What's your opinion on the SWP? [Archive]

h0m0revolutionary

6th April 2009, 17:13

However they do alot of good stuff with stop the war and UAF,

Really?

UAF turn up to BNP events and shout 'nazi'. Their understanding of fascism is about a deep as a puddle of piiss. They didn't turn up the the picket in Leeds last year against the (much worse than the BNP) British Peoples Party for example, percisely because the BNP are their enemy, and their 'black and white' attitude means that for them atatcking the BNP is fine, attacking other fascists might detract from that aim. What other reason could they have for not contributing to said event?

As for StW, Stop the War have done great things in mobilising otherwise apathetic people into opppsiiton to the wars in Aghanistan, Iraq and doubtless many into opposition of the occupation of Palestine too. But they've also killed it.

The SWP have politicised and hegemonised the StW Coalition so much that it cannot be called anything other than a recruiting ground for the SWP any longer =/. They can't claim to be a coalition when they expel groups who disagree with some of the StW policy (such as Hands Off the People of Iran), SWP politics are over-arching within StW and members have abondoned it in droves accordingly.

Take their stance on Iran for example, many of us here would hold that the Iranian theoracy is no ally of the left, it imprisons trade unionists, brutaly oppresses secularists, homosexuals, feminists, national minorities etc and has killed thousands of leftists, anarchists and democrats. But StW, like the SWP can't see past the fact Iran is under threat and so cuddle up to it, witht heir front groups such as Campaign Iran and they lie about the state of Iran calling it a democracy and down-playing it's repression of homosexuals etc

Anti-war politics should be played on a principled (and class-led) basis, not to war and no to reactionary forces should be a touchstone standard of decent politics, but sadly StW is bereft of this political direction.

This domination by the SWP over UAF and StW isn't surprising, it's what they do - they're consistently in recruitment mode and they turn 'united fronts' into popular-front recruiting programmes.

Matina

6th April 2009, 17:40

Thanks for this h0morevolutionary. Really enjoyed it. :)

RedAnarchist

6th April 2009, 18:06

Moved

Killfacer

6th April 2009, 18:21

Can't say i'm their biggest fan. I particuarly disliked how they dealt with that strike earlier this year: "grrr, evil xenophobe workers".

Wanted Man

6th April 2009, 18:23

Not my favourite group, but they're no worse than some of their loudest detractors (CWI, IMT, anarchists, etc.).

GX.

6th April 2009, 18:29

The US SWP or the British SWP? Because that changes my answer entirely.

Matina

6th April 2009, 18:32

The US SWP or the British SWP? Because that changes my answer entirely. The British
[QUOTE]

Jorge Miguel

6th April 2009, 19:18

Not my favourite group, but they're no worse than some of their loudest detractors (CWI, IMT, anarchists, etc.).Quite right. They're largely the same in my opinion. Too many big fishes in a small pond.

Sam_b

6th April 2009, 19:25

After the ghostship of Respect sunk, they had internal disputes (this is boring, you probably are aware).. and cut a long story short John Rees, Lindsey German and Chris Nineham were purged frm the Central Committee and Martin Smith, Alex Callinicos et al took over, anyways one of the very few political direction changes that come form this a policy of not standing in elections.

This is a lie. There was no 'purge', only that John Rees was not re-nominated for the Central Committee, and this was supported by the majority of the membership. German and Nineham then resigned on the back of this. There was no 'take over' by Callinicos and Smith, no more than any other member on the Central Committee. So unless you actually give sources and evidence suggesting otherwise, you're just lying.

The SWP have politicised and hegemonised the StW Coalition so much that it cannot be called anything other than a recruiting ground for the SWP any longer =/. They can't claim to be a coalition when they expel groups who disagree with some of the StW policy (such as Hands Off the People of Iran), SWP politics are over-arching within StW and members have abondoned it in droves accordingly.

Again, more bollocks. If it is a recruiting ground for the SWP (again, not a scrap of evidence) then why is the President Tony Benn, and the National Chair Andrew Murray (a member of the Communist Party)?
Also, show me evidence that HOPI were expelled. My recollection was that they left. As for politics of the SWP in Stop the War, first of all show me where, and then tell me how a revolutionary organisation should be operating in such a coalition (wouldn't the point be to try and get members on side?).

Prove also what you're saying on Iran. Do you not agree that we should defend it from imperialism?

In short, yor post is nothing short of an unsourced joke. The sectarians and tiny minority organisations seem to focus more attention on trashing the SWP and the IST rather than trying to build a class base and further their own organsiations. That's why we're the leading anticapitalist force in Britain and further generating more support amongst the class.

Matina

6th April 2009, 19:36

Prove also what you're saying on Iran. Do you not agree that we should defend it from imperialism?

Defend it from imperialism yes, but not by being apologists to a regime that has killed and tortured thousands of workers and has repressed thousands of strikes.
In a case of imperialist attack in Iran, the Marxists should advocate for an independent proletariat army which will fight both against American imperialism and against the Iranian reactionary state. (Ie. application of the permanent revolution as opposed to the two stage theory).

Wanted Man

6th April 2009, 19:55

Quite right. They're largely the same in my opinion. Too many big fishes in a small pond.
Aye. It must be a comfortable life, though, to live in the illusion that you're the only one who's not in "a tiny sect" or whatever they say about each other... The CWI and IMT are the best at that, they just categorise all other groups together as "the sects". :lol:

Matina

6th April 2009, 19:57

Aye. It must be a comfortable life, though, to live in the illusion that you're the only one who's not in "a tiny sect" or whatever they say about each other... The CWI and IMT are the best at that, they just categorise all other groups together as "the sects". Their definition of a sect is "Trotskyist organizations who do not orrientate towards the mass organizations". Of course you might agree or disagree, but you are mistaken. It's not about size but about orrientation.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies2/laugh.gif

Wanted Man

6th April 2009, 19:58

I don't think any trotskyist organisations orientate towards the mass organisations, personally.

Matina

6th April 2009, 20:01

I don't think any trotskyist organisations orientate towards the mass organisations, personally.

It's not what you think. It's a fact:lol:
Doing work within the Labour Party, Die-Linke, RC in italy, PCF etc. is orrientating yourself towards mass organizations. That is what the IMT and the CWI (in a lesser extent) are doing.

Thus the accusation "sects" . Because the SWP etc. are sectarian towards the mass organizations.

Wanted Man

6th April 2009, 20:04

It's pure ignorance to group the UK Labour party and the German Left party together (nevermind the French and Italian communists...), but that's besides the point.

