SWP expulsions and squabbles
- Thread starter Nigel Irritable
- Start date
frogwoman
No amount of cajolery...
where the fuck is the fuckin workers solidarity? where is the sense that there is more that we have in common that divides us? where is this? its so depressing.
sihhi if i was a victim of dv i'd want somewhere safe that i knew i would be safe from assault or an abusive partner i wouldn't give a shit about what race anyone was who was there. how can they think that's anyone's priority?
sihhi if i was a victim of dv i'd want somewhere safe that i knew i would be safe from assault or an abusive partner i wouldn't give a shit about what race anyone was who was there. how can they think that's anyone's priority?
sihhi
Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered
'I really need some condescension from straight white people telling me how good I am' - said no oppressed minority person ever.
Privileged people need to congratulate the oppressed at how good they are at identifying their oppression. Go think about what you're saying - in silence - without other white people to applaud you.
sihhi
Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered
Honky solidarity. Where were the whites when Africans were being carted around the world like cattle? Where were the European unions when the immigrants did the dirty work in Germany's nuclear reactors without protection and are now dying of cancer? How well did unions fight racism in this country? Well, when unions were strongest in 1919 and you had the triple alliance and potential revolution, black sailors were being killed by servicemen. Go figure.
The weaker honky unions get the more they pretend to be anti-racist. LOL! What a joke.
In fact, go weaponise your womanhood against your racism. Every time a man tries to grope your leg that's a fifth of what it's like being an immigrant (male or female, but mostly, female) all the time. You have zero lived experience. You can't know what it's like being ignored, condescended or ripped off by honky unions as a black woman.
It's to do with stuff like:
1 black women are more reluctant to involve the law and hence bureaucratically are denied access because there is no record of their sexual or domestic violence experience
2 immigrant children are perceived as more troublesome in shelters, which are mostly white-occupied, and in order not to disturb the neighbours not attract attention/fuss, are made to stay indoors when they would normally be outside.
3 white women will make immigrant women feel uncomfortable by asking them how long they stayed with their partner
The answer apparently is separation, not anti-racist and anti-bureaucratic struggle.
Black only shelters will solve these problems and encourage women to escape.
Tom A
Goat among sheep
I am as clueless as everyone to what's needed to build a genuinely grassroots left-wing organisation of the working class, but the same old rehashed Trotskyist ideas just won't cut the mustard. The Left is still as much in its own bubble as it ever was, speaking it its own jargon which is fine if you are part of a subculture, but not so fine and dandy when you claim to be speaking for the working class.
Tom A
Goat among sheep
Honky solidarity. Where were the whites when Africans were being carted around the world like cattle? Where were the European unions when the immigrants did the dirty work in Germany's nuclear reactors without protection and are now dying of cancer? How well did unions fight racism in this country? Well, when unions were strongest in 1919 and you had the triple alliance and potential revolution, black sailors were being killed by servicemen. Go figure.
The weaker honky unions get the more they pretend to be anti-racist. LOL! What a joke.
Remember, as a white person you are responsible for every crime that every white person has ever committed against people of colour (and don't bring up how "RAAAAAY-CYST!!!" it is when people of colour are accused of every crime their race commits, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS REVERSE RACISM, understand, honkey boy???) and need to express you eternal shame and apology for all the collective crimes of the white race, if you ever want to stand a chance of avoiding the wrath of the people of colour you still even today oppress, just by merely existing!
frogwoman
No amount of cajolery...
just on this point I've seen zionists recently go on about "gentile privilege", and taken to its logical conclusion yes the palestinians in the west bank or whatever are "oppressing" them. when youre in a the mindset of a thinking theres a race war or any other kind of war going on, and that what divides people is religion or race or ethnicity or sexuality or whatever, rather than class and the different economic circumstances within that class, with a point of view towards uniting people around a common goal rather than dividing them and pandering to separatism, it becomes easy for such language to become appropriated by the far-right of any type, in fact i would argue that this stuff is an absolute gift to the far-right, it accepts their perspective from an "anti-racist" point of view, it accepts that what divides people is race or religion rather than economic circumstances and what can bring them together is a struggle against "another race" whose "oppressing" them yes all of them.
i mean for fucks sake what do you call somebody who thinks its all right, not just understandable, not just excusable, but a good thing even, an empowering thing, to use racialised terms of abuse like honkey towards white people because "their race" is oppressed (ignoring class and gender differences etc within that "race")? its got to be a form of politics of the extreme right even if they don't realise it, and then you get to the whole point of deciding who's "white enough" to be accepted as part of that "race".
frogwoman
No amount of cajolery...
