SWP expulsions and squabbles

[SpackleFrog]

Anything which produces an ossified leadership doesn't work. DC does. So it's fair enough comment.

Butchers, argue the point or don't post. Asserting that "DC produces an ossified leadership" as if it's a fact rather than your opinion is lazy.

 

[SpackleFrog]

and he thinks?

This is some German website. Not sure who they are, whether they have affiliated to the SWP are not. It was the first link on a Google search I did. They say;
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.
In the appendix are the articles on Ireland from the Socialist Worker, No.137, published on 11 September. These show how the position developed in the weeks after the introduction of British troops.

But it should not be thought that the presence of British troops can begin to solve their problems.

I don't mean any disrespect, but why should I believe you when I can see in black-and-white in the paper in the first issue after the deployment of troops?

"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."
You just linked to the evidence for me, you muppet.

 

[TremulousTetra]

Butchers, argue the point or don't post. Asserting that "DC produces an ossified leadership" as if it's a fact rather than your opinion is lazy.

not going to happen. No matter how hard you try.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

Why not D macanlly?

He led a previous split. Also over democracy etc.

[beaten to it by belboid]

 

[butchersapron]

cos he left several years ago

That would do it.

 

[butchersapron]

He led a previous split. Also over democracy etc.

[beaten to it by belboid]

Left Abbie "kronsdat" Bakan as the gladio stay behind.

 

[marty21]

Where is the SWP recruiting atm? - when they tried to recruit me in the 1990s it was because I was a union rep at a Local Authority and voted with them on a couple of issues (can't remember the details) I still know a few Swappies in the public sector - is that their main hunting ground?

 

[butchersapron]

Butchers, argue the point or don't post. Asserting that "DC produces an ossified leadership" as if it's a fact rather than your opinion is lazy.

Argue the point or don't post? Have you had a look at the post i was responding to? Is that your example of what arguing the point looks like?

 

[Nigel Irritable]

Left Abbie "kronsdat" Bakan as the gladio stay behind.

Well, it's probably relatively easy for this lot to resign as they already have somewhere obvious to go.

Which, incidentally, is one of the problems having a bunch of other "IS type" groups having around Britain now poses for the SWP.

 

[butchersapron]

Well, it's probably relatively easy for this lot to resign as they already have somewhere obvious to go.

Which, incidentally, is one of the problems having a bunch of other "IS type" groups having around Britain now poses for the SWP.

It certainly does on the campus hunting grounds. That student monopoly has been fractured with what will prove to be real consequences a few years down the line (if they are still here).

 

[Nigel Irritable]

Where is the SWP recruiting atm? - when they tried to recruit me in the 1990s it was because I was a union rep at a Local Authority and voted with them on a couple of issues (can't remember the details) I still know a few Swappies in the public sector - is that their main hunting ground?

No. They recruit on campus and they recruit randoms who apply over the internet or on protests etc. They don't recruit through their union work in any significant number.

 

[TremulousTetra]

"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."
You just linked to the evidence for me, you muppet.

Ahhhhhhhhhh! This is beginning to make some sense now where the notion that there was some kind of contradiction.

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 don't think the statement of fact, (do you honestly believe if the troops hadn't been there there wouldn't have been a pogrom?) Can be construed as supporting the troops as some kind of solution? It clearly states they were NOT the solution, and that is the same reason for troops out in the 1970s.

So from your point of view, are these people lying? "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."

No disrespect, it just fascinates me how people can come to completely different conclusions from reading the same article.

 

[TremulousTetra]

Argue the point or don't post? Have you had a look at the post i was responding to? Is that your example of what arguing the point looks like?

what did I tell you sparkle frog

 

[Jean-Luc]

The point being, if people wanna critique/slag off 'Lenism' or 'Democratic Centralism', then fine, go ahead.

OK.

I've never called myself a Leninist (or a Trotskyist - though I'm a member of a 'Trotskyist' party)

1. Is the executive committe of your party elected as a slate?
2. Who proposes this slate?
3. Who sets the agenda for the party's conference?
4. Who chooses the organisers and who are they answerable to?
5. Can they issue binding instructions to ordinary members?

 

[TremulousTetra]

SpackleFrog, in fairness to you, it does appear that http://www.marxists.de might be something to do with the German sister organisation of the SWP, as they link to bookmarks.

This is pertinent to the thread, because the thread isn't just dwelling upon the car crash, people are claiming that this is the result of Leninism. "Anything that leads to an ossified leadership".

This is 1969. If you can seriously believe that a Leninist organisation could contradict its basic principles this early in the formation of the International Socialist tendency, then you should give up on Leninism.

