SWP expulsions and squabbles

[Sean Delaney]

What exactly is your problem? I've been on demos with both the parties to the case you're talking about and they seemed a lot more grown up about it and less dramatic than you are. Get over yourself, people have rucks, make absolute idiots of themselves. Then they grow up. Or shall we have Seymour vet every future member of the London Soviet to make sure they didn't once watch Benny Hill.

Well maybe its normal in the circles you hang around in. But lets try again: Rape and literally -biting- another person's ear off gets a slapped wrist. Arguing over the finer intricate details of Leninist philosophy = expulsion for life. Lets be honest here: what kind of party are we talking about? What kind of world do these people seek to inherit? What exactly are the worst residues of Leninism that have been bequeathed?

Another world sure is possible, as they say on their demos. But is it one that is even worse than this?

 

[Spanky Longhorn]

fuck you, I care about marginalised groups and in the past acted on it, you just drip cynicism all over the boards...

ok

 

[killer b]

enough of the cocksucking please sean.

 

[belboid]

fuck you, I care about marginalised groups and in the past acted on it, you just drip cynicism all over the boards...

unless they're immigrants, coming here taking our funding opportunities...

 

[shifting gears]

.

 

[bolshiebhoy]

Well maybe its normal in the circles you hang around in. But lets try again: Rape and literally -biting- another person's ear off gets a slapped wrist. Arguing over the finer intricate details of Leninist philosophy = expulsion for life. Lets be honest here: what kind of party are we talking about? What kind of world do these people seek to inherit? What exactly are the worst residues of Leninism that have been bequeathed?

Another world sure is possible, as they say on their demos. But is it one that is even worse than this?

Come on Sean. What was it Guy Smallman asked for, a bit of perspective? 25+ years ago a younger, stupider version of someone was in a fight, a fight with another bloke of similar build and age, that got a bit too physical. And as socialists we should argue this guy couldn't change and is to be barred from all leading roles in the movement?! Really? Btw conflating that case with a case of alleged rape is pretty poor. There's a strategy here of listing every shit thing anyone in the SWP ever did, blaming it on the party's politics whether that's fair or not, then writing the swp off as a violent bunch of rapist thugs which for anyone who knows and has worked with the party is a laughable claim. Many, many working class people come to socialist politics with a rough and ready past. The point is whether being in socialist orgs helps them channel their anger and cast off the inter personal violence shit. Having stod next to the person you're so outraged at and been glad he was there to physically take on fascists about to rip my head off I'm glad he's stuck around and learned how to focus his hatred of the system.

 

[Jean-Luc]

After reading this transcript as published on the Weekly Worker, I sympathise with [x] and the SWP! http://www.cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-worker/954/swp-leadership-crisis-if-you-dont-talk-about-it

I see what you mean. They seem to be saying that the dissidents should stay in and create a maximum of disruption before leaving. They also practise "entryism" into the SWP and I would think SPEW too. Strange they should employ this underhand tactic as they are not in the Trotskyist tradition. Aren't they rather ex-CPers or at least ex-entryists into the old CP?

 

[Louis MacNeice]

I see what you mean. They seem to be saying that the dissidents should stay in and create a maximum of disruption before leaving. They also practise "entryism" into the SWP and I would think SPEW too. Strange they should employ this underhand tactic as they are not in the Trotskyist tradition. Aren't they rather ex-CPers or at least ex-entryists into the old CP?

Ex NCP in their very early days, although they do try very hard to paint themselves as a one time part of/true inheritors of the 'real' CPGB...but they're not.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

 

[The39thStep]

fuck you, I care about marginalised groups and in the past acted on it, you just drip cynicism all over the boards...

The whole thread is dripping cynicism

 

[Spanky Longhorn]

Ex NCP in their very early days, although they do try very hard to paint themselves as a one time part of/true inheritors of the 'real' CPGB...but they're not.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

Didn't know they were ex-NCP, I do know that they entered the CPGB as the Leninist Faction.

 

[Jean-Luc]

Ex NCP in their very early days, although they do try very hard to paint themselves as a one time part of/true inheritors of the 'real' CPGB...but they're not.

