SWP expulsions and squabbles

[SpackleFrog]

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

You've drifted to the right Panda. Clearly you never fully grasped the ideas...

 

[treelover]

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.

blimey, i didn't know that, sickening...

 

[sihhi]

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.

Malcolm, wasn't it? Yes probably murdered by their lower cadre for asking too many questions about how there were armed guards controlling the fields at an incredible density, according to testimony from the 2 journalists who accompanied him.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

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.

Malcolm.

Wait, what were the specifics of the SWP's line on Cambodia? This sounds interesting. I'm assuming here that they didn't go nuts for Pol Pot in the way a lot of Western Maoists did.

 

[belboid]

Malcolm! Duh....

They denied PP carried out any bloodbaths on his way to 'liberating' Cambodia. He had the support of the mass of the masses, resisting american imperialism.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

Malcolm! Duh....

They denied PP carried out any bloodbaths on his way to 'liberating' Cambodia. He had the support of the mass of the masses, resisting american imperialism.

Bloody hell. For how long did they keep that line up? Did they oppose the Vietnamese invasion?

I presume that they never argued that Democratic Kampuchea was anything other than capitalist?

 

[belboid]

No idea I'm afraid. Not long, but I couldnt tell you when exactly.

 

[Jean-Luc]

member of the Socialist Party apparently

More likely to be from the Militant Tendency. This is the one from the Socialist Party:

http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/audio/british-trotskyism-sons-prophet

 

[Nigel Irritable]

More likely to be from the Militant Tendency. This is the one from the Socialist Party:

http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/audio/british-trotskyism-sons-prophet

Isn't he sweet?

 

[SpineyNorman]

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.

This is second hand - comes from my much older brother who was in the SWP in the 80s. But he told me, and he has no reason to lie about it, that the front page of the socialist worker did carry an article supporting the introduction of British troops at least once (years before he joined too but he claims to have seen it). I think it was also him who told me that at one of the university archives (I'm thinking Leeds for some reason but might be wrong) some hack must have gone in there and done a bit of Winston Smith style 'corrections' by tearing off said front page. Again, it's second hand but he has absolutely no reason to have lied and I think it would probably be fairly easy to check too.

 

[SpineyNorman]

More likely to be from the Militant Tendency. This is the one from the Socialist Party:

http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/audio/british-trotskyism-sons-prophet

You're giving me a fucking identity crisis here - are we the Militant Tendency or are we SPEW?

 

[Jean-Luc]

I think you might be Militant Labour.

 

[SpineyNorman]

 

[leyton96]

Malcolm! Duh....

They denied PP carried out any bloodbaths on his way to 'liberating' Cambodia. He had the support of the mass of the masses, resisting american imperialism.

To be fair to the SWP (not something I say very often!) they weren't the only ones to have an initially mistaken view of the Khemer Rouge. Chomsky's writings at the time certainly raised my eyebrows when I read them.
It's understandable people on the left may have been skeptical when the first atrocity stories started to filter out. Western news reporting on South East Asia had been a model of lies, spin and propaganda against anti-imperial movements since the insurgency in Malaya in the 50's.

 

[kavenism]

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?

Yup. In the presence of numerous witnesses several of whom were female party members. The incident was in London though not on the South Coast. If my memory serves me correctly I recall her saying that the other women thought she deserved it for cheating on him.

 

[Jean-Luc]

Isn't he sweet?

Here's a couple of Socialist Party pamphlets published before SPEW was even heard of (or was part of the Balham Group or maybe in the ILP):


http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/...es-mr-chamberlain-and-his-labour-critics-1938

http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/pamphlets/socialist-party-and-war

 

[belboid]

This is second hand - comes from my much older brother who was in the SWP in the 80s. But he told me, and he has no reason to lie about it, that the front page of the socialist worker did carry an article supporting the introduction of British troops at least once (years before he joined too but he claims to have seen it). I think it was also him who told me that at one of the university archives (I'm thinking Leeds for some reason but might be wrong) some hack must have gone in there and done a bit of Winston Smith style 'corrections' by tearing off said front page. Again, it's second hand but he has absolutely no reason to have lied and I think it would probably be fairly easy to check too.

'the troops will provide a breathng space' was the line in the paper. It - arguably - didnt explicitly support troops going in, but it certainly didnt call for an immediate withdrawal.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

Here's a couple of Socialist Party pamphlets published before SPEW was even heard of (or was part of the Balham Group or maybe in the ILP)

I'm quite aware of the SPGB's history and its views, thanks. Perhaps you could post them in a more appropriate thread from now on?