 

[discokermit]

Left Abbie "kronsdat" Bakan as the gladio stay behind.

i shared a house with her at marxism once. no sense of humour. although i'm not a hundred percent sure she could actually understand a word i was saying.

 

[butchersapron]

i shared a house with her at marxism once. no sense of humour. although i'm not a hundred percent sure she could actually understand a word i was saying.

Because she was french speaking or your bilston demeanour?

 

[discokermit]

Because she was french speaking or your bilston demeanour?

the bilston bit.

 

[Oisin123]

phew - some actual SWP news!

Various leading members of the Canadian IS have resigned.

http://internationalsocialismuk.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/statement-of-resignation-is-canada.html

This must mean they are a minority of the Canadian I. S. Shame.

 

[The39thStep]

"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."
You just linked to the evidence for me, you muppet.

Didn't Militant call for united workers defence squads at the time?

 

[Nigel Irritable]

Didn't Militant call for united workers defence squads at the time?

One of the few situations where that proposal was actually appropriate. They also opposed the sending in of British troops.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

This must mean they are a minority of the Canadian I. S. Shame.

Well, according to someone still in the IS on facebook, the whole organisation was opposed to the British CC. The issue they were divided on was whether or not it would be appropriate to intervene publicly into the factional dispute. (ie an Irish style, we're against but not against enough to actually say it, position).

 

[andysays]

Is that not a bit harsh? I'm sure that the SWP leadership would acknowledge having been too open in the past to incorrect tendencies including workerism, autonomism, feminism and squadism. Rest assured that the lessons of history have been learned and such errors will not be repeated.

Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia Eurasia Eastasia etc...

 

[The39thStep]

One of the few situations where that proposal was actually appropriate. They also opposed the sending in of British troops.

appropriate in what way?

 

[Nigel Irritable]

appropriate in what way?

Something that was both a good idea in the abstract and which actually had at least some resonance at the time. The first part is often true, the second very rarely. There's an interesting document mentioned on the cedar lounge archive from an actual local trade union backed defence group, by the way.

As far as the SWP position goes, it was wrong and it's a bit embarrassing given their tendency to declare various issues linked to imperialism to be litmus tests for socialists, but I actually don't think it's something worth slagging them off about a trifling 44 years later. It was quite an understandable mistake to make, given that it reflected a widespread feeling at the time in Catholic working class areas.

 

[butchersapron]

That's not the point though, it's not about that issue, buit about what it says about the sort of leadership that they say that they necessarily - by their very existence - provide.

 

[The39thStep]

Something that was both a good idea in the abstract and which actually had at least some resonance at the time. The first part is often true, the second very rarely. There's an interesting document mentioned on the cedar lounge archive from an actual local trade union backed defence group, by the way.

As far as the SWP position goes, it was wrong and it's a bit embarrassing given their tendency to declare various issues linked to imperialism to be litmus tests for socialists, but I actually don't think it's something worth slagging them off about a trifling 44 years later. It was quite an understandable mistake to make, given that it reflected a widespread feeling at the time in Catholic working class areas.

This is what Militant also said in September 1969 “A slaughter would have followed in comparison with which the blood letting in Belfast would have paled into insignificance if the Labour government had not intervened with British troops"

 

[Nigel Irritable]

Well, sure, but I'm not sure that even the SWP claim to provide "the kind of leadership" that is incapable of fucking up.

There's another point to consider too, which is that at least as I understand it, during the early part of the troubles the IS were in part "contracting out" their line on Ireland to various Irish socialists who weren't members of theirs. And while those Irish leftists mostly had the advantage of being on the ground, they also tended to be very inexperienced and quite prone to wild swings in their assessments.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

This is what Militant also said in September 1969 “A slaughter would have followed in comparison with which the blood letting in Belfast would have paled into insignificance if the Labour government had not intervened with British troops"

Read the whole of Militant's coverage. Starting with the first sentence below the headline: Withdraw British Troops. It's pretty clear about its opposition to sending in the troops. The problem was not in the SWP pointing out some factual benefits of the troop's presence, but in the lack of a wider oppositional context. And that that was a deliberate decision, taken because of the popularity of the troops in Catholic working class areas, not an oversight. Not that I think it matters at 44 years remove.

 

[The39thStep]

Read the whole of Militant's coverage. It's pretty clear about its opposition to sending in the troops. The problem was not in the SWP pointing out some factual benefits of the troop's presence, but in the lack of a wider oppositional context. And that that was a deliberate decision, taken because of the popularity of the troops in Catholic working class areas, not an oversight. Not that I think it matters at 44 years remove.

I have read the whole lot ,haven't argued you were in favour and agree with fact that the troops were initially welcomed by some.