SWP expulsions and squabbles

[TremulousTetra]

Mate, i've been ignoring him for years, really - i think there's one response to him from me on this thread and it's 'fuck off' - i never reply to him - well very very rarely (which doesn't actually work as he just fills up more space trying to get me to reply, but that is marginally better then actually replying).

 

[frogwoman]

But you do interpret Marx differently to the SWP. What you draw as the conclusions of what Marx wrote, are different to the conclusions the SWP draw?

Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[butchersapron]

The ear-biter is doing a talk Thanet SWP meeting: How can the working class win?. The pic used on the fb page is this:

 

[Jean-Luc]

a political method which has resulted in the farce of things like Unite the Resistance, Right to Work and whatever other front you care to mention. As such they are totally isolated from the working class, both in local communities and in the unions.

The SWP of course are not the only group to apply this political method. In fact it's standard Trotskyist tactics. What is really farcical is that when rival groups set up rival front organisations aimed at the same group of discontented people.

 

[TremulousTetra]

But my moralism, as you put it, comes from you defending the SWP and their leadership. The other people I mention aren't like BB trying to equate these serious allegations with "keeping your dick in your trousers", or in your case trying to avoid the topic and go on about vague discussions about the IS tradition. A tradition which you and BB seem to hold as sacred but in reality has achieved sod all. You are BB are the ones who are out of order as you are the ones defending the indefensible.

I haven't defended the handling of the rape allegation. I have made clear I have my differences with the current SWP. But I will defend the idea's created before I left, in 2000. Those, are not indefensible. Every time people say the SWP said something they didn't, why shouldn't I point it out? Just because the SWP did something wrong, doesn't make misrepresenting them right.

So moving forward, who would you recommend an ex-member of the SWP join, at this moment?

 

[TremulousTetra]

The ear-biter is doing a talk Thanet SWP meeting: How can the working class win?. The pic used on the fb page is this:

And?

 

[Jean-Luc]

But you do interpret Marx differently to the SWP. What you draw as the conclusions of what Marx wrote, are different to the conclusions the SWP draw?

I hold no brief for SPEW (far from it!) but this might answer your question (found here):

This orientation towards the working class is a key difference between the SP and the Socialist Worker’s Party. The Socialist Worker’s Party, while maintaining revolutionary slogans, in truth orientates towards the Middle class. That is to say its recruitment polices focus on recruiting middle class students and intellectuals. This is partly due to the influence of the supposed ‘New Left’ which argued that following the post-WW2 economic boom the working class in western, developed nations had been ‘brought off.’ These groups then turned to other minority groups – such as gender, sexual and racial equality campaigns, as well as national liberation campaigns in the third world, to look for a new force for revolutionary change. We would argue that while these groups should be supported in their struggles, they should be part of the working class struggle, they should not replace it.

and

We also reject the tactics of groups such as ‘Unite against Fascism’ (UAF) who are prepared to work with anyone in order to enhance their cause. This is called a ‘popular front’ and we believe this to be unprincipled, and potentially a counterproductive way to work. In contrast we call for a United Front, built on a principled class basis, bringing together socialists, trade unionists, workers and community organisations.

If this appreciation of the SWP is true (I'm not saying it is: students seem to be in all groups) one result of the present furore would be that it would lose its base amongst "middle class students and intellectuals" and so, ironically, become more of a "worker-oriented" party -- except that they kicked out a lot of non-public-service trade unionists in the 1970s for "syndicalism".

 

[butchersapron]

This is to do with the susssex uni occupation thing

Aaron Peters@aaronjohnpeters
Huge demo, new union, cops chased off - no NUS or union involvement, local Swp branch has disaffiliated - amazing

So who has dissafiliated from what?

 

[articul8]

sounds like SWSS has distanced itself from Occupy_Sussex?

 

[tedsplitter]

This is to do with the susssex uni occupation thing

Aaron Peters@aaronjohnpeters
Huge demo, new union, cops chased off - no NUS or union involvement, local Swp branch has disaffiliated - amazing

So who has dissafiliated from what?

He means that Sussex SWSS has disafilliated from the SWP.

 

[tedsplitter]

http://internationalsocialismuk.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/resignation-sussex-brighton-swss.html

 

[butchersapron]

That was weeks ago - why is he going on abut it now?

 

[tedsplitter]

I guess it's background info regarding the demo in support of the occupation today.
I hear also that the insurgents have captured another position at Sussex Uni - the regime has lost the Management Building.

 

[butchersapron]

He makes it sound like the proper SWP branch has disaffiliated from the occupation though.

 

[tedsplitter]

Nah, I haven't heard anything about that but it's a pretty safe bet that relations between the occupiers and the SWP national office have frosted over a bit. No idea what Brighton SWP is like, I know there's been at least one non-SWSS resignation.

 

[sihhi]

That was weeks ago - why is he going on abut it now?

He's trying to say to people 'Don't be afraid of supporting us, we don't have any SWP kicking around in Sussex Uni any longer'. It's a bit weird.

 

[One_Stop_Shop]

I haven't defended the handling of the rape allegation. I have made clear I have my differences with the current SWP. But I will defend the idea's created before I left, in 2000. Those, are not indefensible. Every time people say the SWP said something they didn't, why shouldn't I point it out? Just because the SWP did something wrong, doesn't make misrepresenting them right.

So moving forward, who would you recommend an ex-member of the SWP join, at this moment?

Yes but I would have thought there are priorities. You have said very little talking about the current situation, and a lot with abstract debates.

