this desperation to ridicule everything, that imho undermines your legitimate points. :-(

 

[TremulousTetra]

With a victory for Pakistani and Pushtun imperialism.

you want to reject their analysis, fine. But that was their rationale.

Clearly they were consistent on the three cited. Which completely destroys the point of the post.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

Nothing surprising about your post, a few words on theory then concentrate on the important thing, name checking who was in what org.

Separatism does indeed lend itself to stalinism as people in the IS have always argued. A stress on the need for independent women’s or black movements can easily lead you into a sort of stages theory. A theor that says that talk of working class struggle can be postponed indefinitely while other sorts of struggle are sorted out and built first. Including national liberation struggles in the Third World.

The oddest thing about arguing with people who received their political education, such as it is, in the SWP is their insistence on using that organisation's idiosyncratic language. So we got endless use of the word "autonomism" to mean anything which approximates anarchism. And here we have the use of the word "separatism" to cover not actual separatist movements (which did exist) but as a dismissal of any form of self-organisation. A women's caucus for women who are also members of a mixed gender socialist group is not an example of "separatism". For the bleeding obvious reason that its members are also members of a mixed gender socialist group.

Your original post's argument can be summed up as "women's self organisation leads to Stalinism because something something Sheila Rowbotham liked North Vietnam". Now you've rowed back a bit and everything is conditional. Self-organisation could lead to issues being prioritised over "working class struggle", a category which in your use excludes the struggle for women's liberation. That in turn could lead to working class struggle being put off into distant future. And then anything at all could sneak in. That is all exceptionally tenuous, even by your standards. In fact, there is no particular connection between views on things like self-organised caucuses and views on the class character of the Stalinist states, as can be seen from the array of groups which favour such caucuses and have between them every conceivable position on Stalinism.

Your version of Sheila Rowbotham's political journey is not evidence, it's anecdote. And it's about as convincing as claims that homeopathy works because you know somebody who took water tablets and who also recovered from a disease.

And by the way, when you are using the memories of socialists murdered by Stalinists as a means to amalgamate what you call "ortho trots" with Stalinism, it is of more than minor relevance that those murdered socialists were themselves "ortho trots".

 

[Nigel Irritable]

You've obviously never read either then. The two theories are quite different. And Cliffs has the advantage of actually making sense.

Cliff's theory was not original but you are certainly right that it wasn't the SPGB that influenced it.

 

[TremulousTetra]

The reason there's a certain softness towards stalinism in the swp may of course be that trotskyism is essentially stalinism with better pr.

I love this post

 

[TremulousTetra]

The oddest thing about arguing with people who received their political education, such as it is, in the SWP is their insistence on using that organisation's idiosyncratic language.

thank you! I have been saying for many years, though there are undoubted differences between all the political strands, language is a great barrier to people who share probably 95% of their politics having a dialogue.

 

[sihhi]

I can see Louis MacNeice, unless is a complete hypocrite, coming in and telling you all offer this, I mean you're not really discussing a rape allegation, you're just using the allegation to beat up the IS tradition,,,,,,,,,,, but.

The title of the thread is 'SWP expulsions and squabbles' it's not restricted to what you've defined. If you wish to make suggestions as to how rapists within the movement should be dealt with, go ahead.

Do you have a quote for that position in 1969 please? The Nationalists supported troops in, I don't remember the IIS tradition doing so. If they did, they soon realised why it was a big mistake, and explained it as such.

It's all over the Socialist Worker from August 1969 onwards - exactly the same as the government's rationale for the deployment - a short mission and then home: “The breathing space provided by the presence of British troops is short but vital. Those who call for the immediate withdrawal of the troops before the men behind the barricades can defend themselves are inviting a pogrom which will hit first and hardest at socialists.” Socialist Worker, 11 September 1969

you want to reject their analysis, fine. But that was their rationale.

Clearly they were consistent on the three cited. Which completely destroys the point of the post.

No it doesn't Pakistani imperialism is wholly tied to US imperialism at this point - it's a case of 'Washington not Moscow' in crude terms.

 

[TremulousTetra]

In 1964 and 1966 Labour Weekly calls for a Labour vote, but Socialist Worker as it becomes is against it in 1970. It is in favour of British troops into northern Ireland in 1969, but becomes Troops Out at some point in the 1970s. Again each of these things needs its own thread - but there is no unchangeable IS tradition.

seems you're wrong. http://www.marxists.de/ireland/swaug69/index.htm

The attitude of the International Socialists to the introduction of British troops in August 1969 has been a subject of much controversy on some parts of the left. The usual allegation is along the lines that Socialist Worker either called for the introduction of troops or welcomed them. The articles below are from the first issue of the paper after the deployment of troops. Whether the line adopted was correct or not, it should be clear from the articles that the allegations described above are false and that the IS didn’t regard the troops as the solution of the crisis.