Can't see them attracting many of the dissidents then, especially as they regard the old USSR as "bureaucratic socialism" and attribute the SWP's current troubles to Cliff's theory that Russia was state capitalist:

http://www.cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-worker/944/supplement-origins-of-the-crisis-in-the-swp-part-one

I take it, incidentally, that most of the dissidents still adhere to the state capitalist analysis. Otherwise they couldn't really claim to be in "the IS tradition".

 

[bolshiebhoy]

Couple of important interventions in the IS and feminism debate. One from last year by Sharon Smith of the ISO but being resurfaced now by the antis: http://links.org.au/node/3210
Argues (like Bakan) that the IS has an unhealthy oppostion to 'Marxist Feminism'.

And the latest Socialist Review piece by Sally Campbell which I tend to sympathise with more (no shock there!) which regards the attack on the IS apporach to feminism, the talk of crude Cliff etc, as a function of an academic marxist tendency to pit a mechanistic Engles against a humanist Marx: http://www.socialistreview.org.uk/article.php?articlenumber=12244

 

[Louis MacNeice]

Didn't know they were ex-NCP, I do know that they entered the CPGB as the Leninist Faction.

I think the term is external faction; i.e. not really a faction at all.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

 

[redsquirrel]

"We will take no lessons from the Daily Mail, Sherry says. How right she is. With a record like this, who needs lessons from the Daily Mail?" What a disgusting little turd he is.

Still about a million times less disgusting than you.

At least he's got the integrity be a member of a party/group he supports. You don't even have that.

 

[bolshiebhoy]

Still about a million times less disgusting than you.

At least he's got the integrity be a member of a party/group he supports. You don't even have that.

Not that it matters but I'm currently without a membership card for any org. Lots of personal issues in what I do next that I'm not sharing with you. But whichever left org I join next I won't be comparing any of the others unfavorably with the Mail thank you very much.

 

[belboid]

Couple of important interventions in the IS and feminism debate. One from last year by Sharon Smith of the ISO but being resurfaced now by the antis: http://links.org.au/node/3210
Argues (like Bakan) that the IS has an unhealthy oppostion to 'Marxist Feminism'.

And the latest Socialist Review piece by Sally Campbell which I tend to sympathise with more (no shock there!) which regards the attack on the IS apporach to feminism, the talk of crude Cliff etc, as a function of an academic marxist tendency to pit a mechanistic Engles against a humanist Marx: http://www.socialistreview.org.uk/article.php?articlenumber=12244

I'm halfway through Campbell's bit st the moment. I hope it improves cos its pretty rubbish so far. Starting with a misrepresentation (albeit minor) of others views, and then a not particularly insightful recapitulation of very very basic Marxism. Not exactly impressive.

The other swappie contributions are even less impressive tho. 'Great article' is about as far as they can go. Not a very impressive vanguard

 

[TremulousTetra]

Your link interprets the SWP/IS statement in one way, lots of people interpret it in another way. At least you accept the possibility that the statement about troops being "vital" could ever be seen as welcoming them.

absolutely! I have no doubt people genuinely believe that the article seems to welcome the troops. I cannot believe after all my years of talking about "language" and revolutionaries on here misinterpreting each other, that you would even question my acceptance of that possibility. I'll go further, I never doubt that the Socialists and the anarchists on here are genuine. What bugs me, is the same assumption is not applied By others to socialist worker party members.

I do not deny the possibility of interpretation of the article. My link clearly states that they welcomed the troops, is wrong. Even Nigel accepts what we stated, "without the troops, there would have been a pogrom" was a statement of fact. do you honestly believe if the troops hadn't been there there wouldn't have been a pogrom? I doubt it.

So if you accept that fact, how do you interpret the way forward from that? Workers militias, was the easy option for revolutionaries. However, reality demanded recognising that workers militias was an ultraleft demand. Those who demanded the withdrawal of the troops before the Catholics were able to defend themselves, WERE putting their politics before the interests of the working class Catholics , in my opinion.

