SWP: Mother of all splits looms?

[treelover]

Respect clearly reached a muslim layer who were mostly ex Labour and many of who were working class

Aaagh, there's that term again! imo, it is patronising and very deterministic.

btw, welcome back Poster

 

[audiotech]

And how many people were telling your lot exactly that at the time - only to be screached at with cries of "islamophopbe! sectarian!" etc?

It's all too little, too late. The damage is done. Time this entire outfit exited the political scene.

If you ever entered the 'political scene' it would be both remarkable and disturbing for all concerned.

 

[articul8]

I don't agree with 1) of course - Respect clearly reached a muslim layer who were mostly ex Labour and many of who were working class. It never relied on the notables as was most strongly evidenced most obviously by Lavalette's re-election in 2007 where he won majority support from white voters who were not influenced by muslim 'notables' one bit..

Well ISG fellow travellers in Respect Rump would say that.

reality somewhat different (and I remember from personal experience):
Anyway from a direct quote:

So we had been working very closely with the imam and he has become more political. At the meeting when I was nominated he made a fantastically good speech about support for justice, equality and how in his interpretation these values were central to islam

It was incredibly important that a young imam should speak like that.So there was this combination: the socialist activists; anti-war, anti-imperialist people who had broken from Labour and came over to the SA during the campaign; and the access to the wider community which was afforded us by the imam.

ie. not because of class arguments, but because the patronage of the local imam delivered "access".

 

[TremulousTetra]

Some of us do,(well a bit) if the SWP had behaved differently during the Iraq war and its colonisation of the Stop the War coalition, wer may now have a genuine and effective mass movement in the UK

oh fuckoff brian.

 

[TremulousTetra]

Now, your putting words in my mouth, but that's not unusual for you.

leave poor old Napoleon, he has A inferiority complex you know.

 

[TremulousTetra]

Well ISG fellow travellers in Respect Rump would say that.

reality somewhat different (and I remember from personal experience):
Anyway from a direct quote:


ie. not because of class arguments, but because the patronage of the local imam delivered "access".

how are justice and equality not class arguements?

 

[articul8]

"justice" and "equality" aren't arguments in themselves - they are values, ideals that might be given a liberal spin, a christian spin, a republican spin, a socialist spin, an anarchist spin etc.

It's clear from the quote that the imam is putting a case for their centrality to islam and appealing for support on that basis, rather than on a class basis. ML clearly welcomes this approach is necessary to win "access" to the community.

 

[TremulousTetra]

"justice" and "equality" aren't arguments in themselves - they are values, ideals that might be given a liberal spin, a christian spin, a republican spin, a socialist spin, an anarchist spin etc.

It's clear from the quote that the imam is putting a case for their centrality to islam and appealing for support on that basis, rather than on a class basis. ML clearly welcomes this approach is necessary to win "access" to the community.

I see what you're saying now, you are upset because the imam isn't it giving a class/Marxist argument for for justice and equality, "the imam is putting a case for their centrality to islam and appealing for support on that basis". You are seriously one stupid fuck! In the real world, would you seriously expect a imam, priest, Rev. etc. to support justice and equality on any other basis? Surely not even you can be that stupid?

Now there is something else that is implicit in the actions and word of the imam. He is basing his support for justice and equality on Islam, BUT he is acknowledging they are the common goals of, and is calling his followers to unite with, athiest socialists in pursuit of those common goals, is he not? He is prepared to put his differences aside and unite with athiest socialist in pursuit of the common goals, are you saying athiest socialist should not be prepared to do the same?

Lastly, you were wrong about justice and equality. they are class arguements, just like every other political argument is a class arguement. Philosophers, republicans, Christians, etc. may pontificate about justice and equality, but the point for revolutionaries is not to pontificate about the world, but to change it. You can only do this with a class analysis. And it is this knowledge which gives Marxist confidence that people's ideas change in struggle. In the struggle they HAVE TO come to the TRUTH about the centrality of class analysis in achieving their goals, or fail. The important thing is to facilitate struggle, not demand a imam talks like a Marxist.

 

[articul8]

The important thing is to facilitate struggle, not demand a imam talks like a Marxist.

Youv'e not got it at all - my problem with the idea is that the left gets "access" to a section of the working class by limiting the terms of its analysis to that of a religious leader. I remember meeting of the local STWC that where a girl felt she had to apologise for wearing a skirt and make-up, becuase the whole set up felt like some religious assembly.

If that's your idea of "facilitating struggle", it's certainly not mine.

edit - and the way that revs, holy fr.s, imams and whatever else talk about equality and justice is generally a means of concealing political differences not exposing them. Yes, there can occur historical exceptions but in the course of mass pressure to shift consciousness to the left, not tailing it for "access" to the lower orders.

 

[barney_pig]

surely the real way of getting through to imams and reverends is to demand that they scream like stuck pigs when they are nailed to trees

 

[TremulousTetra]

Youv'e not got it at all - my problem with the idea is that the left gets "access" to a section of the working class by limiting the terms of its analysis to that of a religious leader. I remember meeting of the local STWC that where a girl felt she had to apologise for wearing a skirt and make-up, becuase the whole set up felt like some religious assembly.

