J Ed
Follow Back Pro Expropriation
When stupidities intersect...
SWP expulsions and squabbles
- Thread starter Nigel Irritable
- Start date
When stupidities intersect...
Idris2002
canadian girlfriend
The stupid turn pro.
barney_pig
Po-cha-na-quar-hip
They've spent decades inside a foul and degenerate party structure, and then when they finally left remained within their own small circle of self congratulation. The same denounciation and dismissal and twisting of the arguments into caricatures of reality in order to prove they are right, to themselves if nobody else.
Badsexbhoy will be cockahoop, but just because a large section of former swp members are proved to be tossers, doesn't prove the rest aren't even bigger tossers.
Badsexbhoy will be cockahoop, but just because a large section of former swp members are proved to be tossers, doesn't prove the rest aren't even bigger tossers.
Nigel Irritable
Five, Ten, Fifteen Years
You say that like it's a bad thing to anathemise the AWL.
bolshiebhoy
socialism leinster drink
My oh my. Well the heart says rejoice in his discomfort but the head says fair dues to him for calling the 'mansplaining', 'whitesplaining', 'cracker' shit out even partially. The interesting thing is how he's moved so far in the direction of reformism that he doesn't feel the need to be embarrassed by them: "it makes no difference to my well being whether some British Trots take a dim view.." Yeah he's done with revolutionary politics and what he probably sees as it's overly shrill representatives. Fair enough. The depressing thing to me at least is that some of those laying into him are among the most recent resigners from the swp. It doesn't bode well for them not ending up like the isn to be honest. In fairness the writing was on the wall. I first came across this stupid cracker shit and the use of mansplaining to shut other male socialists up when 'debating' issues with some iso heavy hitters on fb. And it is their brand of politics that many in the opposition look to. Shrill identity politics is just the down and dirty expression of Abbie Bakan's academic attacks on 'Communist Urgent Man' and 'Anarchist Action Man'. Load of unmarxist bollox if you ask me but I'm probably just Sectarian 80's Man.
Nigel Irritable
Five, Ten, Fifteen Years
It would more accurately be described as a persistent urban myth, I suspect.
Nigel Irritable
Five, Ten, Fifteen Years
Speaking of the AWL, it seems that their vigorous response to the Weekly Worker's article on their hypocrisy last week may not have been entirely accurate in all material respects. Who would have guessed?
This week, the CPGB provide some rather embarrassing details of AWL internal emails, detailing their relationship with an individual who is alleged to have carried out drunken sexual assaults at leftist events:
http://cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-worker/994/the-forgotten-ally-and-friend
This week, the CPGB provide some rather embarrassing details of AWL internal emails, detailing their relationship with an individual who is alleged to have carried out drunken sexual assaults at leftist events:
http://cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-worker/994/the-forgotten-ally-and-friend
What is your explanation for women's oppression?
More importantly the ISN is in tatters.
Internalisation of social relations is surely political but that's not the same as saying that process can or ought to be policed.
SpineyNorman
Inappropriate content removed
A fair point, though I suppose there was hardly a risk-free option open to him at that time, given that Deltagate was always gonna come out at some point or another and anyone with any kind of foresight must have been able to see that those who took part in, ignored or cooperated with the cover-up was likely to find themselves in the shit. He did choose the right risk to take though to be fair.
SpineyNorman
Inappropriate content removed
The author of that piece writes like a wanker - why does he put scare quotes around 'domestic violence'? Just makes him look like a tosser - I guess we shouldn't be surprised by that but you watch the aggressive warmongering labourites focus on that to the exclusion of the substance of the piece.
comrade spurski
Well-Known Member
My only point is that if consenting adults willingly take part in any sexual fantasy game why has this turned into a political row?
I understand the point of sexual relationships/instutions (such as marriage) are political but the row seems like having a view on what sexual position someone prefers.
You don't think sexual position is political? So when women didn't have choice in position and were forced into a position (missionary) in which it's much harder to orgasm that wasn't political?
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
someone in the CPGB write like a wanker? Never!
comrade spurski
Well-Known Member
Sorry but I did say "willing and consenting"...please don't take anything negative from what I'm saying as I am not dismissing or supporting any kind of shitty sexist or abusive behaviour
revol68
what, fucking what?
The political aspect is "forced into" and the power dynamics that reproduced it. How two equal and consenting adults choose to bang is of no great political significance, trying to make it so tends to lead to reactionary moralising. A curtain twitcher is a curtain twitcher whether they are of the left or the right.
It doesn't have to. I did say that understanding something as political is not the same as saying it ought to be policed. It doesn't even have to be thought of as good or bad, it can just be, and be thought about.
How do you know when two adults are equal?
I don't think you are saying anything sexist or abusive, I'm just questioning your view of political. Willing and consenting for me has to be examined in context. I'm sure plenty of women consented to lying on their backs to have sex just as women consent to, expect to, lie on their backs during labour, which has to be the most painful position you could adopt to help a baby out of your body.
comrade spurski
Well-Known Member
I'm sorry but when you typed
"So when women didn't have choice in position and were forced into a position (missionary) in which it's much harder to orgasm that wasn't political?"
it read to me like you were implying that I didn't care about women being forced or not having a choice.
Fair enough to question my view of political ... I do not know how to make it clearer about choice...it is different from expectation or coercion but I am obviously being unclear so will stop
Last edited:
revol68
what, fucking what?
On a societal level you can politically tackle inequalities but on an individual level well you generally have to take people on their word that they are happy and consenting, especially when you know fuck all about them personally but making judgments from a distance. Friends and family of course may well be in a position to see things differently but even then most people tend to navigate things very subtly on a personal level instead of taking to the twitter to tell them they are racist/sexist stooges, self hating this or that etc
An inability to distinguish between the personal and the political at any level leads to a very patronising policing of peoples lives. A model of false consciousness so totalitarian you can't have as much as a wank without worrying if you are reproducing oppression, a kind of political catholicism.
I mean by all means write articles telling women that hey, you know there is other ways than missionary, I mean it's not 1950 anymore and you might get laughed at and called a patronising dickhead but it's not the same as telling women that if they do missionary they are reinforcing their own oppression.
Last edited:
No, I wasn't implying that.
Look, I don't agree with you about choice, but I don't have the answers, I'm not interested in being right, I just want to think about things.
andysays
Love and solidarity
I think there is sometimes an assumption among what we might call "lifestyle radicals" that any and all non-conventional sexual activity is in some way transgressive and therefore politically anti-status quo.
There also appears to be a belief that this non-conventional sexuality is somehow priviledged "above" politics, that those who embrace it are able to do so without any of the political issues of exploitation or oppression from "normal" people's lives interfering.
Personally, I think it's at least worth exploring whether the wish, or in some cases apparently the need, to act out exploitation and/or oppression within one's sexual activity might be related in some conscious or subconscious way to one's attitudes to their manifestation in the real or wider world, but there sometimes seems to be a suggestion than even to pose this question is to seek to stifle the free expression of someone's sexuality.
I didn't argue any of that though, that is your own extrapolation.
revol68
what, fucking what?
You asked how can we know two adults in a sexual relationship are equal, I gave you an answer.
comrade spurski
Well-Known Member
with all due respect surely I can say the same of your responses to my posts...I didn't argue any of what you did...it was your own extrapolation
Really?
What political position that you didn't express did I extrapolate? I said that I thought certain things like consent and choice take place in a context. I said that sexual position is, or has been, or can be political. I didn't give you views you don't hold did I?
Similar threads