Is that wrong? Is that right? Is pretty irrelevant to this thread. The only point I'm making, is that the SWP made a genuine judgement call as to the interests of the working class. All this bullshit, as to only being motivated by recruitment, is just that, bullshit!

I will put it another way. If you want to reject that analysis as flawed, that's fine. I am NOT trying to convince you that the SWP was right. I'm only arguing that in all instances given by leyton96 that initiated my response, the SWP were genuine socialists arguing what they perceived as in the best interests of the working class, NOT the best interests of the SWP. Not only with a genuine, their line was consistent, as I demonstrated.

look at the original comments by leyton96. In every single instance he/she sees illogical contradiction and inconsistency. I am supposed to be stupid and ignorant, and yet they all make complete sense to me. In explaining that, how they make sense to me, I am not even arguing the SWP is correct. That you can only view those topics, from their perspective. I am making one point. They are A logical socialist perspective. No more, no less.

 

[TremulousTetra]

Well maybe its normal in the circles you hang around in. But lets try again: Rape and literally -biting- another person's ear off gets a slapped wrist. Arguing over the finer intricate details of Leninist philosophy = expulsion for life. Lets be honest here: what kind of party are we talking about? What kind of world do these people seek to inherit? What exactly are the worst residues of Leninism that have been bequeathed?

Another world sure is possible, as they say on their demos. But is it one that is even worse than this?

you know this is the kind of thing that frog woman is always highlighting, as some kind of anti-Vanguard argument. The idea that people in the Vanguard party have contradictory levels of consciousness is no revelation to the proponents of the Vanguard, in fact it's an essential notion.

The important point about the Vanguard analogy, which was always massively emphasised in the socialist workers party, is that the Vanguard HAS TO BE connected to the train. The Vanguard is part of the train. Likewise, the Vanguard party has to be part of the working class. And so it should be no shock whatsoever that some members of the Vanguard party, still have some of the "muck of ages", that they are still affected by "the dominant ideas in society, the ideas of the ruling class".

 

[Mrs Magpie]

I'd find an abbreviation glossary really helpful eg the only NCP I know is National Car Parks. It reminds me of the time I suggested contacting the SLP about a local issue and got admonished for involving a political party when I was referring to the South London Press.

 

[TremulousTetra]

you have to admit..it does defy all laws of rationality and reason that such a specimen should not only be allowed to rejoin the SWP, but is made into a FULL TIME ORGANISER! Is this not just unfuckingbelievable? What kind of culture does that bacterium foster exactly?

I know, that's the problem with the SWP, it doesn't have enough comrades with middle-class sensibilities.

 

[bolshiebhoy]

I'm halfway through Campbell's bit st the moment. I hope it improves cos its pretty rubbish so far. Starting with a misrepresentation (albeit minor) of others views, and then a not particularly insightful recapitulation of very very basic Marxism. Not exactly impressive.

The other swappie contributions are even less impressive tho. 'Great article' is about as far as they can go. Not a very impressive vanguard

Badly edited and hastily written as it certainly appears, it's arguments (short and laacking in detail it's true) against Gimenez, Vogel and Brown suggest a line of inquiry. Hopefully future ISJ and SR articles flesh that position out. We're gonna see a lot of this over the next year, expect to SCS by German sold cheap to everyone joining a swss group here on out.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

I'd find an abbreviation glossary really helpful eg the only NCP I know is National Car Parks. It reminds me of the time I suggested contacting the SLP about a local issue and got admonished for involving a political party when I was referring to the South London Press.

New Communist Party - pro soviet, pro Labour split from the CPGB.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

 

[Mrs Magpie]

Thanks for that

 

[Louis MacNeice]

Badly edited and hastily written as it certainly appears, it's arguments (short and laacking in detail it's true) against Gimenez, Vogel and Brown suggest a line of inquiry. Hopefully future ISJ and SR articles flesh that position out.

Badly edited, hastily written, short on argument and lacking in detail; you must really really want to like this article. Do you think you might be trying a bit too hard.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

 

[leyton96]

Starting with a misrepresentation (albeit minor) of others views, and then a not particularly insightful recapitulation of very very basic Marxism. Not exactly impressive.

