SWP expulsions and squabbles

[J Ed]

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.

But how else will the pure differentiate themselves from The Other?

 

[treelover]

Has he got a spare room?

it does make you wonder what has happened over the years.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

I've written up my understanding of the second abuse allegation, the Sheffield case, here . There isn't anything that will surprise close readers of this thread, but I think I've laid out what happened - and some of the things that went so badly wrong - in a clear way , in an attempt to stop all the "it's lies" talk from some more hot headed SWP members .

http://peoplesplaindealer.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/swp-we-need-to-talk-about-karl.html

So hang on, this organiser allegedly hit his partner at a social event while on the South coast and was still made an organiser in another city afterwards? Really?

 

[butchersapron]

At a social event that party members would have been at. How often can you say that it doesn't sound likely before it it does sound likely?

 

[sihhi]

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

It was not Troops Out in those two issues in 1969 that you've linked to, so there is a change in the IS position later so that by the time the SWP is formed Troops Out is part of its Where We Stand bit.

 

[sihhi]

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.

Even when it is explicitly about Italian autonomists it can be quite inaccurate:

We are therefore talking about a theory and movement which splits radically from not merely the reformist tradition, but also the revolutionary one, which sees the working class's potential control over the means of production as the key to change. Autonomism is in no sense new. Rather it is a regression to a pre-Marxist form of revolt, one which substitutes idealism for materialism, personal revolt for class action. There is one final argument that needs to be made in relation to autonomism's relevance to Britain. Some of the arguments put forward by the autonomists obviously echo those put forward by, for instance, parts of the women's movement. This is obviously the case over such things as the role of the party or the revolution as a continuing process of personal revolution. Further, the Italian autonomists have attracted one or two British intellectuals.

It is saying autonomism is "personal revolt" instead of "class action" - which is not right.

 

[sihhi]

So hang on, this organiser allegedly hit his partner at a social event while on the South coast and was still made an organiser in another city afterwards? Really?

Three separate women victims:
"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."

 

[butchersapron]

Even when it is explicitly about Italian autonomists it can be quite inaccurate:



It is saying autonomism is "personal revolt" instead of "class action" - which is not right.

That was always a very revealing article - it either demonstrates their total failure to understand the 67-77 movement in italy or to deliberately lie about it. The rubric was, and remains, everyone else is abandoning class for either elitism, reformism or individualism. This, this is what the tradition really is.

 

[TremulousTetra]

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.

Whoa! I can agree with you more. Louis MacNeice castigated me for taking the piss out people having a wankfest about the implosion of the SWP "SWP expulsions and squabbles". So thanks for making that point for me.

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

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.

and didn't Cuba send "aids" to Vietnam?

You want to disagree with the logic, that's fine. You want to test your point, go and read the publications properly. But the logic had nothing to do with state capitalism. And there is a clear continuity.

What's more, it fits in to the difference in philosophy. Socialist worker putting the interests of the working class, before the 'purity' of their politics. Even to the point of supporting the horrible politically disgusting Taleban, having a victory over Russian imperialism. That is at the centre points in them post leyton96

Socialist Alliance. The SWP sees itself as a revolutionary organisation. Why would they want a second revolutionary organisation, the socialist Alliance? (Asked by John Rees at Marxism) rightly or wrongly (wrongly in my opinion) the SWP wanted the socialist Alliance to be basically a reformist organisation, in which revolutionaries had a foot hold. They wanted the socialist Alliance to be a mass "capital's workers party", in which the little revolutionary cog the SWP, could engage with of the working class. THAT is why immigration couldn't be a shibboleth (people rarely quote all of that Lindsey German speech, in which he makes it clear she still supports gay rights)

 

[belboid]

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

Cliff clearly takes a lot from Dunayevskaya, but he does build upon it distinctly, rejectoing her belief that SC marked an entire new epoch. That allowed the Group to realise the revolution wasn't just around the corner, a belief she clung on to, despite all the evidence to the contrary.

 

[TremulousTetra]

That was always a very revealing article - it either demonstrates their total failure to understand the 67-77 movement in italy or to deliberately lie about it. The rubric was, and remains, everyone else is abandoning class for either elitism, reformism or individualism. This, this is what the tradition really is.

hypocrite.

 

[butchersapron]

Cliff clearly takes a lot from Dunayevskaya, but he does build upon it distinctly, rejectoing her belief that SC marked an entire new epoch. That allowed the Group to realise the revolution wasn't just around the corner, a belief she clung on to, despite all the evidence to the contrary.

belboid she never believed that! She believed that the negations that produce communism are always active, not that a moment is just about to happen. I almost capitalised your name in anger then.

 

[sihhi]

That was always a very revealing article - it either demonstrates their total failure to understand the 67-77 movement in italy or to deliberately lie about it. The rubric was, and remains, everyone else is abandoning class for either elitism, reformism or individualism. This, this is what the tradition really is.

