SWP expulsions and squabbles

[butchersapron]

Yes and Yes, and I said you had lost it as you said I should still be a member of the SWP.

I think that sort of first off denial, then later look, look this is the same sort of game (that BB is still engaged in - hence his initial interest on your posts and later abandonement) supports what i said. You're a semi-detached member.

 

[emanymton]

This was the whole point of the comparison, that it was implicit there but you didn't have to - you're now backing away (where oh where has bb gone).

I am not backing away from anything, I never said there were strict similarities at all, but I think there are some similarities. You have one again massively overreacted, and why are you being so protective of the ISN?

 

[TremulousTetra]

I am not backing away from anything, I never said there were strict similarities at all, but I think there are some similarities. You have one again massively overreacted, and why are you being so protective of the ISN?

who? Overreact, Butchers? Never!

 

[emanymton]

I think that sort of first off denial, then later look, look this is the same sort of game (that BB is still engaged in - hence his initial interest on your posts and later abandonement) supports what i said. You're a semi-detached member.

Initial interest and later abandonment, everything is part of some grand political game to you isn't it? More likely he has just gone to spend time with his wife, or watch some TV.

 

[butchersapron]

I am not backing away from anything, I never said there were strict similarities at all, but I think there are some similarities. You have one again massively overreacted, and why are you being so protective of the ISN?

It's not an overreaction to point out they logic of your case - if you think that it then all responses are. It's not an overreaction to point out the context within which your logic exists. It's not a overreaction to point out what it means. You know, to be political.

I love the ISN, you got me.

 

[butchersapron]

Initial interest and later abandonment, everything is part of some grand political game to you isn't it? More likely he has just gone to spend time with his wife, or watch some TV.

Have you seen his tongue lolling posts as soon she he get a sniff? You are one naive man.

 

[emanymton]

It's not an overreaction to point out they logic of your case - if you think that it then all responses are. It's not an overreaction to point out the context within which your logic exists. It's not a overreaction to point out what it means. You know, to be political.

I love the ISN, you got me.

You seem to be losing the ability to write proper English, you haven't started foaming at the mouth as well have you?

 

[SpineyNorman]

Chill out everyone - I suspect emanymton wouldn't have got quite the reaction he did if bb hadn't jumped on it like the worst kind of party hack and tried to use it as a stick to beat the splitters with.

If the new ISN was being as uncritical as that about Loach I'd have no problem pointing out the hypocrisy. But understandably people suspect ulterior motives when some people do it.

 

[emanymton]

Chill out everyone - I suspect emanymton wouldn't have got quite the reaction he did if bb hadn't jumped on it like the worst kind of party hack and tried to use it as a stick to beat the splitters with.

If the new ISN was being as uncritical as that about Loach I'd have no problem pointing out the hypocrisy. But understandably people suspect ulterior motives when some people do it.

I did make the mistake of thinking it would be more widely know than it is, it seems to be just me.

 

[Sean Delaney]

Its kind of complicated round here.

Can anyone sum up what the various disputes are between the parties posting? Are there any subtle nuances in the dialogue or is just sound and fury?
Serious question

 

[butchersapron]

You seem to be losing the ability to write proper English, you haven't started foaming at the mouth as well have you?

Not sure that i have as it goes. I think what, one misspeeling? It's the concepts that have you caused you a bit of trouble. Which, of course, you ignore. The politics, ignored.

 

[emanymton]

Its kind of complicated round here.

Can anyone sum up what the various disputes are between the parties posting? Are there any subtle nuances in the dialogue or is just sound and fury?
Serious question

Just slag of RMP3 and you can't go wrong.

 

[emanymton]

Not sure that i have as it goes. I think what, one misspeeling? It's the concepts that have you caused you a bit of trouble. Which, of course, you ignore. The politics, ignored.

There was this one as well, I think the brackets are off with makes it a pain to read. But seriously it looked like you were typing with real anger and venom, as Spinny says, chill out.

 

[butchersapron]

There was this one as well, I think the brackets are off with makes it a pain to read. But seriously it looked like you were typing with real anger and venom, as Spinny says, chill out.

Pathetic liberalism. WHAT ABOUT THE STUFF THAT AREN'T RAPES?

 

[emanymton]

Ok now your trolling.

 

[butchersapron]

I'm not. I'm really really not.

 

[sihhi]

Has this been done? The AWL are saying the students should have read Trotsky better

Third: the SWP machine would be a lot less likely to get away with this sort of nonsense if the SWP students had, for example, thoroughly educated themselves in the Trotskyist tradition many of them now say they want to renew.

 

[oskarsdrum]

Just to add one thing about the "Engels Revistered" Socialist Review piece mentioned further up the thread. As one example of how poorly the article misrepresnts Vogel and Gimenez, in Capitalism and the Oppression of Women (article from 2005) Gimenez makes very clear that for her: Engels' "work established the theoretical foundations for Marxist feminism." Really dishonest piece designed to shore up the base against heresy, it'll probably work quite well as I doubt many SWP members know anything about marxist theories of oppression beyond the "men don't benefit from women's oppression" mantra. Interestingly Federici is a real life example of that feared creature, the Autonomist, but that doesn't get a mention.

Well two things while I'm here....I don't think this has been mentioned? http://www.jerryhicks4gs.org/2013/03/len-mccluskeys-election-campaign.html Jerry Hicks keeps his distance!

 

[TremulousTetra]

butchersapron so, true to your word or not? http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/swp-expulsions-and-squabbles.303876/page-345#post-12082967

 

[TremulousTetra]

They don't provide

Except that you've misrepresented my point. I haven't claimed that the Swappies stop people reading Marx, I've said that they don't tend to recommend those authors as first-stop material.

where did I say you said they stop people reading Marx?
You haven't said anything about "first stop material" until now.