Honky solidarity. Where were the whites when Africans were being carted around the world like cattle? Where were the European unions when the immigrants did the dirty work in Germany's nuclear reactors without protection and are now dying of cancer? How well did unions fight racism in this country? Well, when unions were strongest in 1919 and you had the triple alliance and potential revolution, black sailors were being killed by servicemen. Go figure.
The weaker honky unions get the more they pretend to be anti-racist. LOL! What a joke.
In fact, go weaponise your womanhood against your racism. Every time a man tries to grope your leg that's a fifth of what it's like being an immigrant (male or female, but mostly, female) all the time. You have zero lived experience. You can't know what it's like being ignored, condescended or ripped off by honky unions as a black woman.
It's to do with stuff like:
1 black women are more reluctant to involve the law and hence bureaucratically are denied access because there is no record of their sexual or domestic violence experience
2 immigrant children are perceived as more troublesome in shelters, which are mostly white-occupied, and in order not to disturb the neighbours not attract attention/fuss, are made to stay indoors when they would normally be outside.
3 white women will make immigrant women feel uncomfortable by asking them how long they stayed with their partner
The answer apparently is separation, not anti-racist and anti-bureaucratic struggle.
Black only shelters will solve these problems and encourage women to escape.
I am sure that a white woman percieved as being from a "troublesome" family with "unruly" kids, someone with a certain type of accent, a certain type of dress, a certain manner of speaking etc, would be viewed by some with a similar amount of suspicion.
Honestly if i had left my home after being raped, etc, having to stay in the same premises with people other races and religions wouldnt be my highest priority. While i think that having someone from for example, a similar religious community, to talk to and relate to, in those situations can be a positive thing, for example people from strict religious backgrounds (doesnt have to be minority religions either) may find it helpful to talk to someone from that religion who understands what they are going through, or gays and lesbians who have faced domestic violence, or men who have faced domestic violence, would probably find it really useful to talk to someone in the exact same position, I dont thin that the aim should be separatism or a political ideology, but helping the victims to get back on their feet again and provide a non judgemental area, and that means not trying to fit everything around a set of beliefs about race etc.
I think there is a place for for example services for someone whose english say is very limited, or comes from a really religious background at the risk of being completely disowned etc, and make them see that in that religion leaving their partner (it is usually the man but it could be the woman as well) isn't necessarily a sin against god, but i dont think these services should be emphasising difference but what they have in common if you see what I mean, the immediate priority should be to keep the victim safe rather than foisting their views on them. At the end of the day victims of DV and rape and sexual assault are not all the same but they face some of the same challenges, being disbelieved, a feeling of shame, financial issues, issues around safeguarding the children etc, regardless of where they're from or what their background is.
muscovyduck
Good IT skills and food hygiene competent
You know what needs to happen? It's needs to start small, and naturally get bigger over time. It can't just be a massive LOOK AT US campaign. Its main motive can't be growing. It would have to just help with making the world a better place, and spend time trying to fix things rather than spend time trying to grow and collect money. It'd have to be sustainable in the long term (with its politics mainly) with the numbers it has. It'd have to be patient, and the group would not mind about not getting its name out everywhere. At the same time, however, it couldn't just let Labour or the SWP hijack their work. It couldn't compromise politics at any point along the route - and it wouldn't have to, if the main motives in every situation is the politics and not growth.
sihhi
Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered
It's not the mother that's necessarily the issue it's the black children that invite the attention of the police when they are outside. Though why this would be better if it was all black is not wholly clear, perhaps police would know 'Aha that's the black women's shelter' and would be more honest when there are more black people and not just a few to victimise or pick on.
Again white tears from you frogwoman check yr white privilege and check your family's too. It's not our responsibility to educate white families.
According to intersectionality because whites have no lived experience of black existence, the area where they are a majority - whether they like it or not - will, since they are "shitty human beings", be judgemental towards non-whites. And because
If they live together the entitled white domestic violence survivors and workers/visiting counsellors will simply demand to know why the poor Asians didn't leave earlier, why their culture is so backward etc.
