comrade spurski
Well-Known Member
Nothing about them woukd surprise me tbh
i once had an acquaintanceship with a bloke who was a local at one of the pub's i used to frequent. When it was revealed that he had been sexually fiddling with a minor i remember feeling very shocked indeed. Subsequently i had to consider how to react towards him (following his release from prison). Later, when i bumped into him (in a pub) i used the moment to calmly say that i no longer wished to have any conversation with him on any basis, and that he should stay away from me, which he did. It was a hard and emotionally difficult thing to do, even though he was not what i regarded as a friend. But it was necessary for my own sense of decency.
i have it on good authority it would. if it ever gets out.Nothing about them woukd surprise me tbh
Yeah, I fear you're right.
Does the SWP resorting to threats of libel count as an example of "bending the stick", BTW? I've never been quite sure exactly what that expression refers to.
I hated that saying when I was in the swp.
It was used to excuse bullying behaviour...ie I was shouted at once over something ...and I told the person to talk politely or not at all (I may not have been as polite as that in all honesty) and was told they were bending the stick ... they never shouted at me again after I told them where to put their stick.
It's here - https://www.facebook.com/download/1512585099000058/PreConf Bulletin ii Oct 2014-2.pdf (I dont think you have to be a member of any fb group to grab it)
The bits I've read have been fairly dull. Nothing completely bonkers. Nothing insightful either.
Just done a quick search. There is a piece which is very critical of the majority of anarchists in the No to Nato grouping in Newport: apparently, they showed themselves to be "sectarian and ultra-left".does that IB thing have the slagging off of anarchists in it?
in around 1995 my mate signed his name on a bit of paper on a clip board at a demo...he didnt really look to see what it was but he was being supportive...turns out he gave his name and number to the SWP. He says that he was then assigned a worker who rang him up regularly asking him to come to meetings, help with this and that, and so on. After a few weeks of relentless calling he asked to be left alone. That was both of our introduction to the SWP. It might work with some people, but im not sure its such a great tactic.I was also struck by this from the CC: "We need to relentlessly follow-up contacts and new members". Sounds a bit ominous and WRPish to me.... new contacts and members beware!
that's the one!Just done a quick search. There is a piece which is very critical of the majority of anarchists in the No to Nato grouping in Newport: apparently, they showed themselves to be "sectarian and ultra-left".
the party is now said to have 5,868 members, down from 7,180 last year... recruitment from 2008-2012 is said to be at a rate of 1,000 a year and that (if true) would represent a pretty massive turnover of members, would it not?
Just received a copy of IB2. Unfortunately, I can't post a link as it was sent to me as an email attachment.
Haven't had time to read much of it, but was struck by the membership figures claimed: the party is now said to have 5,868 members, down from 7,180 last year. Can anyone seriously believe either figure? What's more, recruitment from 2008-2012 is said to be at a rate of 1,000 a year and that (if true) would represent a pretty massive turnover of members, would it not?
I was also struck by this from the CC: "We need to relentlessly follow-up contacts and new members". Sounds a bit ominous and WRPish to me.... new contacts and members beware!
Oopps that's Bullitin 1 not 2This stuff is awful...with a slightly changed language it is the spitting image of material churned out by the CPB, the NCP and others prior to their rallies; disappointing but unsurprising. I wouldn't normally respond to this sort of stuff but it is really depressing from one of the small but largest left organisations.
Cheers - Louis MacNeice
Oopps that's Bullitin 1 not 2
in around 1995 my mate signed his name on a bit of paper on a clip board at a demo...he didnt really look to see what it was but he was being supportive...turns out he gave his name and number to the SWP. He says that he was then assigned a worker who rang him up regularly asking him to come to meetings, help with this and that, and so on. After a few weeks of relentless calling he asked to be left alone. That was both of our introduction to the SWP. It might work with some people, but im not sure its such a great tactic.
Just received a copy of IB2. Unfortunately, I can't post a link as it was sent to me as an email attachment.
Haven't had time to read much of it, but was struck by the membership figures claimed: the party is now said to have 5,868 members, down from 7,180 last year. Can anyone seriously believe either figure? What's more, recruitment from 2008-2012 is said to be at a rate of 1,000 a year and that (if true) would represent a pretty massive turnover of members, would it not?
I was also struck by this from the CC: "We need to relentlessly follow-up contacts and new members". Sounds a bit ominous and WRPish to me.... new contacts and members beware!
Sometimes I think its an exaggeration and then I remember the time a postman I know signed an AWL petition and forgot about it until three weeks later Martin Thomas turned up on his doorstep several hours journey from central London while he was putting the kids to bed and stood outside in a rain storm asking him to take the paper and come to some demoI've always been slightly sceptical about one aspect of these stories - the "bit of paper signed". The SWP, even when they were notably bigger, younger and more active than today, have never had the numbers of people or degree of organisation it would require to systematically hassle everyone who signed, day, a petition. Even if they were stupid enough to think that was a good use of their time.
What they do try to do (and exhort each other to do in turgid internal bulletins) is "follow up" people who have signed a bit of paper indicating that they want to join the SWP. Which is quite a different thing.
the story of my (close) friend is completely true - no axe to grind, he remains someone detached from the organised left. He may have embelished the extent of the calls, but he definitely found it creepy and invasiveI've always been slightly sceptical about one aspect of these stories - the "bit of paper signed". The SWP, even when they were notably bigger, younger and more active than today, have never had the numbers of people or degree of organisation it would require to systematically hassle everyone who signed, day, a petition. Even if they were stupid enough to think that was a good use of their time.
What they do try to do (and exhort each other to do in turgid internal bulletins) is "follow up" people who have signed a bit of paper indicating that they want to join the SWP. Which is quite a different thing.
Sometimes I think its an exaggeration and then I remember the time a postman I know signed an AWL petition and forgot about it until three weeks later Martin Thomas turned up on his doorstep several hours journey from central London while he was putting the kids to bed and stood outside in a rain storm asking him to take the paper and come to some demo
ETA I remember during my brief dalliance with the Cliffites every branch meeting would see a list of names shoved round and divvied up for us to contact - these were names from petitions etc
the story of my (close) friend is completely true - no axe to grind, he remains someone detached from the organised left. He may have embelished the extent of the calls, but he definitely found it creepy and invasive
https://www.dropbox.com/s/tl1lypz4qo37ts4/PreConf Bulletin ii Oct 2014-2.pdf?dl=0You can upload the file to drop box then share the link to the file here.
https://www.dropbox.com/help/274
Fuck me are they still banging on about unite the resistance!