 

[belboid]

To be fair to the SWP (not something I say very often!) they weren't the only ones to have an initially mistaken view of the Khemer Rouge. Chomsky's writings at the time certainly raised my eyebrows when I read them.
It's understandable people on the left may have been skeptical when the first atrocity stories started to filter out. Western news reporting on South East Asia had been a model of lies, spin and propaganda against anti-imperial movements since the insurgency in Malaya in the 50's.

Quite. From that distance, and given the American actions, it is quite easy to see why you might believe that there was mass support for the KR, but to explicitly say 'THERE ARE NO ATROCITIES, NO MURDER IS GOING ON*' was always a tad foolish, even if you believe the tales are overwhelmingly western propaganda.



* their shouting, not mine

 

[imposs1904]

I'm quite aware of the SPGB's history and its views, thanks. Perhaps you could post them in a more appropriate thread from now on?

In fairness Nigel this thread is now officially all over the shop. I blame the poster who posted that SMC fry-up pic a few pages back.

It'll be back on message if and when BB decides to log online.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

'the troops will provide a breathng space' was the line in the paper. It - arguably - didnt explicitly support troops going in, but it certainly didnt call for an immediate withdrawal.

It amounted to very soft support. They gave a description of anticipated positive effects (the breathing space) and raised no arguments against them being sent in. It wasn't quite a "send in our boys" demand though as it's sometimes portrayed by those of a not very charitable disposition.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

In fairness Nigel this thread is now officially all over the shop. I blame the poster who posted that SMC fry-up pic a few pages back.

That was on the snackbox thread!

 

[imposs1904]

That was on the snackbox thread!

apologies. i get my IS threads confused.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

Quite. From that distance, and given the American actions, it is quite easy to see why you might believe that there was mass support for the KR, but to explicitly say 'THERE ARE NO ATROCITIES, NO MURDER IS GOING ON*' was always a tad foolish, even if you believe the tales are overwhelmingly western propaganda.



* their shouting, not mine

Loud certainty where an admission that things are unclear at best would be more appropriate is something of a key part of The Tradition*. As is a marked tendency to whitewash "anti-imperialist" forces abroad.

(* To be fair, while the SWP may be particularly shouty and resistant to nuance, a pattern of adopting an inappropriately certain stance is hardly unique to them on the left).

 

[electric.avenue]

Yep, don't know if you remember him.

How could I not remember Rabbit Worrier !

btw: I think "Rebel Warrior" has to be about the most self aggrandising online handle I ever came across.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

How could I not remember Rabbit Worrier !

btw: I think "Rebel Warrior" has to be about the most self aggrandising online handle I ever came across.

I had forgotten all about his "rabbit worrier" nickname! Who can claim credit for that little bit of genius?

 

[Nigel Irritable]

I burst out laughing when I saw that he's widely known as "Zoidberg" in the SWP.

 

[Jean-Luc]

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

What, it makes sense to say that Russia was some sort of "Workers State" till 1928 and then (after Trotsky got exiled to Central Asia) suddenly became state capitalist! Since no change took place in the position of the working class or the management of state industries in 1928, the orthodox Trotskyist position that Russia was a "Workers State" both before and after 1928 makes more sense. But, of course, the argument that Russia was capitalist both before (mixed state and private) and after 1928 (overwhelmingly state) capitalism makes the best sense.

 

[barney_pig]

As we are indulging in a little nostalgia, where is our little friend cockneyrebel? I last remember some very cruel boys and girls on this site being very naughty about his place in the vanguard of electronic interpersonal communication

 

[emanymton]

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?

It's bizarre, when I was a new member my district organiser 'corrected' me for using sexist language when I used the phrase 'lucky bitch', and when a 16 year old girl joined our branch, we were very conscious of her age and behaved impeccably. We wouldn't even let the poor kid drink. The whole way the SWP has respond to the opposition is exactly what I would expect but the way they have handled the allegations sounds like a very different organisation to the one I was a member of. throughout my time in the SWP it was a given that domestic violence was an automatic expulsion, so assuming it is true the idea that an organiser could hit his partner and just be moved is shocking.

I wonder if the situation has got worse in recent years or if sections of the SWP have always been like this? It certainly isn't uniform throughout the party as the scale of the opposition shows.