If their religion is that strong the minority women will simply not say anything or leave believing it to be a test or trial from god or fate. 'The fate of women' as many variations of Asian proverbs go. The theory is an all-Sikh (or whatever) shelter will ensure that Sikh women will be able to go there easily. However if the movement was at the stage of being able to impose so many shelters, it would also be able to ensure that the Asian women also received adult education and were strong and economically independent enough to resist coerced betrothals.
The question becomes how do you locate all the various shelters for all the various minorities. Just because you have a series of Sikh shelters in Southall and Harrow, doesn't mean Sikhs from elsewhere in more isolated (in race/ethnic terms) spots where DV is arguably more likely to occur will have easy access feel confident about taking action.
There's the problem of practicalities and extent. If you have an all Sikh one, an all Hindi, an all Bengali one, an all Urdu one then the various African groupings not to mention the 'whites' (Iranians, Turks and Lebanese might object) can complain and also demand their own facilities. It's OK, but it means that arguments for separation become harder to resist in other areas e.g. old age care and education - where there is already some separation in certain ways and places.
It might also build up a backlash in rural areas or virtually all-white areas, assuming there is a movement to impose these shelters in the first place.
In general, I think most working-class immigrant groups are in favour of domestic violence telephone lines in every single language advertised as widely as possible but mixed provision with people aware of each other's languages/genders/cultures etc.
A wider problem is the home culture of immigrants take the new southern Chinese people working in and around eastern London. China the biggest country on earth still has no laws against rape within a marriage. In those circumstances the victim accepts the rape - it's not even a case of 'I want to leave, but where can I go, how will I survive, who will look after the children', it's just horrific steady brutalisation. Areas of rural eastern Turkey similarly were places beyond the reach of bourgeois law for all its ills and operated under clan chief rule ie women marry and stay married until their husband dies that's it, everyone farms for the chief landowner, any surplus you sell once a fortnight or a month. So if you grow up in this culture and then come back to Britain with your betrothed partner, speaking no English, limited usually primary school only education, either you're facing a lottery based on what your husband is like.
discokermit
Well-Known Member
no way! a student magazine, by students, for students, turns out to be a bit shit! whodafuckinthunkit.
discokermit
Well-Known Member
'kinnell! muscovyduck is on page two!
fair play.
fair play.
cesare
shady's dreams ♥
Tom A
Goat among sheep
So not the Greens then.
Otherwise, I fully agree that there needs to be more action, and less words.
muscovyduck
Good IT skills and food hygiene competent
I was here before but I was lurking without an account.
I thought I'd go through and re-read it because I feel like I've learnt a lot since then and I'd see it all in a different way. Alas, I cba.
muscovyduck
Good IT skills and food hygiene competent
I haven't paid much attention to the Greens if I'm honest, I've always known of them being a small party (even when I was quite young) but recently I've just assumed they're not all that. Last time I was in Brighton there was a massive motorbike rally - that wasn't very green of them. I've also heard of them being anti-windfarm etc when it suits. I doubt I've ever heard the whole story but what with there not being a massive influx of members from the left vacuum, I just assume they're doomed to be a wishy-washy party for environmentalists in the same way Labour is for the working class.
I'm probably wrong. Anyway, my question is, why have you bolded that last bit? Is it because the Greens have compromised their politics more than expected?
Tom A
Goat among sheep
Well in Brighton they became part of a minority government in the local council last year, and then soon after decided to push forward a cuts budget, fobbing off the critics with the excuse that central government would have intervened if they didn't. Then, more recently, they are trying to push forward at £4000 pay cut for their binmen. This has lead to an interesting development, where Caroline Lucas and a lot of rank-and-filers are protesting against their own party, but then we all know how effective the Labour left have been when it comes to promoting their politics within their party.
However, it can now be said that the Greens have sold out their electorate, just like their counterparts did in Ireland and Germany.
Well in the past I used to support the Greens, thinking of them as a breath of fresh air compared with the tired old rhetoric and ideology exposed by the vast majority of the left-of-Labour socialist organisations. However, with the Brighton betrayal (something I was worried would happen since voting Lib Dem in 2010 (I had an incumbent MP who seemed decent enough) and then watching on with horror at what I had voted for) I now realised that a lot of the critics were right all along, regarding the middle-class nature of their membership base and the absence of any class analysis to the problems.
muscovyduck
Good IT skills and food hygiene competent
Yep, that's what I suspected. If I'd been a couple of years older I'd have probably joined the Lib Dems and gone from there to the Greens and/or Occupy. I suspect most parties would end up how Labour and the Greens have if they ever got anywhere.
