SWP expulsions and squabbles

[TremulousTetra]

Hmm, one of the reasons I continue to lurk around this thread is that most of those who post - and that includes those you mention - argue honestly held positions. You and bb don't, though bb has a different set of tricks to you.

where have I questioned their "positions". They are genuine anarchists. They are genuinely hostile to Lenin and Trotsky et cetera. I have said this kind of thing many times. But when they routinely do this

Yes, you're right. I missed that. See if I can get it right this time. To say "Most sensible people from the SWP are no longer in the SWP" implies that most people remaining n the SWP are not sensible unless more people have left the SWP than remain in it (which I don't think is the case) or that some non-sensible people have also left the SWP. Interpreting this literally is getting too complicated, so I give up on that, but the statement is still a booting.

The number of ex-swp is greater than the number of current swp as the swp have been shedding members for more than 30 years

To continue the logic-chopping, that could mean that there could still be a majority of sensible people in the SWP, but I'm not sure that was what the original statement was meant to convey. If it was, I will have to eat my hat.

 

[bolshiebhoy]

So your posts on this thread haven't been viewed by many posters as a whining, long-winded apologia for anything the CC does?

Don't be so clueless. I know they have. People realising they felt that way wasn't the point I started feeling this thread was losing its charm. Christ that was about post 200. It lost its charm when it became people in the SP who barely understand their own party's politics sniggering about ear biting in another as indicative of something meaningful :-(

 

[Louis MacNeice]

Funny that innit, how the only people who you say are dishonest on this thread are the people defending the tradition you're a member of. grow some balls and tell us all who you are. That would be 'epic'.

Do you think that what you and RMP3 are doing is defending 'the tradition'; i.e. affording it some actual protection? It looks much more like defending your attachment to/investment in/nostalgia for 'the tradition'.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

 

[bolshiebhoy]

Do you think that what you and RMP3 are doing is defending 'the tradition'; i.e. affording it some actual protection? It looks much more like defending your attachment to/investment in 'the tradition'.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

Proof will be in the pudding as always.

 

[butchersapron]

And in terms of effectiveness, well, how many lost overboard this week

 

[butchersapron]

Proof will be in the pudding as always.

Of what though? Of you not being a hack? Of the party surviving? Proof of what?

 

[Louis MacNeice]

Proof will be in the pudding as always.

How's it going down at the moment?

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

 

[bolshiebhoy]

And in terms of effectiveness, well, how many lost overboard this week

No idea. Summer holidays shortly anyway, just lost some of them early this year as Mrs Cliff said.

 

[butchersapron]

Let's make this clear BB.The last few months have made you leave labour and think about re-joining the SWP? This sort of stuff has attracted you, you want more of it?

 

[butchersapron]

No idea. Summer holidays shortly anyway, just lost some of them early this year as Mrs Cliff said.

Grow some more come sept - you are wrong, vile and 20 years out of date.

 

[TremulousTetra]

So your posts on this thread haven't been viewed by many posters as a whining, long-winded apologia for anything the CC does?

what members of the SWP say, and how that is interpreted it on here, are almost always to his things. ie;

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.
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 those positions not only HAVE BEEN reconciled under a political and theoretical tradition, The IS Traditon, they still are.
Not only that, that above is a gross misrepresentation of what they actually argued.

did anybody complain about this misrepresentation? No, they added to it.

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.

you could save this is butchers interpretation of their position, but you cannot say it is their position, when IN FACT they refute that bastardisation in all their publications.

 

[bolshiebhoy]

Let's make this clear BB.The last few months have made you leave labour and think about re-joining the SWP? This sort of stuff has attracted you, you want more of it?

Nobody enjoys this stuff butchers. The hackiest loyalist I know wishes a certain person had kept their dick in their trousers and behaved differently. Thats obvious. Being forced to get down to brass tacks and define what you basically believe is good for the soul though. And if it hadn't been this case then SEYMOUR! Would have found another reason to have a go. The seeds were sown when the party failed to hegemonise people it recruited after Millbank.

 

[bolshiebhoy]

Grow some more come sept - you are wrong, vile and 20 years out of date.

I love you too.

 

[JimW]

Recruit first, hegemonise (or not, as it happens) later does point to a problem with the tradition, no?