What do you expect from Labour? Oh, right the gospel: "When the shit hits the fan, the workers will look to Labour because Labour is their party, and then we need to be there and turn Labour in a revolutionary direction." It is beyond me that people actually believe this.

h0m0revolutionary

6th April 2009, 20:49

This is a lie. There was no 'purge', only that John Rees was not re-nominated for the Central Committee, and this was supported by the majority of the membership. German and Nineham then resigned on the back of this. There was no 'take over' by Callinicos and Smith, no more than any other member on the Central Committee. So unless you actually give sources and evidence suggesting otherwise, you're just lying.

Oh come off it, you know about the ego-trip power struggle just as well as I do. But for those who don't here's a summary:

Basically, at SWP conference they were set to vote on the Sunday between two CC slates: one, the existing CC (proposed by the CC 'majority'), or two, the existing CC minus John Rees (proposed by the CC 'minority'). That morning, Lindsey got up and announced that her and Chris Nineham were resigning from the CC, and withdrawing their alternative slate (therefore effectively also removing Rees). There was then only one slate put forward for the CC election: the existing CC minus Rees, German and Nineham.

They removed their 'alternative' slate because 1) they knew they'd loose and 2) the 'resigned' minority still have effective control of StW.

If it is a recruiting ground for the SWP (again, not a scrap of evidence) then why is the President Tony Benn, and the National Chair Andrew Murray (a member of the Communist Party)?
Also, show me evidence that HOPI were expelled. My recollection was that they left.

Prove also what you're saying on Iran. Do you not agree that we should defend it from imperialism?
.

StW is a recruiting ground for SWP, i don't have to aruge this pretty much, it's consensus outside of the SWP. But your evidence for it not being so is so very very poor, Tony Benn will put his name to anything and Andrew Murrey of the Stalinist CPB is just happy to have some influence, being the left bureaucrat he is.

As for your line on Iran, at their annual conference in October 2007 HOPI was denied affiliation by StW as Andrew Murrey and Lindsey German asked conference to vote against affiliation on the grounds that their anti-regime policy was "entirely hostile to the aims of the coalition"

So comrade, you're wrong on that account, we did not leave, but were voted out by the officers, for no other reason than our politics, which can be summed up as against both the Iranian State and mroe importantly, against an attack on Iran. At that same conference (filmed I should add by PressTV - Iranian State media!) StW gave the platform, as they often do, to Campaign Iran, their speaker on this occasion was Somaye Zedah. Who said:

"Ahmadinejad has approval ratings of 80%, these are ratings Geroge Bush could only dream of"
Women don't have it so bad in Iran because Iran has "a female Noble Peace Prize Winner and... an all feale fire-fighting squad"
and best of all! "the repression of homosexuals isn't black and white in Iran" then went on to explain how "men and women are allowed sex changes"!! as if that's any consolation!

[Go and check the numerous reports over google, I am taking these quotes from notes I made at the time, but the AWL, CPGB et al have documented her speech also]

Also, show me where in the last 12months since an attack on Iran has been most alluded to, the SWP have said ANYTHING criticising the Iranian regime, show we ANYWHERE they have spoken in support of the Iranian workers who are some of the most exploited and brutalised in the world.

You can't, because SWP are out and out apologists of the regime. Of course we defend the Iranian people against an imperialist attack on Iran, but colluding with the Iranian State is allying oneself with a reactionary and explciity anti-worker force!

If StW was sincere in this it would support the only consistent anti-imperialist force inside of Iran - the of the the working class! But StW remains shockingly quiet on the daily struggles of Iranian workers, locked in a battle against the tyranny of their own government and the ever-closer threat of nuclear decimation from US/Israel.

But instead you allign yourselves with Ebbas Edelat, an out and out apologist of the Iranian state and the Shia-nationalists of Campaign Iran

- No the an imperialist attack on Iran!
- No the Sanctions!
- Down with the theocracy!

That's proper imternationalism mate. Stop the War take note.

[Note: i can't post links as my account isn't old enough, but to verify what i've said here simply to go the 'Hands Off the People of Iran' website]

Patchd

6th April 2009, 20:51

Also, show me evidence that HOPI were expelled. My recollection was that they left.

Wiki has it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hands_Off_the_People_of_Iran#Expulsion_from_Stop_t he_War_Coalition), and if that's not enough then you can try digging up The Independent which also covered it with an interview with Yassamine.

They weren't expelled though, they were denied affiliation to StWC in 2007 before your AGM. It's funny because even the AWL are in StWC and their majority line has always been "Troops in Iraq" and calling for a specifically Jewish state of Israel, who's own leader called himself a Zionist, and who's minority faction still holds the shitty slogan of "Troops out eventually".

Do you not agree that we should defend it from imperialism?Yes, but you'll probably get at me for not giving any kind of support whatsoever to the Iranian regime, but to the people of Iran instead. Frankly, I couldn't give a shit, with some comments I've heard from the SWP, such as "Iran isn't homophobic, it's one of the few countries where sex changes are largely state funded" ... great! Now I can get a vagina, because that's what all gay men want. :lol: It's an organisation which I will continue to work with under certain circumstances, but it's one which I don't really care much for these days due to the decline of the SWP in many areas like Manchester, Sheffield etc..

In short, yor post is nothing short of an unsourced joke. The sectarians and tiny minority organisations seem to focus more attention on trashing the SWP and the IST rather than trying to build a class base and further their own organsiations. That's why we're the leading anticapitalist force in Britain and further generating more support amongst the class.You're saying this without any knowledge of who h0m0revolutionary is. He's involved in a lot of campaigns and a number of groups, building them on a class basis.

It's much easier for people to go out into the real world, do some activism and encounter the SWP for themselves, a lot of em are really nice individuals, even Lindsey German and Rees are pretty nice.

Sam_b

6th April 2009, 21:04

Basically, at SWP conference they were set to vote on the Sunday between two CC slates: one, the existing CC (proposed by the CC 'majority'), or two, the existing CC minus John Rees (proposed by the CC 'minority'). That morning, Lindsey got up and announced that her and Chris Nineham were resigning from the CC, and withdrawing their alternative slate (therefore effectively also removing Rees). There was then only one slate put forward for the CC election: the existing CC minus Rees, German and Nineham.

So there was no purge. The majority of members were angryu with Rees, which is why this slate was overwhelmingly supported. So, contrary to what you say in your first post...

StW is a recruiting ground for SWP, i don't have to aruge this pretty much, it's consensus outside of the SWP. But your evidence for it not being so is so very very poor, Tony Benn will put his name to anything and Andrew Murrey of the Stalinist CPB is just happy to have some influence, being the left bureaucrat he is.