Not compromising politics and not riding every bandwagon seems to count as sectarianism to some people. Build a solid base around shared beliefs, politics, and democracy, don't poach people from other groups, do give your own members information on other groups in case they think they're suited to something else, no using complicated words for the sake of it, etc. That's probably the only way it'll work out for the best. Shakey alliances are doomed to fail.
Edit: That last bit followed on from my original point. Irrelevant to what we've ended up talking about but it's something I've never had the time to articulate before and I don't know where else to write it.
muscovyduck
Good IT skills and food hygiene competent
Well Occupy flared up when I had a lot of time off school due to ill health, which was also around the same time that I had taken some sort of control over my life. Reading into it (Which I suddenly had the time to do), I decided to follow some politics related Twitter accounts and take more interest in it. This lead to me actually getting involved with politics. It appealed to me because it didn't just go away after a 30 second interview on the BBC. It wasn't just for middle aged men and women. It seemed active and cool and glamorous and it appealed to my 15 year old self - there was a way in to 'activism' and I wasn't always going to be excluded for being younger and not in the know.
Even now, as I know of its flaws and how it destroyed itself, I'm still reluctant to admit it won't flare up again. Some other good movements came out of it which have stayed around, and this encourages me to think that even if a group is doomed, something else might grow out of it.
Tom A
Goat among sheep
I got excited when Occupy Wall Street first started, and seeing it spread to the UK, first to London, and then to other cities, including my own, Manchester. However its self-destruction has left me rather jaded, particularly since I know several people with first hand experience of fuckwittery, particularly in Manchester with its deficiency of democracy and it subsequently being overrun by wet liberals, conspiracy theorists, and freemen types. I do admit, however, this could also be said of a lot of other Occupy sites, particularly in the UK - The Occupy movement in the States, whilst not 100% without problems by any means, managed to keep its act together for longer.
The best we can hope for is all those whom wanted something good to come from it learn from the mistakes which lead to Occupy's downfall, and build on those experiences to build a more viable, democratic and effective movement.
frogwoman
No amount of cajolery...
good post.
frogwoman
No amount of cajolery...
I think separatism in terms of domestic violence provision etc can be a real problem. In the USA and to some extent in the UK in orthodox jewish communities there has been a problem with highly respected people within the community deliberately exaggerating the extent of anti-semitism in the outside world in an attempt to dissuade people from going to the police or social services, victims who have gone to the police have been absolutely vilified, their families threatened etc. basically for daring to disclose abuse and question the authority of these "religious leaders".
I know it is the same in the catholic church as well, everything dealt with in house. Imagine if you had separate facilities just for catholics, well you'd be back to where we started in the 50s wouldn't you.
The interests of the people who have been victims of domestic violence should be paramount not the interests of identity groups.
sihhi
Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered
I get what you are saying along the lines of this:
The argument from those demanding separate services is along the lines of the progressives from those communities lead the domestic violence shelters so there is no threat from reactionary religious or communal pressure.
Overall we don't have enough free access general domestic violence shelters anyway for the working-class as a whole white or non-white. In 1975-6, just after the introduction of the equality acts, the Select Committee on Domestic Violence, in response to about a decade of organisation and a high point of demanding public services by trade union action and feminist protests, concluded iirc the government should aim for one family space for every 10,000 block of people as a reasonable target.
Over 35 years on, in Scotland the number of refuge/shelter spaces stands at one family space per 14,000 people, only partly mitigated by the Callaghan and Thatcher fudge of giving women who have experienced domestic violence 'priority' in housing assessments/applications as priority homeless people. What it means is that victims of dv lose out on any collective experience of overcoming the post-violence psychological problems, and are placed with ex-prisoner homeless people ex-drug addicts in anti-homeless B&Bs.
Nigel Irritable
Five, Ten, Fifteen Years
Internal Oppositional Blog appears (well, allegedly):
http://the-faultlines.blogspot.co.uk/
http://the-faultlines.blogspot.co.uk/
Similar threads