If that's your idea of "facilitating struggle", it's certainly not mine.

bollocks! I have absolutely nailed you.

You haven't answered any of the questions, because answering them would highlight what sectarian idiot UR.

BTW, I remember being in meetings where I had to listen to stupid sectarian tosspots like you, who couldn't facilitate struggle in the midst of a social revolution.

edit - and the way that revs, holy fr.s, imams and whatever else talk about equality and justice is generally a means of concealing political differences not exposing them. Jesus - ABCs!

U1 dimensional fucking dickhead. yes, liberation theology, the role of the catholic church in a fall of the Russian empire ussr, etc. etc. Were merely concealing tactics.

 

[articul8]

the reactionary, misogynistic mood of supposedly 'radical' meetings not bother you then, as long as no "sectarian" spoils the party?

U1 dimensional fucking dickhead. yes, liberation theology, the role of the catholic church in a fall of the Russian empire ussr, etc. etc. Were merely concealing tactics.

I said they "generally" - ie. in the general course of events, conceal class struggle ("the opium of the people remember?") - of course they can play a counter-revolutionary role as well on occasion! Yes, at rare times they can find themselves forced into adopting more radical sounding positions - but even then should a marxist be "tailing" the consciousness of priests, or at the forefront of mass struggle?

edit - as for all your "common goals" - "justice" and "equality" on the lips of religious clerics are empty ciphers, not concretely shared objectives. If we water the meanings of these words down to LCD wishy-washy niceness, they become practically useless. I don't want people to unite - tactically, temporarily - with the left on the basis of a liberal political analysis, whilst retaining all the time the primacy of a religious identity. I want to build an enduring sense of class solidarity between people of different faiths, such that the jibberings from the church, mosque or synagogue become less important than the bonds between brothers and sisters in struggle.

 

[TremulousTetra]

the reactionary, misogynistic mood of supposedly 'radical' meetings not bother you then, as long as no "sectarian" spoils the party?


I said they "generally" - ie. in the general course of events, conceal class struggle ("the opium of the people remember?") - of course they can play a counter-revolutionary role as well on occasion! Yes, at rare times they can find themselves forced into adopting more radical sounding positions - but even then should a marxist be "tailing" the consciousness of priests, or at the forefront of mass struggle?

edit - as for all your "common goals" - "justice" and "equality" on the lips of religious clerics are empty ciphers, not concretely shared objectives. If we water the meanings of these words down to LCD wishy-washy niceness, they become practically useless. I don't want people to unite - tactically, temporarily - with the left on the basis of a liberal political analysis, whilst retaining all the time the primacy of a religious identity. I want to build an enduring sense of class solidarity between people of different faiths, such that the jibberings from the church, mosque or synagogue become less important than the bonds between brothers and sisters in struggle.

and there we have it! You don't want to unite with people, until they come to your standards. You cannot accept the way the real world is, and unite with people, in the knowledge struggle changes people. You just want to judge people, he's too sexist, he's too racist, she's too religous. So go one, you wait for the revolution in your splendid isolation, where you are never wrong, because you never do anything with anybody.

btw, credit to you, at least you had the guts I admit to U was wrong.

 

[audiotech]

and there we have it! You don't want to unite with people, until they come to your standards.

The standardised vanguard innit.

Pure as the driven snow.

 

[Kaye]

Hannah Dee

That's one of the funniest things I've heard for a very very long time.

 

[articul8]

I don't want people to unite - tactically, temporarily - with the left on the basis of a liberal political analysis, whilst retaining all the time the primacy of a religious identity.

You disagree? You think it OK to forge an unprincipled temporary alliance on the basis of a liberal politics which is all the time subordinate to the interests of a religious identity? That will be why you went along with Respect then

No, unity does not mean that ideological agreement is a precondition all along the line. I never said anything like it. But it does mean maintaining the class orienation of your politics and putting your case openly and honestly whilst working with others on a principled basis - not allowing reactionary ideas (gay rights as shibboleths, remember) to prevail whilst you're courting the clerics.

 

[poster342002]

btw, welcome back Poster

Cheers. I won't be popping in here very often, mind.

 

[dennisr]

Cheers. I won't be popping in here very often, mind.

partying?... life and soul stuff?

 

[audiotech]

Cheers. I won't be popping in here very often, mind.

Xmas has come early.

 

[HackneyE9]

Lindsey German and John Rees have declared all out war on the SWP central committee majority. There can be only one winner in this fight. If Lindsey and John lose the battle then a split is likely...

The latest Party Notes,
“I want to inform comrades that the central committee voted by a majority of 10 votes to two (John and Lindsey did not attend but expressed their opposition by text messages) to propose the following slate for the incoming CC:

“Alex Callinicos, Charlie Kimber, Chris Bambery, Chris Harman, Chris Nineham, Colin Smith, Hannah Dee, Judith Orr, Lindsey German, Martin Smith, Michael Bradley, Viv Smith, Weyman Bennett.