Yes, but no evidence concerning the StW being a 'front' in the slightest. All groups in StW try to recruit on some level, is this the wrong thing to do?

As for your line on Iran, at their annual conference in October 2007 HOPI was denied affiliation by StW as Andrew Murrey and Lindsey German asked conference to vote against affiliation on the grounds that their anti-regime policy was "entirely hostile to the aims of the coalition"

So, you're saying that HOPI could never be expelled because they weren't affiliated? So you admit that you wrre lying?

And that second part is bollocks. HOPI wanted to make Iran an integral slogan and aim of StW, on a par with Iraq and Afghanistan. StW members disagreed. HOPI went into a huff. Gte your facts right.

Your critiques about Campaign Iran are levelled at StW and not the SWP, so lets move on.

We're not apologists for the Iranian regime, but realise that the threat of imperialism is much more important right now. This is the same arguments your bankrupt organisation has against Hamas and the Palestinian resistance, who you all openly despise.

t's funny because even the AWL are in StWC

They are? First i've heard of it.

h0m0revolutionary

6th April 2009, 21:13

The AWL are in StWc?

They are? First i've heard of it.

Haha you didnt even know AWL were in STW? that's pretty ignorant.

Sounds like you don't actually know alot.. I ask again, show me where the SWP have condemned the Iranian state or showed any solidairty what-so-ever with progressive movements inside of Iran against the theocracy?

Fact remains, you've hijacked StWC with your own politics, you have glorified hamas, hizbollah and the Iranian state (directly against the interests of the working classes of the Middle East) and have driven out thousands of members because of it.

Devrim

6th April 2009, 21:38

We're not apologists for the Iranian regime, but realise that the threat of imperialism is much more important right now. This is the same arguments your bankrupt organisation has against Hamas and the Palestinian resistance, who you all openly despise.

We have no choice but to support the Khomeini regime ...it would be wrong to strike...
socialists should not call for the disruption of military supplies to the front… should not support actions which could lead to the collapse of the military effort

Yes, you are right. You are not apologists. You are outright supporters to the point of supporting the Iranian state against the working class.

Devrim

6th April 2009, 22:00

Yes, you are right. You are not apologists. You are outright supporters to the point of supporting the Iranian state against the working class.

Devrim, do you have a source for this quote? Also, was this ever repealed or has it just been ignored since the massacres?

Random Precision

6th April 2009, 22:02

Devrim, if you're bringing out that old chestnut again at least give the context: the article was talking about a potential US invasion of Iran.

And I've trashed one-liners/off-topic posts by psycho, Sam, HLVS, Jorge, and Killfacer (edit: and Holden Caulfield). But given the other high-quality posts in this thread I'm wondering if we all might just be better off if I locked it.

Devrim

7th April 2009, 05:55

Devrim, do you have a source for this quote? Also, was this ever repealed or has it just been ignored since the massacres?

It is from a dated issue of Socialist Worker as it says.

Devrim, if you're bringing out that old chestnut again at least give the context: the article was talking about a potential US invasion of Iran.

The SWP opposing strikes is now an old chestnut, is it?

And I've trashed one-liners/off-topic posts by psycho, Sam, HLVS, Jorge, and Killfacer (edit: and Holden Caulfield). But given the other high-quality posts in this thread I'm wondering if we all might just be better off if I locked it.

I think that it is wrong that you are trashing criticisms of a tendency very close to you. I don't think that the thread should be closed as I think that it is legit, and I don't like this delete things that some people don't like sort of censorship.

Having said that I can see why people should see that there were problems with some of the posts on here. Maybe the soultion is warning points not censorship.

Devrim

Random Precision

7th April 2009, 20:16

The SWP opposing strikes is now an old chestnut, is it?

I meant that it's something you consistently bring up about the SWP. You once explained to me that the article was talking about what their position would be were the United States to attack Iran. I think quoting it as is without explaining that is slightly dishonest.

I think that it is wrong that you are trashing criticisms of a tendency very close to you. I don't think that the thread should be closed as I think that it is legit, and I don't like this delete things that some people don't like sort of censorship.

I also trashed the off-topic posts by Sam, who is a member of the SWP. Furthermore I think in threads about certain groups it's very important to make specific political and organizational critiques, not just dismiss the whole group as "wankers". Why I suggested closing the thread is because that is exactly the sort of response the OP meant to elicit, with the poll offering us an excellent choice between whether the SWP is "a fine party" or "shit".

Devrim

7th April 2009, 20:36

I meant that it's something you consistently bring up about the SWP. You once explained to me that the article was talking about what their position would be were the United States to attack Iran. I think quoting it as is without explaining that is slightly dishonest.

I think hat you are putting words into my mouth that I didn't say there.
Regardless though, it is not dishonest at all. That is what the SWP's position was. Against workers strikes and in defence of the state.

I also trashed the off-topic posts by Sam, who is a member of the SWP. Furthermore I think in threads about certain groups it's very important to make specific political and organizational critiques, not just dismiss the whole group as "wankers". Why I suggested closing the thread is because that is exactly the sort of response the OP meant to elicit, with the poll offering us an excellent choice between whether the SWP is "a fine party" or "shit".

I don't think it is for you to act the censor though.

Devrim

Led Zeppelin

7th April 2009, 20:48

I have no problem at all with the SWP or Trotskyists who are part of the SWP tendency. I, as a Trotskyist, share about 90% of my ideology with them, and 10% isn't enough to become enemies over. I know it's fashionable for certain sectists to call each other class-traitors and agents of the bourgeois and other such nonsense, but at a certain point in your life you have to reflect and think to yourself; what are these people thinking?

I can very well imagine myself agreeing and being a member of a SWP tendency party. Perhaps if had read some other articles or books when I first started forming my opinion on Trotskyism I would have been inclined to agree with their analysis of history. As it turned out, that didn't happen and I disagree with their analysis. Now, if this wasn't the case and I had joined a party of the SWP tendency, would I have been a "class traitor"?

No, I don't think so.

I believe Trotskyists from all sides must look at it from this point of view and start to realize that there isn't that much which sets us apart ideologically. Certainly not enough to be divided and weak over it. Keep in mind that Lenin's party probably had more ideological differences than we do today and they remained united (with minimal splits and fractures) all the way up to and past the revolution.

Yes, I'm still a conciliator. :p

Random Precision

7th April 2009, 20:50

As for my own opinion.