 

[butchersapron]

Nobody enjoys this stuff butchers. The hackiest loyalist I know wishes a certain person had kept their dick in their trousers and behaved differently. Thats obvious. Being forced to get down to brass tacks and define what you basically believe is good for the soul though. And if it hadn't been this case then SEYMOUR! Would have found another reason to have a go. The seeds were sown when the party failed to hegemonise people it recruited after Millbank.

What does this mean? It means yes i'm going to join the SWP because what i've heard recently attracts me.

Only people like you define not doing the right thing as a final battle for communism soul. Or repeat almost word for word CC crap about bergfeld.

You see those old fat hoolies the UAF run after? The running men?

 

[TremulousTetra]

Do you think that what you and RMP3 are doing is defending 'the tradition'; i.e. affording it some actual protection? It looks much more like defending your attachment to/investment in/nostalgia for 'the tradition'.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

I have made it quite clear many times I am not defending the SWP, however people keep ascribing that intention to my post's. That's their problem, not mine.

 

[butchersapron]

The seeds were sown when the party failed to hegemonise people it recruited after Millbank.

Even this little sentence is peppered with such ignorance, instrumentality, misuse, arrogance and off the wall shit that it's revealing. OH YEAH DON'T MENTION THE RAPES.

 

[Jean-Luc]

Recruit first, hegemonise (or not, as it happens) later does point to a problem with the tradition, no?

What does "hegemonise" mean? How do you do it?

 

[TremulousTetra]

What does "hegemonise" mean? How do you do it?

you are wasting your time. The SWP is criticised for being too baggy, and trying to homogenise, at every turn.

ETA and this isn't saved for the SWP, it is common practice. The left would rather discuss the left, than concentrate on those to the right of us, who can be the gravedigger of capitalism.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Don't be so clueless. I know they have. People realising they felt that way wasn't the point I started feeling this thread was losing its charm. Christ that was about post 200. It lost its charm when it became people in the SP who barely understand their own party's politics sniggering about ear biting in another as indicative of something meaningful :-(

Well, it is indicative of something - a lack of self-control on the part of the biter, although assuming that someone who did it 20 years ago might still have recourse to it in their repertoire is a bit daft, I agree.
Wasn't the original point about the lobe-gnawing, though, that any org willing to retain as a member someone who did such a thing, at around the time they did it could be accused of being a bit crap/unwilling to police their membership?

 

[butchersapron]

What does "hegemonise" mean? How do you do it?

It means make them agree with you by trying to take over.

 

[bolshiebhoy]

Even this little sentence is peppered with such ignorance, instrumentality, misuse, arrogance and off the wall shit that it's revealing. OH YEAH DON'T MENTION THE RAPES.

Ooh it's instrumental if you argue politics with people you recruit to your party. Get off your moral high horse you frightened liberal.

 

[JimW]

What does "hegemonise" mean? How do you do it?

I take it to mean something along the lines of get them fully and unswervingly on board with the programme, thinking within your framework etc., but perhaps BB can explain. Rubs me up the wrong way on the face of it.

 

[butchersapron]

Ooh it's instrumental if you argue politics with people you recruit to your party. Get off your moral high horse you frightened liberal.

I shall just repeat, the last few months have made you decide that this is the party for you.

 

[ViolentPanda]

what members of the SWP say, and how that is interpreted it on here, are almost always to his things. ie;

did anybody complain about this misrepresentation? No, they added to it.


you could save this is butchers interpretation of their position, but you cannot say it is their position, when IN FACT they refute that bastardisation in all their publications.

What has any of that got to do with what I posted, you ridiculous person?

 

[butchersapron]

I take it to mean something along the lines of get them fully and unswervingly on board with the programme, thinking within your framework etc., but perhaps BB can explain. Rubs me up the wrong way on the face of it.

Everyone else a pawn. Ready to moved by...this fucking rape cover uppers CC. Hegomonise that lot, move them forward to traf square.

It's a failure to understand that you could not hegominse students in late 2011 - so redundant.

 

[JimW]

Everyone else a pawn...

That's what it reads like - street fodder insufficiently processed to perform to expectations.

 

[TremulousTetra]

I shall just repeat, the last few months have made you decide that this is the party for you.

he is right though, you are too wishy-washy liberal to promote your 'politics'

 

[butchersapron]

I wonder, the failure of the party to hegemonise workers - where and why that?

 

[TremulousTetra]

That's what it reads like - street fodder insufficiently processed to perform to expectations.

you would prefer the organisation to be "baggy"?