“There will be a full debate at conference which will be followed by the election of the CC” (December 1).


And that is all that the SWP membership is told. Note that the real significance of the decision - the removal of comrade Rees - is not considered worthy of a specific mention. The members are only informed that “John and Lindsey” by text opposed the move.

The second thing to note about the announcement is that the CC is proposing to have itself re-elected in its entirety minus one comrade, with the leading committee being reduced in size from 14 to 13. In this way, the entire blame for the whole Respect/Left List/Left Alternative debacle is being placed on the shoulders of one man.

more

Jesus wept. Serious question - what's it like being a Swoppie foot soldier??

I mean, I've voted Socialist Alliance, Green and Respect, and probably agree with 2/3 to 3/4 of SWP's platform, but what's it like being in a party which just treats you like a tithe-paying, newspaper-selling, cannon fodder for the mysterious Central Committee?

 

[audiotech]

Jesus wept. Serious question - what's it like being a Swoppie foot soldier??

I mean, I've voted Socialist Alliance, Green and Respect, and probably agree with 2/3 to 3/4 of SWP's platform, but what's it like being in a party which just treats you like a tithe-paying, newspaper-selling, cannon fodder for the mysterious Central Committee?

Get a grip. Afterall, the piece is taken from the CPGB's 'Weekly Worker' whose campaigns are mainly strident against other left organisations.

The SWP is a voluntary organisation, you can join it, you can leave it/get kicked out of it.

 

[HackneyE9]

Get a grip. Afterall, the piece is taken from the CPGB's 'Weekly Worker' whose campaigns are mainly strident against other left organisations.

The SWP is a voluntary organisation, you can join it, you can leave it/get kicked out of it.

But that's not what I mean.

It's the having no say over policy/direction, just annually voting in the CC, being told what to do/say, and sell the paper.

Sounds more like a cult than a political party to me.

 

[audiotech]

But that's not what I mean.

It's the having no say over policy/direction, just annually voting in the CC, being told what to do/say, and sell the paper.

Sounds more like a cult than a political party to me.

Despite what people write and say, debate and discussion does go on and votes take place. Well it did when I was a member.

 

[HackneyE9]

Despite what people write and say, debate and discussion does go on and votes take place. Well it did when I was a member.

Ok, I'll take your word for it. Doesn't sound much fun to me, though.

 

[AKA pseudonym]

Despite what people write and say, debate and discussion does go on and votes take place. Well it did when I was a member.

what a difference a year makes?

What i find particularly galling over the whole Ree's debacle is the view that 'democracy' exists within the SWP. As i outlined earlier the cc expelled ree's and restructured the membership numbers within its leadership with no input from ordinary members. Ree's is being used as a scapegoat for the swp mistakes. These mistakes must lie with the cc as a whole not one individual. Whether rank and file members of the swp have any input in the process of electing the leadership has been proven by the derisory orders from above in the party notes.
I still await a reply from any swp members as to whether any discussion has taken place and their thoughts on this
I doubt it

The SWP leadership is not splitting from Respect
8pm Monday 29 October 2007
.........I repeat the SWP has not split from Respect. I want to make it 100 percent clear that the SWP will not be bullied or blackmailed out of the coalition and nor will we just walk away from Respect. We were part of its foundation and have put as much work into the project as anyone or any other group.....

Martin Smith, SWP National Secretary

link

Respect: there is no split — let the members decide
9.30pm Monday 29 October 2007

The Socialist Workers Party has no intention of leaving Respect and will not be “splitting” from the coalition it helped create and to which it has been so central........

We continue to believe that the best way to resolve our differences is by letting the members decide at the National Conference, which is now less than three weeks away. We desire a democratic settlement of the outstanding issues in a way that ensures members have their say.

The statement issued today, by threatening John’s removal and by trying to declare a split in Respect would undermine a democratic solution to the debate within Respect.
John can only be removed through Respect's democratic structures, not by the issuing of a letter. The crisis within Respect is best resolved at our National Conference.

John Rees
Lindsey German
Chris Bambery
Elaine Graham-Leigh

link

 

[audiotech]

As i outlined earlier the cc expelled ree's

Expelled?

 

[AKA pseudonym]

Expelled?

cc expelled ree's and restructured the membership numbers within its leadership with no input from ordinary members

sorry not very clear i suppose, i meant expelled from the cc not from the party as such...
im trying to write three different articles at the same time

 

[osterberg]

Only he's not expelled from the cc , he's not on the slate the cc have put forward . He's still on the cc till the conference where he can stand for re-election if he wishes . Anyway why do you care?

 

[butchersapron]

Effectively expelled. Let's not be all coy now. We all know what it means.

 

[osterberg]

Effectively expelled. Let's not be all coy now. We all know what it means.

So why do you care ?
And shouldn't you be out building tirelessly building the socialist movement if you're so clever are you to busy obssessing about the swp , you sad git ?