I wouldn't recommend you join anyone. Make your own mind up. But just because I can say that organisations like the WRP or SWP aren't what is needed, doesn't mean I have the answer to what is.

 

[TremulousTetra]

Yes but I would have thought there are priorities.

sorry, what?

You have said very little talking about the current situation, and a lot with abstract debates.

abstract debates other people started, and misrepresented the truth.

I wouldn't recommend you join anyone. Make your own mind up. But just because I can say that organisations like the WRP or SWP aren't what is needed, doesn't mean I have the answer to what is.

yes I know the mantra, you proselytise what you are against, not what you are for.

 

[TremulousTetra]

One_Stop_Shop EG, I don't know member of the SWP who wouldn't say this is a gross misrepresentation

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.

During the early stages of the Socialist Alliance the SWP is "uncompromising" on the issue of open borders and migrant rights, then when it is in a position to actually put such a position on a national platform in Respect it suddenly has nothing to say on the matter.

It is a "at the heart" of the LGBT struggle one minute but then such things become 'shibboleths' in other circumstances

It refers to the IRA as the "cutting edge" of the struggle against imperialism in the 70's and 80's but by the late 90's it has a position largely indistinguishable from the "Queens Own Socialist Party"

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 there is no way these multiple contradictory positions can be reconciled under a political and theoretical 'tradition' beyond the fact that a certain brand name called, "The IS Traditon" held them at one point or the other.

It reminds you on a much less grander scale of Lord Palmerston's comments that Britain has no permanent allies only permanent interests. The "IS Tradition" has no permanent ideas or practice only permanent interests, which is to be as visible as possible and recruit.
Groucho Marx probably sums it up better: "Those are my principles and if you don't like them.., well, I have others!"

 

[leyton96]

He's trying to say to people 'Don't be afraid of supporting us, we don't have any SWP kicking around in Sussex Uni any longer'. It's a bit weird.

He's a bit of an odd fellow. He's one of those 'Excuse me, I couldn't help noticing I'm considerably cleverer than you' types.

 

[TremulousTetra]

He's a bit of an odd fellow. He's one of those 'Excuse me, I couldn't help noticing I'm considerably cleverer than you' types.

pot calling kettle

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]

blimey, that Bradley bloke gets about... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-21927889

 

[Jean-Luc]

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.

The one good thing about the SWP was that it championed the state-capitalist analysis of the old USSR, etc within the Trotskyist movement while the rest of the movement promoted the absurd theory that these were somehow "Workers" States. The fact that it failed to apply this analysis consistently and ended up taking sides in inter-imperialist wars (as did the other Trotskyist groups) does not invalidate the theory itself. Some of the writings of Nigel Harris on this were good (I know he eventually fell out with the others, for applying it more consistently than them). Beware of throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

 

[ViolentPanda]

http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/swp-expulsions-and-squabbles.303876/page-328#post-12069035

So you can't even differentiate between 6 days ago (when that was posted) and last night, cunt?

Fuck the fuck off, you Billy fucking Bullshitter cunt.

 

[TremulousTetra]

So you can't even differentiate between 6 days ago (when that was posted) and last night, cunt?

Fuck the fuck off, you Billy fucking Bullshitter cunt.

I didn't say when you posted it, this is what I said.

Twas funny last night. Especially after I'd asked Violent Panda about butchers being so angry all the time, and he totally denied it.

just glad you admitted you did say it, and you were wrong. It's not my fault you forgot.

it would give me great mirth to claim that was due to me , but he is angry when I'm not even here.

He's just a sad sad angry old man.

Nope, he's really not. He's passionate.
I can see how someone as keen on dogmatic politcs as you are might wish to view that passion as anger, though, as it would mean you could (and do) brush off whatever he posts without having to analyse what he's saying and why - without having to exercise the slightest bit of reflexivity.

The above-mentioned lack of self-awareness and self-analysis is why you are treated as a joke by many posters in UK P & P. You've all the political acumen of a broken 8-track cartridge, and you repeat the same old bollocks as often as one.

don't worry mate, there's no need to apologise.

 

[TremulousTetra]

The one good thing about the SWP was that it championed the state-capitalist analysis of the old USSR, etc within the Trotskyist movement while the rest of the movement promoted the absurd theory that these were somehow "Workers" States. The fact that it failed to apply this analysis consistently and ended up taking sides in inter-imperialist wars (as did the other Trotskyist groups) does not invalidate the theory itself. Some of the writings of Nigel Harris on this were good (I know he eventually fell out with the others, for applying it more consistently than them). Beware of throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

how did they fail to apply the analysis of state capitalism consistently? Just provide a link, if you don't want to explain it yourself. I'll have a read.

And expand on the "taking sides in inter-imperialist wars". Their position was, Korea, proxy war, support neither side. Vietnam, Vietnamese liberating themselves from US imperialism. Afghanistan, Afghans liberating them self from Russian imperialism. Again a link if you want.

 

[Spanky Longhorn]

So you can't even differentiate between 6 days ago (when that was posted) and last night, cunt?

Fuck the fuck off, you Billy fucking Bullshitter cunt.

Can people stop speaking to people I've got on ignore please? It gets very confusing

 

[ViolentPanda]

Can people stop speaking to people I've got on ignore please? It gets very confusing

But Spanks, surely it was obvious by the content, who I was speaking to?

 

[SpineyNorman]

Can't we all just put rmp3 on ignore? Don't you know that you replying to his posts is why we can't have nice things - like a revolution?

 

[TremulousTetra]

Can't we all just put rmp3 on ignore? Don't you know that you replying to his posts is why we can't have nice things - like a revolution?

nice one mate.