I don't think the SWP is either "a fine party!" or "shit". I have a few criticisms of their political stance. First I believe that in the various crises in the Balkans, up to Kosovo's independence, they have bent the stick far too heavily against the NATO intervention, and lined up with Serbian aggression and nationalism. I think it's possible to recognize Serbian aggression in the region while simultaneously opposing NATO's imperialist attempt to curtail it. With the recent independence of Kosovo, I think the SWP has failed to take a principled stance on the issue, which I think would be to recognize the Albanian peoples' right to self-determination regardless of which imperialist power supports it for its own motives. This would be like opposing Irish independence during WW1 because Germany supported it for its own imperialist motives.

Now I turn to support for national liberation movements. I believe slogans such as "We are all Hezbollah" show that the SWP has an opportunistic stance toward bourgeois anti-imperialist groups like Hezbollah and Hamas. I think Callinicos said something like "the role of socialists in democratic struggles is to become the best organizers, the best fighters", which ignores the need for an ideological struggle within such movements, for the working class to assert its own politics. They forget that groups like Hamas and Hezbollah can only offer armed resistance to Israeli aggression and that a simply nationalist movement will never effectively address the needs and grievances of the Palestinian workers.

I also think that the "united front of a special type" that went into forming RESPECT was BS ideologically. And I don't think the SWP was forceful enough within RESPECT at distinguishing its own line, the revolutionary line, from the aims of the other groups. Which is forgetting the entire purpose of a united front in the first place.

Also I think the SWP treats the international, the International Socialist Tendency, as "the SWP and the twenty dwarves". Its true that smaller organizations can benefit from the influence of a large group like the SWP, but do it too much and they can suffocate ideologically and organizationally. My own organization's split with the tendency is a good example of this. The SWP thought the priority was to focus on anti-globalization campaigns, and demanded that we focus our activity on it pretty much exclusively. Whereas we knew the situation in the US better than the SWP, and so focused our attention on those issues alongside the anti-globalization and anti-free trade movements. When the SWP disagreed with our perspective, instead of bringing it up to be discussed among the tendency, they chose to support a faction of about 6 people in our organization and then had us expelled from the tendency. Similar behavior can be seen in other IS groups, such as the Canadian International Socialists who have been devastated through intervention by London.

Nevertheless from what I know of the left in Britain they are the best organization, and if I lived in Britain I suppose I'd probably join them.

Leo

7th April 2009, 20:55

We have no choice but to support the Khomeini regime ...it would be wrong to strike...
socialists should not call for the disruption of military supplies to the front… should not support actions which could lead to the collapse of the military effort

According to Libcom, this was the SWP position during the Iran-Iraq war:

http://libcom.org/library/the-socialist-workers-party-iran-iraq-war-1987

Random Precision

7th April 2009, 21:06

I think hat you are putting words into my mouth that I didn't say there.

This is what you said when I asked you about the quote:

The context was the threat of US strikes against Iran. Basically the policy was one of support for the Iranian regime. Of course, it is dressed up in socialist rhetoric, but it is a position of national defence. What kind of context would you like to put opposing strikes in?

http://www.revleft.com/vb/support-islamic-republic-t77582/index.html?p=1138600

Regardless though, it is not dishonest at all. That is what the SWP's position was. Against workers strikes and in defence of the state.

I know that's your opinion, but many of us don't think things are so simple. It would be easy for you to say "the SWP would have opposed strikes against the Khomeini regime if it was attacked by the US". And even that's kind of unclear considering your quote has no less than three ellipses. I suspect the SWP would support strikes in Iran where an imperialist assault is not involved.

I don't think it is for you to act the censor though.

As a moderator, I think it is for me to split off-topic and/or hostile posts to keep discussion on track. Nothing I did was a result of any particular fondness for the SWP.

Random Precision

7th April 2009, 21:10

According to Libcom, this was the SWP position during the Iran-Iraq war:

http://libcom.org/library/the-socialist-workers-party-iran-iraq-war-1987

I'd like very much to see the full article. As it is, it's just Libcom (not exactly known for their fairness toward any Leninist organization) taking a couple of words out of an SW article and saying it's about the Iran-Iraq war.

Leo

7th April 2009, 21:50

Actually Libcom people can be quite harsh not only on all marxists except some councilists or modernists, but I don't think this is any reason to think they would openly lie or distort the truth and don't think it's either right nor fair to accuse them of doing either.

As for the full article, I suppose you can write to the SWP people and ask for it...

black magick hustla

7th April 2009, 21:53

If you lock this topic RP i'll open it btw

Random Precision

7th April 2009, 22:23

Good to know, but as long as people substantiate their opinions on the SWP- like I have- I think it can remain open.

skki

8th April 2009, 01:05

I know very little about them. But the little I do know is all bad.

Rebel_Serigan

8th April 2009, 01:33

I would have to take a stance agaist them only from personal experiance. I am well known out in my area as a leftist and I have a little group with me all the time. I was aproached by a representitive or whatever he was and he offered me a place in the paty. I started to ask him why I should, but I got defensive when he said that my abilities were small and they had the funding to take action. I was pretty set off, the ass practicly tried to bribe me. So from that experiance I say down with the SWP (here in Idaho at least)

Patchd

8th April 2009, 01:34

Rebel_Serigan

8th April 2009, 02:21

Yes, Idaho is in the American Empire. The reddest state in the union.

Devrim

8th April 2009, 10:14

You once explained to me that the article was talking about what their position would be were the United States to attack Iran.

The context was the threat of US strikes against Iran.

Yes, I see a difference there. 'Attack' could mean 'strike', but it also has a much wider meaning. I think most people reading what you wrote would read it as more than a limited strike. Whatever, it is not important.

I'd like very much to see the full article. As it is, it's just Libcom (not exactly known for their fairness toward any Leninist organization) taking a couple of words out of an SW article and saying it's about the Iran-Iraq war.

Well, the SWP must have archives. Why don't you ask them for a copy of the article?

I think the quote is taken from an article that I wrote in the UK left communist publication at the time about attitudes on the left to the Iran-Iraq war. In it I criticised the SWP, and quoted from their article. I presume that Libcom took it from there.

I know that's your opinion, but many of us don't think things are so simple. It would be easy for you to say "the SWP would have opposed strikes against the Khomeini regime if it was attacked by the US". And even that's kind of unclear considering your quote has no less than three ellipses. I suspect the SWP would support strikes in Iran where an imperialist assault is not involved.

I don't really see what your point is here at all. Do you believe that when a state is in a time of war, socialists should give up any opposition to the state? Should the working class also give up any defence of living conditions? This is what you imply.

So let's go back to your version;

the SWP would have opposed strikes against the Khomeini regime if it was attacked by the US

Do you agree with this? Do you think socialists in Iran should have advocated this policy?

