Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

SWP expulsions and squabbles

And a oxbridge lad went straight to top table at such a young age and after such short membership. This i find hard to believe.
Shocking isn't it.

Jo C was similar but I quite like him. He even had a proper job for a couple of months at one point.
 
None entirely convincing, but none less convincing than applying the term "capitalism" to mean "anything we don't like". But that's for another thread.

Yes, true - that's normally what's done with the term "liberal". Believe in womens' rights, free speech, racial equality, equality of opportunity? Liberal cunt.
 
If that is your understanding of the theory nigel, then the education within the SP and the SP(I) is even worse than I thought!
This isn't the right thread of course as NI says but that's a cracking comment belboid, bang on the money. Just the sort of crass description of state cap that the Millies used to feed their younger members. Anyway enough of this it's indulgent of us all!
 
If that is your understanding of the theory nigel, then the education within the SP and the SP(I) is even worse than I thought!

No, I'm quite familiar with Cliff's "theory", and its revisions, and a number of other "state capitalist" theories, some predating his, and find none of them even slightly convincing. Trotsky, Shachtman, Ticktin, etc have all produced theoretical frameworks with more explanatory power. However, while I broadly lean towards Trotsky's view, as expanded into "Proletarian Bonapartism", I don't find any of the main theories entirely convincing on every issue and aspect, and tend to agree with Jim Higgins' observation that all of the various "theories" of Stalinism have generally been better at pointing out the flaws in other theories than they have at providing their own unassailable accounts.

I've always found that the mark of the very stupidest SWP members has been a conviction that "State Capitalism" has provided their organisation with the secret keys to the universe. It's almost always accompanied by a broad ignorance of the detail of Cliff's (contradictory) theories and a near total ignorance of any other theory.

But as I've said above, this is really something for another thread as it's the kind of classic set piece argument that could go on for thirty pages here with nobody changing their minds.
 
That's terribly undialectical of you fella I'm sure John would say. The implosion is a process, only a hopeless empiricist would take the lack of an implosion so far as evidence of no impending implosion.

You're getting a bit Zhou Enlai and the French Revolution here. He's talking about the Italian left "implosion" of the 70s.
 
Someone who was on the CC just a year ago is a pretty big "scalp" for Counterfire. But he clearly hasn't brought a group with him or they'd be advertising the fact.

I note also that a certain SWP-sympathising academic's insistence on calling Rees and German "Lord and Lady MacBeth" on Facebook seems to drive the Counterfire people absolutely nuts.
 
No, I'm quite familiar with Cliff's "theory", and its revisions, and a number of other "state capitalist" theories, some predating his, and find none of them even slightly convincing. Trotsky, Shachtman, Ticktin, etc have all produced theoretical frameworks with more explanatory power. However, while I broadly lean towards Trotsky's view, as expanded into "Proletarian Bonapartism", I don't find any of the main theories entirely convincing on every issue and aspect, and tend to agree with Jim Higgins' observation that all of the various "theories" of Stalinism have generally been better at pointing out the flaws in other theories than they have at providing their own unassailable accounts.

I've always found that the mark of the very stupidest SWP members has been a conviction that "State Capitalism" has provided their organisation with the secret keys to the universe. It's almost always accompanied by a broad ignorance of the detail of Cliff's (contradictory) theories and a near total ignorance of any other theory.

But as I've said above, this is really something for another thread as it's the kind of classic set piece argument that could go on for thirty pages here with nobody changing their minds.
none of which is really consistent with what you said before, but, yeah, another time, another thread.
 
none of which is really consistent with what you said before, but, yeah, another time, another thread.

I just started a response to this explaining precisely why it's consistent, and then had to restrain myself. It's one of those topics that exercises a kind of magnetic pull towards endless polemical exchanges. Even now that it doesn't really fucking matter very much.
 
Back
Top Bottom