SWP expulsions and squabbles

[Spanky Longhorn]

Rhettabots proletarians in disguise

 

[Karmickameleon]

I knew her. She was a good friend to me and someone I admired - she was doing a phd raising a young child while being as politically active as she could manage. Doing a phd was not thought of (by others I recognise as loyalists) as being in the best interests of the swp at the time because it meant she wasn't so active. I have never thought of her as out there but it is nearly 20 yrs ago when I lived in Manchester. Her phd, for instance, is not written in the style of the proletarian standpoint.

 

[Karmickameleon]

Others have changed for the worse, John Molyneux being the not-so-shining example.

 

[discokermit]

how can an academic think that?

 

[butchersapron]

how can an academic think that?

Democratic centralism explicitly says this. I adhere to democratic centralism. It's easy.

 

[barney_pig]

I knew her. She was a good friend to me and someone I admired - she was doing a phd raising a young child while being as politically active as she could manage. Doing a phd was not thought of (by others I recognise as loyalists) as being in the best interests of the swp at the time because it meant she wasn't so active. I have never thought of her as out there but it is nearly 20 yrs ago when I lived in Manchester. Her phd, for instance, is not written in the style of the proletarian standpoint.

There seems to be some anti phd attitude from some of the comments in the IBs

 

[Red Cat]

It actually makes it more sad if she wasn't always a nut sandwich.

We all encounter different parts of people. I can be mad but I'm not most of the time.

 

[butchersapron]

We all encounter different parts of people. I can be mad but I'm not most of the time.

Let's not pathologise her contribution - but they left that in and removed others. And the person who wrote that went into the DC with idea of themselves and their capabilities. We're looking back but she openly says that whatever she decides it true is true.

 

[Red Cat]

Did you mean to say something?

ETA: That was at Karmickameleon

 

[discokermit]

Democratic centralism explicitly says this. I adhere to democratic centralism. It's easy.

i'm starting to get wary of that phrase since it seems to mean everything to everybody. it's certainly true of the version of democratic centralism shown here, which is weighted a lot more in favour of centralism.

 

[butchersapron]

Did you mean to say something?

I did. They removed/edited other contributions but they left hers entire. You said

"We all encounter different parts of people."

This contribution meant something. Who did other people meet on the DC - when she was judging? She made clear her views are political - who are we to say that they are the because of some mental illness.

 

[Red Cat]

Let's not pathologise her contribution - but they left that in and removed others. And the person who wrote that went into the DC with idea of themselves and their capabilities. We're looking back but she openly says that whatever she decides it true is true.

I don't think looking back is very relevant but I answered the question because to not do so feels like leaving out aspects of people's experience of her, of the SWP, and as such I think it oversimplifies matters. Look at the nutters isn't any kind of analysis really.

 

[butchersapron]

Or better still, a party that tells you that you are the expression of the proletarian viewpoint, having leading members that believe that bollocks.

 

[butchersapron]

I don't think looking back is very relevant but I answered the question because to not do so feels like leaving out aspects of people's experience of her, of the SWP, and as such I think it oversimplifies matters. Look at the nutters isn't any kind of analysis really.

I said the exact opposite.

 

[Red Cat]

I said the exact opposite.

The exact opposite of what? That looking back is irrelevant?

I think my perspective of 20 years ago isn't very important.

But I'm guessing I'm missing your point.

 

[Red Cat]

I did. They removed/edited other contributions but they left hers entire. You said

"We all encounter different parts of people."

This contribution meant something. Who did other people meet on the DC - when she was judging? She made clear her views are political - who are we to say that they are the because of some mental illness.

btw my post was at Karmickameleon who quoted mine but didn't comment.

 

[Red Cat]

The exact opposite of what? That looking back is irrelevant?

I think my perspective of 20 years ago isn't very important.

But I'm guessing I'm missing your point.

ETA: you're saying the opposite of look at the nutters? I didn't think you were saying look at the nutters. But some people do.

 

[butchersapron]

I think there some confusion here.

It's all gone wrong!

 

[Red Cat]

Are you feeling mad?

 

[Spanky Longhorn]

I think there some confusion here.

It's all gone wrong!

Not a few Swappies saying that right now I imagine

 

[Red Cat]

You're saying that leaving in Rhetta's contribution is a political act that reflects the view of the leadership? That to pathologise it minimises the political significance.

 

[butchersapron]

You're saying that leaving in Rhetta's contribution is a political act that reflects the view of the leadership? That to pathologise it minimises the political significance.

Yes.

 

[Karmickameleon]

I don't think looking back is very relevant but I answered the question because to not do so feels like leaving out aspects of people's experience of her, of the SWP, and as such I think it oversimplifies matters. Look at the nutters isn't any kind of analysis really.

You were absolutely right to mention your experience of Rhetta.
But as I said in an early post, politically speaking some have changed for the worse (eg Molyneux) and others for the better (eg Birchall). On a personal level, and for all I know, Rhetta might be a very nice person, but the position that she enunciates is frightening coming from someone who was sitting on the DC ie that she can "perceive and act upon" the accused comrade's actions "from the point of view of what is in the interests of the proletariat" (read: in the interests of the party!).
Is the inclusion of her piece a statement of intent from the CC? I wouldn't put anything past them, but I would suspect that it reflects the views some others on the DC and more widely in the SWP. I seem to remember Nick G slagging of Rosen on Facebook for daring to bring into question a council house boy like Delta..

 

[butchersapron]

It's terrifying. But it's the party writ small. There is no other way for the party. They have spent millions of words and 5 decades cutting to the chase. That drivel is the IS tradition when confronted with reality. We know better because we know better. Now, fuck off.

 

[Red Cat]

Rhetta might be a very nice person, but the position that she enunciates is frightening coming from someone who was sitting on the DC ie that she can "perceive and act upon" the accused comrade's actions "from the point of view of what is in the interests of the proletariat" (read: in the interests of the party!).

Sure. I didn't intend to suggest otherwise.

 

[Red Cat]

It's terrifying. But it's the party writ small. There is no other way for the party. They have spent millions of words and 5 decades cutting to the chase. That drivel is the IS tradition when confronted with reality. We know better because we know better. Now, fuck off.

Is there a tradition that doesn't know better?

 

[butchersapron]

No. Actually yes. All non-leninist traditions.

 

[Karmickameleon]

It's terrifying. But it's the party writ small. There is no other way for the party. They have spent millions of words and 5 decades cutting to the chase. That drivel is the IS tradition when confronted with reality. We know better because we know better. Now, fuck off.

There's a lot more to the IS/SWP tradition than that: witness the 30-40% of the membership who support the opposition. But there's no way that I'm going to convince you on this question.

 

[Karmickameleon]

No. Actually yes. All non-leninist traditions.

New Labour?

 

[butchersapron]

There's a lot more to the IS/SWP tradition than that: witness the 30-40% of the membership who support the opposition. But there's no way that I'm going to convince you on this question.

There's the nice serge openness and that cuts out industrial workers at cliffs whim - but no, this is not a fight i care about tonight