Devrim

Hit The North

8th April 2009, 10:36

Can't say i'm their biggest fan. I particuarly disliked how they dealt with that strike earlier this year: "grrr, evil xenophobe workers".
More bollocks from our representative from the Federation of British Hairdressers.

A truer representation of the SWP's arguments around the oil refinery walk-outs can be found by actually reading its paper, Socialist Worker. This link will take you to a number of the relevant articles:

http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/topic.php?topic_id=80

As to the accusation made that the SWP only supports the regime in Iran and ignores the workers movement and the left in Iran, here's a link to SW's coverage of these issues:

http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/topic.php?topic_id=27

Of course I know some of the more prejudiced posters on this thread won't bother. They'll continue telling lies.

h0m0revolutionary

8th April 2009, 10:57

More bollocks from our representative from the Federation of British Hairdressers.

A truer representation of the SWP's arguments around the oil refinery walk-outs can be found by actually reading its paper, Socialist Worker. This link will take you to a number of the relevant articles:

Of course I know some of the more prejudiced posters on this thread won't bother. They'll continue telling lies.

I was gunna pick up on that. To be fair to you lot, you didn't condemn the strikes like Workers Power did.

You just listened to the BBC analysis and gave it a slightly more positive spin. Great =/

"But these strikes are based around the wrong slogans and target the wrong people"
"The slogan accepted by many of the strikers is “British jobs for British workers”"

Did you listen to the Strike Committees at all? This slogan was denounced repeatedly by the majority of strikers, that's why alongside British workers came Italian and Polish strikers too - why would they bother if the strikes were marred with chauvenistic sloganeering?

"These [the bosses] are the people workers should be hitting, not turning on one another."
- again, nice sentiment, but completely removed from reality. The strikers were protesting because Jobs were not being sourced locally. That is perfectly understandable, only an insignificant minority of the protesters made this an issue of race and nationalism and such people were quickly removed form the strike (There are numerous videos and pictures of BNP members being removed from the protests for example). The BBC might have been quick to racialise this issue for it's own sensationalism, but the SWP, you'd think, would have more political depth.

And what the hell is this?
"Right wing ideas gain a hold among workers when they see their lives being torn apart and the unions offer no lead"
- again, abstract vanguardism that treats workers an innately xenophobic and reactionary until the SWP and their union beaurocrats show them the light.

Your whole analysis of the situation is put within the framework of the trade unions providing the answer. Well i hate to tell you mate but you're wrong again, the trade unions offering complete lack of political leadership is what caused this - this strike showed what workers can do WITHOUT union backing!

and THAT is what marks your analysis, you're fearful of upsetting the unions in whom you put so much faith, but whose role in negotiating with the owners of capital caused this msss in the first palce. Your whole messy analysis assumes that workers are inherently nationalist and that when they arise spontaniously they require the vanguard parties and trade unions to pull them into check and stop them going astray.

Let's stop treating workers with such contempt!
These strikes were a massive victory and showed the real potential of wildcat action.

Random Precision

8th April 2009, 16:01

Well, the SWP must have archives. Why don't you ask them for a copy of the article?

I'm not that bothered, to be honest. If a comrade from the SWP feels like pursuing this further, they can. But I'll say no more about it.

I think the quote is taken from an article that I wrote in the UK left communist publication at the time about attitudes on the left to the Iran-Iraq war. In it I criticised the SWP, and quoted from their article. I presume that Libcom took it from there.

That is what I presumed as well.

I don't really see what your point is here at all. Do you believe that when a state is in a time of war, socialists should give up any opposition to the state? Should the working class also give up any defence of living conditions? This is what you imply.

So let's go back to your version;

Do you agree with this? Do you think socialists in Iran should have advocated this policy?

No, I don't. I do think that the Iranian working class should primarily fight a resistance against the United States invasion, but in the course of that struggle carry out an ideological battle within the resistance to take the leading role in the struggle. As I said, I believe the SWP has an opportunistic stance toward bourgeois anti-imperialist movements. This is also a problem I have with my own organization however.

Bob (either of them) or other SWP comrades, would you care to answer my criticisms?

Nosotros

8th April 2009, 16:04

The SWP are a reformist and authoritarian group with a rigid hierarchy and is rife with corruption. Myself and some of my friends used to be members and we know all about them telling you how to vote within the the party, how they shout ppl down at meetings, how they recruit anti-semites for tactical reasons and yet accuse non members of being racist. I could probably write a book on why you shouldn't join them. They have alot to answer for, they and the STWC are why the Left is in such a state. I should also add that they accuse all other parties of being Stalinist and 'ultra-left'.

Killfacer

8th April 2009, 16:06

I disagree with SWPers on most counts, but it's kind of laughable everyone having a go. I disagree with them, but at least they're organised and (even if i think they are often misguided) make attempts to spread socialism in the UK.

Devrim

8th April 2009, 17:21

The SWP are a reformist and authoritarian group with a rigid hierarchy and is rife with corruption.

I have never heard allegations of personal corruption against SWP members.

Devrim

Demogorgon

8th April 2009, 18:02

I have been associated with them in the past but no longer am because the behaviour of the party in certain respects is ridiculous to me, but I have never had anymore than minor disputes over politics with individual members I have known. There is plenty about the party and its outlook I respect, but as I say there are parts I disagree with.

I dislike the tendency to engage in intellectual acrobatics at times to justify the actions of "the enemy of my enemy" and their behaviour towards "fascism" particularly the BNP can be absurd. I read in the Socialist Worker a while ago an article and the headline was something along the lines of "Together we will Unite and smash the Nazi BNP" and the first thing I thought was "No you're not. You are going to make a lot of noise and give them publicity they do not deserve but you won't do them one iota of harm". Plus of course it shows a rather unsophisticated understanding of fascism and the BNP to label anything fascist as "Nazi". The BNP programme owes a hell of a lot more to "Tomorrow We Live" than it does to "Mein Kampf" for instance.

Not to mention, as I have said before, the BNP are really just a bogeyman disguising a much bigger problem which is deep routed xenophobia that does not necessarily manifest itself in support for explicitly racist parties. In common with too many other groups the SWP is at sea when it comes to this.

One thing the party is criticised for that I must defend however is their alleged tendency to welcome members into the party who may not be solidly leftist. That is exactly what they should be doing! Bring people in and try to guide them in the right (well left) direction. You can't build a credible movement by only allowing in the small number of people who meet a very narrow set of criteria.

