Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

SWP split?

I bought a copy of Social Worker today in WH Smith. Funnily enough, I have not seen in it any mention of the ructions and resignations. Of course the paper is printed some days before its cover date, but Comrade Kraut's resignation was on 10 February (ten days before the cover date) and the dozens of further resignations in sympathy were on 16 Feb.

Lindsey and the gang are being airbrushed out. In their own little way, Toytown Bolsheviks do behave like real Bolsheviks.

Business as usual:
 
I was at a branch meeting on Thursday, not a single mention of it. When I asked why no-one seemed bothered the response was "Good riddance, they were trying to wreck the party from the inside anyway" As JHE said, business as usual. Although I imagine over at subs payments they are measuring the cost of this rather more acutely.
 
When I asked why no-one seemed bothered the response was "Good riddance, they were trying to wreck the party from the inside anyway"

That's it. They are Fascist agents, wreckers, saboteurs! Shoot the mad dogs!

Photographic proof that they are agents of Anti-Party Elements:
galloway,%20rees,%20german.jpg
 
Democratic centralism has its positives and negatives.

I will never forget in 1989, a university lecturer being absolutely amazed when I told her, there was only 2000 members of the socialist workers party. This was at a time, where the university lecturers were saying on mass to their students, labour would never gain office again, except perhaps in a coalition with the liberals.

However even in the dire circumstances the university lecturer, could not believe the socialist workers party had only 2000 members, because on virtually every major demonstration, political activity, there you could see socialist worker. How was socialist worker able to project itself much bigger than it ever was membership wise? Unity! You come to a decision, and then you act in unity. You let the class struggle decide whether you are right or wrong.

The socialist worker party may very well split for the first time in 25 years, anarchists split every 25 minutes. But the point I'm trying to make is, if they do get their act together, and start acting like a revolutionary socialist again instead of acting as substitutes for the reformist working class, 1000 sw will appear to have more effect than 100,000 anarchists. Because they will act in unity.
 
Democratic centralism has its positives and negatives.

I will never forget in 1989, a university lecturer being absolutely amazed when I told her, there was only 2000 members of the socialist workers party. This was at a time, where the university lecturers were saying on mass to their students, labour would never gain office again, except perhaps in a coalition with the liberals.

However even in the dire circumstances the university lecturer, could not believe the socialist workers party had only 2000 members, because on virtually every major demonstration, political activity, there you could see socialist worker. How was socialist worker able to project itself much bigger than it ever was membership wise? Unity! You come to a decision, and then you act in unity. You let the class struggle decide whether you are right or wrong.

The socialist worker party may very well split for the first time in 25 years, anarchists split every 25 minutes. But the point I'm trying to make is, if they do get their act together, and start acting like a revolutionary socialist again instead of acting as substitutes for the reformist working class, 1000 sw will appear to have more effect than 100,000 anarchists. Because they will act in unity.

You and your lecturer should learn to distinguish between (i) placards handed out on demonstrations and (ii) size, influence and political importance. The first is not and does not indicate the second.

(BTW, I can't imagine where anyone's going to find 100,000 anarchists.)
 
Democratic centralism has its positives and negatives.

I will never forget in 1989, a university lecturer being absolutely amazed when I told her, there was only 2000 members of the socialist workers party. This was at a time, where the university lecturers were saying on mass to their students, labour would never gain office again, except perhaps in a coalition with the liberals.

However even in the dire circumstances the university lecturer, could not believe the socialist workers party had only 2000 members, because on virtually every major demonstration, political activity, there you could see socialist worker. How was socialist worker able to project itself much bigger than it ever was membership wise? Unity! You come to a decision, and then you act in unity. You let the class struggle decide whether you are right or wrong.

The socialist worker party may very well split for the first time in 25 years, anarchists split every 25 minutes. But the point I'm trying to make is, if they do get their act together, and start acting like a revolutionary socialist again instead of acting as substitutes for the reformist working class, 1000 sw will appear to have more effect than 100,000 anarchists. Because they will act in unity.

I'd fully expect a university lecturer to fall for the rather obvious trick of hoping to make demonstrators appear in media reports as members of the party by the simple manouvere of flooding them with easily identifiable party placards - but you're telling me that even members of the party bought it as well - fantastic :D
 
You and your lecturer should learn to distinguish between (i) placards handed out on demonstrations and (ii) size, influence and political importance. The first is not and does not indicate the second.

(BTW, I can't imagine where anyone's going to find 100,000 anarchists.)
2 fair points, well made.:D

I do think unity is strength though. However piss poor its effects, it has probably been the most effective group on the revolutionary left for a decade or two. And it is quite remarkable it's still survives, considering the political landscape in the UK from reformist left to the anarchists left resembles that of Hiroshima after the bomb.

ps. I do have to hold my hands up and say I am talking in almost complete ignorance, of what the socialist worker party will be like with its present leadership.
As I say, I have paid little mind to the swp publications etc and current affairs politics in the last 10 years. I do go to Marxism, but its tourism, hobbyism, rather than a serious political interest. However,,,,, just reading Germans few hundered word resignation explanation, made it abundantly clear to me which side I was on.

It's more than coincidental that the Smiths faction, according to Germans resignation explanation, have come to a conclusion that I was musing on here several years ago, that the "united front of a special kind" was a cancer that needed cutting out of the party. I have no doubt whatsoever that Reese and German would have kept their "united front of a special kind" as SWP stratergy....... It's not going to happen, but the only way I would ever consider getting back involved with swp is if the "united front of a special kind" was ditched and a revolutionary focus was adapted. For me, it is a substantive political difference. I have no doubt whatsoever that the German faction and the majority Smith faction also view this as a substantive political difference.