What of this:

The first is that the autonomists' ideas involve a break from the revolutionary Marxist tradition and its method. Of course this does not automatically disprove the ideas put forward, but they should not be posed as some kind of development of that tradition. The second point is that if we are to discuss the application of those ideas we need an honest history of the autonomous movement in Italy. That would certainly emphasise the fact that, while many of the autonomists are among the best and most sincere militants in Italy, they have not been able to develop a real threat to capitalist power and, while still strong, appear to have reached a dead end and certainly are isolated

The SWP is attacking Italian autonomists for reaching a dead end. Fine. But when will the SWP admit that in its own British heartland it might have entered a dead end of its own - a steeplechase from one united front to the next for recruits, kept in small branches fed the line by full-time organisers appointed from above, led by master tacticians who have succeeded in making three large splits over the past five years - a cobweb left, if you like.

 

[chilango]

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. :-(

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_military_operations

 

[belboid]

belboid she never believed that! She believed that the negations that produce communism are always active, not that a moment is just about to happen. I almost capitalised your name in anger then.

I apologise.

She was still bloody well wrong tho. 'Active' - yes. Likely to lead to a revolutionary upturn - no.

 

[sihhi]

What's more, it fits in to the difference in philosophy. Socialist worker putting the interests of the working class, before the 'purity' of their politics. Even to the point of supporting the horrible politically disgusting Taleban, having a victory over Russian imperialism.

I am going to have a think about this.

 

[TremulousTetra]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_military_operations

that only underlines my point. Why do you think Oliver North had to find clandestine means of funding terrorists?

America is the only country in the world to have been fined guilty by the world Court of terrorism point I picked up from Chomsky.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaragua_v._United_States

The American population wouldn't accept a full-blown military intervention until, if memory serves me rightly, Grenada.

 

[TremulousTetra]

I am going to have a think about this.

I just want to make clear, I am not saying the SWP is correct. Far from it. But their arguments made sense to me, and everyone else in the party.

There was a massive, absolutely massive argument in the party about supporting the Taliban, not just in my branch, but in every branch in the country. Real heated and angry discussion. So this position wasn't won lightly, or easily.

 

[chilango]

that only underlines my point. Why do you think Oliver North had to find clandestine means of funding terrorists?

America is the only country in the world to have been fined guilty by the world Court of terrorism point I picked up from Chomsky.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaragua_v._United_States

The American population wouldn't I accept a full-blown military intervention until, if memory serves me rightly, Grenada.

Whatever.

The US changed the way it way it carried out military ops post Vietnam. It got better at it. It learnt.

Hardly something to justify cheerleading in a war.

But that's by the by really.

Who do support out of the IS Network and the SWP?

Go on, pick a side....

 

[chilango]

I just want to make clear, I am not saying the SWP is correct. Far from it. But their arguments made sense to me, and everyone else in the party.

There was a massive, absolutely massive argument in the party about supporting the Taliban, not just in my branch, but in every branch in the country. Real heated and angry discussion. So this position wasn't won lightly, or easily.

How did the SWP support the Taliban?

What form did this support take?

What was the point?

 

[Nigel Irritable]

How does he manage to sucker some of you people into arguing with him over and over again?

 

[belboid]

How does he manage to sucker some of you people into arguing with him over and over again?

 

[TremulousTetra]

belboid she never believed that! She believed that the negations that produce communism are always active, not that a moment is just about to happen. I almost capitalised your name in anger then.

why are you always so angry?

 

[eoin_k]

I imagine 10 years on the same bulletin board as you might be a factor...

 

[sihhi]

I just want to make clear, I am not saying the SWP is correct. Far from it. But their arguments made sense to me, and everyone else in the party.

There was a massive, absolutely massive argument in the party about supporting the Taliban, not just in my branch, but in every branch in the country. Real heated and angry discussion. So this position wasn't won lightly, or easily.

For what it's worth, I don't think the SWP's support to Taliban forces actually meant anything practical or physical.
But "the horrible politically disgusting Taleban, having a victory over Russian imperialism" was not in the "interests of the working class" as you claim - that victory meant a massive backlash against half the working-class and then some (all non-Pushtun minorities) - killing dead all progressive, working-class ideas as well as even slightly rebellious, slightly anti-fundamentalist people.

The only logical way to sustain this kind of 'support politics' is to also support the Islamic movement severely weakening "having a victory over US imperialism" by winning the short civil-social war in Iran in 1978-9.

I think in terms of actual politics in Britain that things such as Afghanistan were judged on the basis of a binary of US imperialism and Russian imperialism alone would be damaging. It would mean, for instance, little ability to examine crystal-clear the true nature of the growing Muslim movements - in Britain and in the Middle East - which were also anti-Soviet and ostensibly anti-US imperialist.

 

[chilango]

The SWP supported Pol Pot too iirc.

 

[sihhi]

The SWP supported Pol Pot too iirc.

Only for a short while, if I remember, but that was weakening US imperialism and then weakening Russian imperialism by sustaining Chinese imperialism.

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

And on the horizon starts to loom....POST 10,000!

 

[butchersapron]

The SWP supported Pol Pot too iirc.

The fast food wars.

 

[belboid]

Only for a short while, if I remember, but that was weakening US imperialism and then weakening Russian imperialism by sustaining Chinese imperialism.

They placed an awful lot of faith in the work of Michael Caldwell - who was a Khmer Rouge apologist right till he died. Quite possibly at the hands of the Khmer Rouge.