And I must emphasise yet again that the members I have known have avoided most of the problems that seem to afflict those higher up in the party. Not least most have had a very open attitude to opposing views and been happy to work with anarchists, Maoists and whoever else in common interests not letting disagreements get in the way. Also notwithstanding the unhealthy obsession with "fascism", the party is far better at targeting the centre of the problem (capitalism itself and capitalist Governments and institutions) than many other groups who often go for fringe right wing groups instead.

I voted neutral incidentally.

Holden Caulfield

8th April 2009, 18:48

rather unsophisticated understanding of fascism and the BNP to label anything fascist as "Nazi".

This is one of the first things I herd from an SWP member, its makes them seem like idiots, especially to one the urban white 'working class' who knows why people support the BNP.

Stranger Than Paradise

8th April 2009, 18:56

More bollocks from our representative from the Federation of British Hairdressers.

What's wrong with being a hairdresser?

Killfacer

8th April 2009, 19:29

What's wrong with being a hairdresser?

He's being prejudiced. He's attempting to poke fun at male hair dressers. No doubt he will soon call me a "camp poofter" and tell me to go and watch graham norton.

h0m0revolutionary

8th April 2009, 19:41

He's being prejudiced. He's attempting to poke fun at male hair dressers. No doubt he will soon call me a "camp pufter" and tell me to go and watch graham norton.

I'm so tempted to say this isn't surpirsing given the record of the SWP on LGBTQ matters..

But i'm not so sectarian =D

AutomaticMan

8th April 2009, 21:30

I'm so tempted to say this isn't surpirsing given the record of the SWP on LGBTQ matters..

What record is that?

Hit The North

8th April 2009, 23:17

He's being prejudiced. He's attempting to poke fun at male hair dressers. No doubt he will soon call me a "camp poofter" and tell me to go and watch graham norton.

Oh, please! It's a joke taking the piss out of you claiming to belong to the "Federation of British Hardmen" and the pathetic macho image you try to cultivate on this forum.

I'm so tempted to say this isn't surpirsing given the record of the SWP on LGBTQ matters..

But i'm not so sectarian =D

Nor so stupid.

CHEtheLIBERATOR

9th April 2009, 08:05

Devrim

9th April 2009, 08:45

I used to be a part of it.It was good at one time but after it broke off from the 4th international it became more rapidly stalinist.I can assure that the core of the party it has stalinistic intentions.CWI is the way to go it IS the modern 4th international.

The SWP was never a part of the Fourth International. The group that went on to form the SWP was expelled from the FI during the Korean War. If I remember correctly there were less than ten of them, a handful and a half as Cliff used to say. The forerunners of the SWP said that it was an inter-imperialist war whilst the (FI)Trotskyists and the Stalinists argued together for the defence of workers' states. If anything the SWP was a split from the FI not towards Stalinism, but to the left.

Devrim

BobKKKindle$

9th April 2009, 09:25

Devrim, I think that user was referring to the American SWP, which did move towards Stalinism by rejecting Trotsky's theory of permanent revolution and falling in love with Fidel Castro.

The only thing I want to address in this dismal thread is the issue of HOPI and the StWC. The first and most obvious thing that has to be said in any discussion about STW is that it is not controlled by the SWP, and therefore the SWP cannot be held accountable for any of its decisions. The SWP does, of course, have a major role to play within STW, because we called for it to be created shortly before the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, and since then we have continued to organize the opposition movement within Britain, as evidenced by the fact that the national convener, Lindsey German, is also a member of our party, and, until recently, a member of the central committee, but STW is, as the name suggests, a coalition, and this means that it involves a wide range of different forces, including organizations that cannot be seen as working-class, in their social composition, or political orientation, as in the case of the MAB. This is not anything to be ashamed of, because the entire point of STW, and united fronts in general, is to engage with broader social forces, and hopefully win these forces over to socialist ideas, by demonstrating that we have the most advanced understanding of the issues involved, and know what tactics to use in order to achieve our objectives. This is especially important to keep in mind when discussing the HOPI dispute. HOPI opposes an attack on Iran but also calls for the overthrow of the Iranian government, and condemns all forms of Islamic fundamentalism. In and of themselves, considered in the abstract, there is nothing wrong with these principles, because Marxists are also opponents of Islamic fundamentalism, which we view as an irrational and oppressive ideology, and we hope that the Iranian working class will eventually take action against the bourgeoisie and its repressive state apparatus as part of a social revolution. However, if we move away from this abstract perspective, and consider the role of STW, and the nature of its supporters, the issue becomes more complex. A large section of STW's support base originated from the Muslim community, and of this section a significant number of supporters and activists viewed (and may continue to view) themselves as political Islamists, and may even have looked on the Iranian regime as an example to emulate, in Britain, and other countries around the world. If STW had formally associated itself with HOPI, it would have been implicitly agreeing with the organization's principles, and this could have led to Islamists and sympathizers of Islamism who might otherwise have joined the coalition being turned away and organizing opposition to imperialism in isolation from the rest of the activist community, thereby weakening STW as a political force, and denying Marxists any opportunities to challenge these reactionary ideas. This is why HOPI was denied affiliation, and it also for this reason that STW rejected a motion to condemn Islamic fundamentalism equally with US imperialism at its first conference in October 2001. This was a democratic decision and, if I remember correctly, the motion received only a very small number of votes.

In sum, STW was about trying to build the broadest possible front, whilst remaining principled, and this means that the coalition limited its aims to whatever was consistent with its role as an alliance of groups and individuals who are all opposed to war and imperialism, regardless of what the SWP, or any other left-wing group thought about the nature of the Iranian regime, or the desirability of socialism. If the coalition had adopted a formal and explicit position on Islamic fundamentalism, or whether the Iranian regime should be oppossed, it would have ceased to be an anti-war group, because these issues are irrelevant to the need to opposes war and imperialism, such that someone could be an enthusiastic and dedicated opponent of the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, and also describe themselves as an Islamist, and admire the Iranian government.

(On a more sectarian note, HOPI is controlled by the CPGB (it was established by the CPGB in 2007, initially as an alternative to STW) who were hostile towards STW from the beginning, and, as anyone who lives in the UK knows, have nothing to offer the working class whatsoever, and spend all of their time and resources trying to rubbish other left-wing groups and win isolated individuals over to their tiny sect)

9th April 2009, 19:01

Thanks for bringing it back RA, despite the messed up poll. But that was useless anyway.