That's how swoppies train their members to 'argue' with ideas they don't agree with.

Step 1: Misrepresent the other persons argument and present a position no sane person could possible agree with.

Step 2: Argue against this new position you have invented.

Step 3: You have 'won' the argument.

In my 15 or so years of observing and discussing with members of the IS 'Tradition' in several different countries this is the method that is followed almost without exception. It's another reason why I always smile when you get a particularly self aggrandising IS member who likes to boast about the great theoretical heritage of the IS 'Tradition' (you get some ex-members like that as well, Sebastian Budgen springs to mind).

The reality is that because the IS 'Tradition' is such a hotch-potch of contradictory positions, often the result of importing different ideas whole sale from elsewhere, that most IS members are quite often not really that confident in their own ideas. For this reason they often resort to this dishonest method of debate when discussing other ideas.

Personally speaking I often find it much more challenging to debate with an anarchist or even a Stalinist than someone from the IS 'Tradition'.
With the former two there is at least some sort of clash of ideas but with an IS person what mostly end up doing is correcting the distortions of your own position.

 

[belboid]

Badly edited and hastily written as it certainly appears, it's arguments (short and laacking in detail it's true) against Gimenez, Vogel and Brown suggest a line of inquiry. Hopefully future ISJ and SR articles flesh that position out.

it doesnt actually deal with any arguments they make tho, does it? It just says they make an argument and then, responds to something written fifty years earlier! Now, it might be a perfectly accurate version of their argument, but it isnt actually their argument. This is another article that could have been written any time in the last forty years, as a way of engaging with current arguments, it fails completely, doesnt it?

 

[belboid]

That's how swoppies train their members to 'argue' with ideas they don't agree with.

hardly unique to the swappies, all the other lefties are at least as bad. Or they'll just ignore whatever the argument is and will restate their own orgs position, just slightly louder.

 

[bolshiebhoy]

it doesnt actually deal with any arguments they make tho, does it? It just says they make an argument and then, respinds to something written fifty years earlier! Now, it might be a perfectly accurate version of their argument, but it isnt actually their argument. This is another article that could have been written any time in the last forty years, as a way of engaging with current arguments, it fails completely, doesnt it?

Moe of an opening salvo I'd say in a year long battle of ideas as promised by the cc motion to the special conf. As I say German's book is going to be required reading for every loyalist for the next few weeks. Reading it now myself, bloody good. Especially on partiarchy, socialist feminism and two modes theory.

 

[TremulousTetra]

Wow.




An anarchist ANL organiser in the 1990s.

yes, not all anarchists sit around criticising what everybody else is DOING.

They're my mates, sorta, leave off them.

basic solidarity the left shoulder each other in the face of attacks from the right. Done it myself many times for anarchists.

500+500 does not equal thousands.

interesting point that, you are claiming the SWP is smaller than it was. Because pressure.

A movement they used to kill the Socialist Alliance to launch a shibboleth-free recruiting front which

but the reality was, much of the reorganisation, reorientation of the SWP has made recruitment more difficult, as they knew it would.

unseated to be seated with a rape-denying, anti-abortion, anti-lesbian parenting nutcase

why? Do you care about elections?

ie 'Don't give a shit about the rape and sexual harassment, botching of trials, secrecy around rape and botching of trials, rigged conferences' let them carry on doing those demos with coaches so I can continue to take photographs.

because what you do is so much more prominent? Acting to promote the struggle of the working class, how?

 

[belboid]

Moe of an opening salvo I'd say in a year long battle of ideas as promised by the cc motion to the special conf. As I say German's book is going to be required reading for every loyalist for the next few weeks. Reading it now myself, bloody good. Especially on partiarchy, socialist feminism and two modes theory.

more of an opening fart, I'd say, but hey ho. Is LG's book still going to be central? Didnt Shelia write owt? (other than her seminal pieces on Fair Isle Knitting Patterns, which may, I suppose, just possibly be by a different Shelia McGregor)