What's that got to do with the price of fish? Mad biblical cunts tend to provide a plethora of one-sided commentaries on the bible. It doesn't mean their interpretations are right, you dimwit.

you just said there SW do provide. But you were wrong, there isn't just one-sided commentaries..
In response to this,

Some do, some don't. Some actively encourage you to read outside of their tradition. The SWP (as an org, not as individual members of whatever standing) tend to recommend reading by authors wiithin their tradition, even commentaries written by members rather than originals written by long-dead comrades. That way you get their take, rather than forming your own.

I asked a very simple question;

can you give you an example of an organisation that supplies more, and a wider range of Revolutionary (R) educational material than the SWP?
http://www.bookmarksbookshop.co.uk/cgi/store/bookmark.cgi

(R) Anybody who would like to see an end to capitalist mode of social organisation and a transition to a classless mode of social existence.

If you were honest, you would admit they promote and provide revolutionary books from a wide range of authors. But you're too sectarian to even concede this.

 

[sihhi]

Just to add one thing about the "Engels Revistered" Socialist Review piece mentioned further up the thread. As one example of how poorly the article misrepresnts Vogel and Gimenez, in Capitalism and the Oppression of Women (article from 2005) Gimenez makes very clear that for her: Engels' "work established the theoretical foundations for Marxist feminism." Really dishonest piece designed to shore up the base against heresy, it'll probably work quite well as I doubt many SWP members know anything about marxist theories of oppression beyond the "men don't benefit from women's oppression" mantra. Interestingly Federici is a real life example of that feared creature, the Autonomist, but that doesn't get a mention.

It's a weak piece in the context of SWP behaviour:

"Every battle today by working class women and men defending social provision of care services is a blow against the private family."

The SWP - as the vanguard of working class women and men - defend social provision of rape victim support services by holding a set of entirely privatised, botched pseudo-investigations (specifically structured and designed more to drop the case than anything else) and edicts as to where a victim should work, how the branch's members should associate with her.

The only mention of Federici is: "In recent years there has been a return to Marx and to the works of those who have attempted to use Marxism to explain oppression. American academics Martha Gimenez and Lise Vogel and Italian theorist, Silvia Federici, are among those who see their task as taking Marx's historical materialist approach and applying it to the study of women and the family. Here lies an implicit argument, however, that Marx didn't get round to, or wasn't interested enough in dealing with women's oppression, but that they can take something useful from his method and apply it themselves."

 

[TremulousTetra]

I'm not. I'm really really not.

me thinketh the lady protesteth too much.

 

[TremulousTetra]

Its kind of complicated round here.

Can anyone sum up what the various disputes are between the parties posting? Are there any subtle nuances in the dialogue or is just sound and fury?
Serious question

how many angels can fit on needle head, kind of discussion.

 

[TremulousTetra]

Pathetic liberalism. WHAT ABOUT THE STUFF THAT AREN'T RAPES?

butchersapron so, true to your word or not? http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/swp-expulsions-and-squabbles.303876/page-345#post-12082967​

 

[TremulousTetra]

Chill out everyone - I suspect emanymton wouldn't have got quite the reaction he did if bb hadn't jumped on it like the worst kind of party hack and tried to use it as a stick to beat the splitters with.

If the new ISN was being as uncritical as that about Loach I'd have no problem pointing out the hypocrisy. But understandably people suspect ulterior motives when some people do it.

going to help Norman ?

butchersapron so, true to your word or not? http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/swp-expulsions-and-squabbles.303876/page-345#post-12082967​

 

[emanymton]

emy as I understand it, the reason people left the SWP was not simply about the treatment of a rape in the first instance (only a small handful like Jack Brindelli did), the 100+ forming the ISN have left as a result of the massive March conference rigging - ie the party structures in general AND the specific botching of the Delta case.

Sorry meant to reply. You are of curse correct.

The SWP via their journalist in the Socialist Review were bigging up the Ken Loach call for left unity back in 2009:



This was at the time that the SWP was joining/had joined TUSC.

Richard Seymour - one public figure in ISN - is no particular fan of Loach himself, although, as I understand it, he does support the call for left unity:

I am not saying they are wrong to support Loach, not that see anything coming of it, and I have not really made my own mind up yet, but I thought there might have been some discussion around it. Dissipate Butchers reaction I really wasn't trying to make a big thing of it.

 

[sihhi]

Sorry meant to reply. You are of curse correct.

I am not saying they are wrong to support Loach, not that see anything coming of it, and I have not really made my own mind up yet, but I thought there might have been some discussion around it. Dissipate Butchers reaction I really wasn't trying to make a big thing of it.

I too don't see anything coming of it. Loach is making essentially the same point in 1998 as he was in 2003 as he was in 2009, as he is in 2013 off the back of his new film. It's not really a point that belongs to him though, it's a standard 'Let's have Left Unity' on some coalescing basis - it's hardly surprising that Tom Walker or whoever might support this.

 

[TremulousTetra]

"We"?
But you've sworn black is blue you're not a Swappie!

sorry about that, typing error, should have read sw.

I think what I've said is I'm not particularly prepared to put the organisation, before the ideas. See here http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/life-after-the-swp.200781/page-23#post-12037486

 

[manny-p]

Can someone sum up the latest with the swp gossip. I can't be arsed to go through 20 pages. Much appreciated.

 

[DotCommunist]

Can someone sum up the latest with the swp gossip. I can't be arsed to go through 20 pages. Much appreciated.

they are still the absolute perfect, logical and sane org to be trying a rape case and anyone who says different is part of the sino-SEYMOUR! axis. Sprinkled with chocolate lenins