Patchd

9th April 2009, 19:26

Thanks for re-opening this thread RA :)

If STW had formally associated itself with HOPI, it would have been implicitly agreeing with the organization's principles, and this could have led to Islamists and sympathizers of Islamism who might otherwise have joined the coalition being turned away and organizing opposition to imperialism in isolation from the rest of the activist community, thereby weakening STW as a political force, and denying Marxists any opportunities to challenge these reactionary ideas.Like I've said before though, AWL was allowed affiliation to StWC, and I've already commented on their position on Iraq and Palestine. Something which StWC as you said fundamentally disagrees on:

Iraq

Majority faction of the AWL calls for Troops in Iraq, seeing it as a better alternative to have Imperialism there. Their Minority faction has the line Troops out Eventually, so still supportive of Imperialism, although to a lesser degree. Their Minority within a Minority faction, which has now split and formed The Commune held the line Troops out Now when they were in the AWL. This might have changed somewhat recently, but it was the case when they were admitted into StWC.

Palestine

The AWL holds a two state position, like many other organisations that criticise them for it. They would like to see a Palestinian state, but also a Jewish state, blatant nationalism on both sides, and is potentially even more harmful, we saw what the creation of a new state did in 1948. Not only that, but Matgamna called himself a "Zionist", surely something which could deter Islamists and sympathisers with Islamism away ... or not?

Iran

This is their position from 2008, from their website: Our basic slogans for now are "no to war, no to the Islamic republic, solidarity with Iranian workers". In the event of war, our line would be similar, i.e. a "Third Camp" one. We are for the right to self-determination for the national minorities in Iran (though not necessarily for separation). Full Iranian domination of southern Iraq would not be better than US occupation. Their slogan equates Iranian theocracy with Imperialism, something which HOPI does not do.

This is why HOPI was denied affiliation, and it also for this reason that STW rejected a motion to condemn Islamic fundamentalism equally with US imperialism at its first conference in October 2001.HOPI doesn't condemn Islamic fundamentalism equally with US Imperialism. They state most times, and when explaining their political position, that they oppose US Imperialism first, and the Theocracy second, as their website shows: "The main enemy is imperialism. The Iranian regime does not represent a progressive or consistent anti-imperialist force. (http://www.hopoi.org/main.html)"

Obviously, these are double standards for StWC, something which is unfortunate, yet true.

h0m0revolutionary

9th April 2009, 21:54

we hope that the Iranian working class will eventually take action against the bourgeoisie and its repressive state apparatus as part of a social revolution.

If Marxists support this why not do so openly. I ask for the THIRD time, show me an example of the SWP appluading the struggles of the Iranian working class.
- Where do you condemn the imprisoned trade unionists?
- Where do you mention spiriling inflation rate in Iran, the part-time contracts, the widening neoliberal economics pushed upon the working class by the theorcracy?
- Have you ever showed ANY solidairty whatsoever with the LGBTQ community in iran? The national minorities? the democrats, secularists or feminists?

However, if we move away from this abstract perspective, and consider the role of STW, and the nature of its supporters, the issue becomes more complex. A large section of STW's support base originated from the Muslim community, and of this section a significant number of supporters and activists viewed (and may continue to view) themselves as political Islamists, and may even have looked on the Iranian regime as an example to emulate, in Britain, and other countries around the world. If STW had formally associated itself with HOPI, it would have been implicitly agreeing with the organization's principles, and this could have led to Islamists and sympathizers of Islamism who might otherwise have joined the coalition being turned away and organizing opposition to imperialism in isolation from the rest of the activist community, thereby weakening STW as a political force, and denying Marxists any opportunities to challenge these reactionary ideas. This is why HOPI was denied affiliation

HOPI wasn't denied affiliation on this ground, don't lie. If this were true then you would have to expel Socialist Party, Communist Part of Great Britain, Alliance for Workers Liberty and countless other groups and individuals who also oppose the Iranian state.

It's the job of Marxists to argue against reactionary views in the movement not to accomodate them! You're right there are many, many people within StW who see the Iranian regime as something we should emulate. These ideas need challenging, not colluding with!

When the StWc affiliates to orginisations it dosn't do so on the ground that it agreees with all they have to say, that, rightly, would be bizarre. So for you to argue that StW did not affiliate to HOPI because it would be viewed as a ringing endorcement of the policy of opposition to imperialism (first and foremost) and the Iranian theoracy (secondly) is just an outright lie.

I'd argue that StW should give opposition to war against Iran as well as opposition to the state that brutalises Iranian workers daily a ringing endorcement, but a simple affiliation to a group like HOPI would do no such thing. We agree with the basic 'lowest common denominator' politics of StW and should be allowed affiliation accordingly. Your censorship smells of rotten sectarianiam and fear of debate more than anything else.

In sum, STW was about trying to build the broadest possible front, whilst remaining principled

You've just contredicted yourself comrade, one the one hand you argue Marxists should oppose Islamic fundamentalism, and one the other you argue that StW should not adopt this approach as it would be damaging. Where is the principle in this?

SWP have sold out their politics to accomodate reactionary, Shia-nationalists and outirght apologists of the Iranian regime. This isn't going to gain you the broadest possible front, it's going to win you a shallow, moderate movement, devoid of principles that provides no real answers for fear of offending reactionaries and right-wingers. Our politics, anti-war or otherwise, must always put the interests of our class first, cross-class colaberation and cuddling up to reactionaries in the name of popular frontism does nothing of the sort!

(On a more sectarian note, HOPI is controlled by the CPGB (it was established by the CPGB in 2007, initially as an alternative to STW) who were hostile towards STW from the beginning, and, as anyone who lives in the UK knows, have nothing to offer the working class whatsoever, and spend all of their time and resources trying to rubbish other left-wing groups and win isolated individuals over to their tiny sect)

Not on a sectarian note, but on a very incorrect note.

HOPI is not controlled by the CPGB and you're either ignorant, or very, very stupid to state otherwise. let's get this into perspective, CPGB is a tiny sect group that consists of about 15 people, HOPI is a fledgling, but growing orginisation consisting of hundreds of paid up members and has impressive following including:
- Green Party
- Leeds Anarchist Federation
- Alliance for Green Socialism
- Workers-left Unity Iran
- Organisation fo Revolutionary Workers Iran
- Permanent Revolution
- Public and Commercial Services Union
- ASLEF (Train Drivers Union)
- Labour Representation Committee
- Jewish Socialist group
(see here: http://hopoi.org/supporters.html for more comprehensive list)

So you're saying that the thousands of HOPI supporters right across the world have all been duped by a tiny sect group of less than 15 members? Get real!

Also, riddle me this..

If we're opposed to StW, why did we seek affiliation?
And why are the majority of us, as individuals affiliates to StW and active in building the anti-war movement?

:cool:

9th April 2009, 22:01

Closed the redundant poll(?)