However, I will leave you all to your personality 'poltics'.
 
I'd fully expect a university lecturer to fall for the rather obvious trick of hoping to make demonstrators appear in media reports as members of the party by the simple manouvere of flooding them with easily identifiable party placards - but you're telling me that even members of the party bought it as well - fantastic :D
Glad your about. So in this property dispute you alledge, who are the players? Who is between? Are the rank and file players, or just "nodding dogs"?
 
christ, your dishonesty is appaling. Do you ever get sick of putting words into other peoples mouths? I realise you have to fabricate their position in order to justify yours, but still.
Sorry, havn't got a clue what your referring to.

Where's the politics here? There's still none, a vague whinge about the 'united front of a special kind' doesnt really cut it. Not when both groups are promising to carry on with such things.
I have no doubt, you have no understanding of why this was a substantive enough issue, to cause the 1st faction in the swp.
 
I suppose I should ask you JHE and Butch, who on the left has more influence than SW?

I think the left in Britain is very weak - certainly weaker than at any time I can remember and probably weaker than at any time since the rise of the Labour Party, perhaps weaker than at any time in the 20th Century.

If by 'the left' you mean the various would-be revolutionary grouplets (Trot, Tanky, Narchist etc) then I think the Social Workers, who are the largest of the little groups, may well have the most influence, though that's very little influence. I'm not sure they are much more important than the Socialist Party (I mean the Millies, as they used to be, not the Speegy Geebees), though. If I talked Leftese rather than English, I'd probably suggest that there is no qualitative difference in the level of influence between the two groups.

Honestly, Resistance, talk to young people about politics or just listen to them. Many are interested in some big issues - for example, our rulers' military adventure in Afghanistan, the state of the labour market, who deserves or doesn't deserve what income for what, immigration, climate, crime and policing and so on and so on - but the idea of socialism means nothing to most young people. This is a new situation in my lifetime. When I was young, of course many people were opposed to any notion of socialism and people had different accounts of what it meant and whether it was a good idea or a practical idea or not etc, but at least there was some notion that people argued about. Now, there's just a blank. As far as I can see, it means nothing to the bulk of the younger generation. Nothing!
 
I think the left in Britain is very weak - certainly weaker than at any time I can remember and probably weaker than at any time since the rise of the Labour Party, perhaps weaker than at any time in the 20th Century.

If by 'the left' you mean the various would-be revolutionary grouplets (Trot, Tanky, Narchist etc) then I think the Social Workers, who are the largest of the little groups, may well have the most influence, though that's very little influence. I'm not sure they are much more important than the Socialist Party (I mean the Millies, as they used to be, not the Speegy Geebees), though. If I talked Leftese rather than English, I'd probably suggest that there is no qualitative difference in the level of influence between the two groups.

Honestly, Resistance, talk to young people about politics or just listen to them. Many are interested in some big issues - for example, our rulers' military adventure in Afghanistan, the state of the labour market, who deserves or doesn't deserve what income for what, immigration, climate, crime and policing and so on and so on - but the idea of socialism means nothing to most young people. This is a new situation in my lifetime. When I was young, of course many people were opposed to any notion of socialism and people had different accounts of what it meant and whether it was a good idea or a practical idea or not etc, but at least there was some notion that people argued about. Now, there's just a blank. As far as I can see, it means nothing to the bulk of the younger generation. Nothing!

Don't think I could agree with you more. Was kind of the the point of this post http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=10333290&postcount=431 . Which makes this sectarianism celebration of the demise of another group, amongst the left in this thread, fiddling while Rome burns.

By contrast, socialist worker were always aware, that the capitalist workers party labour, would be just as prepared to put a rifle butt through the head any modern day Rosa Luxembourg if this situation arose as the SDP were. However, it didn't celebrate the demise of the labour left, the militant, the communist party etc.. they predicted this would make the job for all the left harder. How right they were.

The anarchists and their fellow travellers, reminded me of the Stalinist in NAZI Germany celebrating the demise of the SDP, as it would lead to the rising to power of the communists.:rolleyes:
 
I'd fully expect a university lecturer to fall for the rather obvious trick of hoping to make demonstrators appear in media reports as members of the party by the simple manouvere of flooding them with easily identifiable party placards - but you're telling me that even members of the party bought it as well - fantastic :D

Not all university lecturers are so naive.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice
 
I have no doubt, you have no understanding of why this was a substantive enough issue, to cause the 1st faction in the swp.

it wasn't the first faction in the swp. And I note you cannot actually come up with a particularly substantive political difference.
 
I bought a copy of Social Worker today in WH Smith. Funnily enough, I have not seen in it any mention of the ructions and resignations. Of course the paper is printed some days before its cover date, but Comrade Kraut's resignation was on 10 February (ten days before the cover date) and the dozens of further resignations in sympathy were on 16 Feb.

Lindsey and the gang are being airbrushed out. In their own little way, Toytown Bolsheviks do behave like real Bolsheviks.

Business as usual:

JHE in his ever witty or is it tiresome, habit of trying to suggest that the SWP is co-operating with the Muslim Brotherhood provides a link that diverts to their website.

Rather more surprising is what I found on the Wikipedia site about said Brotherhood. Follow the link below, scroll to the top of the page, and hover your cursor over the green circular logo on the right. You will be rewarded.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_Brotherhood#Main_Activity-plan

It wasn't me I promise!
 
Back
Top Bottom