CHEtheLIBERATOR

10th April 2009, 07:49

The SWP was never a part of the Fourth International. The group that went on to form the SWP was expelled from the FI during the Korean War. If I remember correctly there were less than ten of them, a handful and a half as Cliff used to say. The forerunners of the SWP said that it was an inter-imperialist war whilst the (FI)Trotskyists and the Stalinists argued together for the defence of workers' states. If anything the SWP was a split from the FI not towards Stalinism, but to the left.

Devrim

I'm refering to when they had member connections to the fourth international

Devrim

10th April 2009, 07:52

I'm refering to when they had member connections to the fourth international

Che, I think it has been established that you are talking about he US SWP, which did have connections to the FI, and everyone else is talking about the UK SWP, which didn't really. They are two different organisations.

Devrim

Die Neue Zeit

10th April 2009, 08:01

The only thing I want to address in this dismal thread is the issue of HOPI and the StWC. The first and most obvious thing that has to be said in any discussion about STW is that it is not controlled by the SWP, and therefore the SWP cannot be held accountable for any of its decisions.

[...]

(On a more sectarian note, HOPI is controlled by the CPGB (it was established by the CPGB in 2007, initially as an alternative to STW) who were hostile towards STW from the beginning, and, as anyone who lives in the UK knows, have nothing to offer the working class whatsoever, and spend all of their time and resources trying to rubbish other left-wing groups and win isolated individuals over to their tiny sect)

The doublespeak in this post is utterly hilarious. HOPI is somehow a CPGB front, while StWC is nowhere near being a front for the SWP? :lol:

CPGB is a tiny sect group that consists of about 15 people

[...]

So you're saying that the thousands of HOPI supporters right across the world have all been duped by a tiny sect group of less than 15 members? Get real!

I don't think you've got an accurate membership count of the CPGB. I read somewhere that they've got 70 members or so.

Revy

10th April 2009, 08:36

The US SWP or the British SWP? Because that changes my answer entirely.

The SWP in the US is worse. It acts like a corporation in itself (with its Pathfinder Press). Rank-and-file are told that they have to get low-paying blue-collar jobs to be "closer to the proletariat". But the leadership lives in expensive Manhattan condominiums. It's a cult around Jack Barnes, who became leader of the party in the '70s. He is responsible for the current condition of the party, which is really an organization built around a newspaper - The Militant (they don't even have a proper website for their party).

Patchd

10th April 2009, 08:38

I don't think you've got an accurate membership count of the CPGB. I read somewhere that they've got 70 members or so.

That's a gross overstatement, I'm usually informed by CPGB and CS members that their membership is around 20-30.

Revy

10th April 2009, 08:46

Yes, but you'll probably get at me for not giving any kind of support whatsoever to the Iranian regime, but to the people of Iran instead. Frankly, I couldn't give a shit, with some comments I've heard from the SWP, such as "Iran isn't homophobic, it's one of the few countries where sex changes are largely state funded" ... great! Now I can get a vagina, because that's what all gay men want. :lol: It's an organisation which I will continue to work with under certain circumstances, but it's one which I don't really care much for these days due to the decline of the SWP in many areas like Manchester, Sheffield etc..

Yeah, I'm amazed that some people think that is evidence that Iran's government is tolerant and open-minded. Sex changes are their way of dealing with "that problem". They would rather gay men try and pretend to be heterosexual women (not really much of a step up - given how Iran treats women).

But sexual orientation has little to do with gender identity.

h0m0revolutionary

10th April 2009, 13:06

Yeah, I'm amazed that some people think that is evidence that Iran's government is tolerant and open-minded. Sex changes are their way of dealing with "that problem". They would rather gay men try and pretend to be heterosexual women (not really much of a step up - given how Iran treats women).

But sexual orientation has little to do with gender identity.

Absolutly right, the Iranian State views sex-change operations as a cure for homosexuality, not necessarily something that can innate biological need in itself.

Iranian official figures put the numbers of Transexuals in Iran at about 30,000 although some estimates suggest this figure is nearer to 150,000 making Iran the country with the worlds second largest transexual community in the world. Second only to Thailand. Such a high number might be progressive and representitive of a tolerant and diverse culture, if it were not so that homosexual males would have no other option if they wanted to express their love for another male than to go through such an operation.

This is also highly transphobic, as in Iran you can only be transexual. But trans covers mre than just transexual (transvestiite, transgendered etc). If you happen to present as male or female, but were not defined as such at birth, then the criously named 'morality police' can stop you and arrest you. Trans people then have to go through the operation to be considered of another sex, their own feelings about their gender and how they feel innately are irrelivent.

So when StW give platform to a speaker who argues that 'homophobia isn't so black and white in Iran... you can have a sex-change' they are showing their complete lack of political substance but moreover, they're apologising for one of the saddest facts about Iran - that to be homosexual and show affection for your parter without fear of reprecussion you have to disfigure your body even though it in all likelihood, is not something you desire.

PoWR

10th April 2009, 23:48

SWP have sold out their politics to accomodate reactionary, Shia-nationalists and outirght apologists of the Iranian regime.

In other words opportunism.

But I wouldn't say they "sold out." Their politics were founded on this sort of thing. They established themselves by refusing to support Korea as it was invaded by U.S. imperialism and its cohorts. They were supporting the reactionary, woman & communist hating and killing mujahadeen in Afghanistan in the 70's and 80's with most of the rest of the left - even many of those now condemning them for supporting Iran and Hezbollah.

redarmyfaction38

11th April 2009, 00:19

In other words opportunism.

But I wouldn't say they "sold out." Their politics were founded on this sort of thing. They established themselves by refusing to support Korea as it was invaded by U.S. imperialism and its cohorts. They were supporting the reactionary, woman & communist hating and killing mujahadeen in Afghanistan in the 70's and 80's with most of the rest of the left - even many of those now condemning them for supporting Iran and Hezbollah.

interesting view point. probably with some truth attached.
but in that truth lies the final condemnation of the swp, they put nationalism and national liberation above the interests of of the international working class, as they did then, they do so now.
hence, i would suggest, other posters, likening them to the "stalinist" cpgb is quite logical and well within the reasoning of marxist thought.

personally, i don't give a shit what the swp or the rest of the wannabe "vanguard of the proletariat" have to say on the matter.
i was a member of the militant tendancy, they taught me "marxism" as a political expression of what i already knew, i don't need leaders, i don't need "deep" political discussion on this or that particular fine point of ideology.
i'm a worker, it's up to me and mine, the revolution will teach us all we need to know, as if we didn't know all ready.
marxism gives us the method.
imo. always imo. i'm just another working class fcukwit with a passion .