SWP dump National Secretary Martin Smith

[Jolly Red Giant]

In what the Weekly Worker claims is a palace coup the SWP's National Secretary, Martin Smith, has been removed from his post by the Central Committee and replaced by Charlie Kimber.

Personally, the internal manoeuvrings of the leadership of the SWP hold little interest for me. However, the WW article goes on to outline some of the contents of internal pre-conference bulletins of the SWP. Of particular interest is the strategy outlined in relation to the Right-to-Work Campaign - a campaign that the SWP appear to see as little more than a conduit for recruitment to the SWP and a demand from the leadership that branches of the campaign should be established everywhere irrespective of if other campaign groups already exist. This is certainly ironic given the criticism levelled by the SWP at the proposal from the leadership of the NSSN to establish an anti-cuts campaign.

Other interesting information is that the membership is now claimed at just over 6,500. However, the article claims that the SWP have recruited 3,000 new members over the past three years yet the actual membership of the party has only increased by 400. One contributor to the SWP internal bulletin claims that only 25% of the membership are active with another 25% paying subs and the rest on the 'periphery'.

Paper sales amount to 9,800 copies of the SW each week - about 1.5 copies per member. Some SWP members criticise the lack of political understanding among members claiming that political education is in conflict with 'activism' within the group.

http://www.cpgb.org.uk/article.php?article_id=1004216

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Oh dear, yet more tittle-tattle and sectariana from Gossip Central!

[Jolly Red Giant]

Oh dear yet more tittle-tattle from Gossip Central!
Where would we be without it ;)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

JRG:


Where would we be without it

Er, probably in a genuine Leninist Party?

[Sam_b]

Apparently changes in our organisation highlight a 'crisis' of the SWP.

Oh wait, this will be from the organisation that said we would be splitting this time last year!

[Q]

As usual the Weekly Worker commentary is pretty spot on. Good article.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Q:


As usual the Weekly Worker commentary is pretty spot on. Good article.

Indeed, one could predict it would appeal to all you inveterate sectarians.

[Sam_b]

There wasn't a split, was there, Q?

So how can it be 'spot on'? Also, how much do you work with the SWP and no its internal goings on from day-to-day to justify it being 'spot on', taking into account you take everythingh from the Weekly Worker as verbatim?

[Q]

Q:
Indeed, one could predict it would appeal to all you inveterate sectarians.
As critique equals sectarianism. Your logic excells again.


There wasn't a split, was there, Q?
There obviously was a minor split, otherwise Counterfire wouldn't exist, right Sam_b?

[graymouser]

There wasn't a split, was there, Q?
Counterfire article doubleplusungood refs unpersons rewrite fullwise upsub antefiling.

[Spawn of Stalin]

More gossip. I do think it's important for people to know what goes on in these parties, and I'm not about to start defending the SWP's internal practices, but Jesus, give it a fucking rest will you? Before reading this I hadn't visited the "CPGB" website in a while, so I decided to check it out, on the from page I was rewarded with: "Eddie Ford defends Clare Solomon against the rightwing press and its AWL outriders", "Paul Greenaway asks what the liberal media see in Laurie Penny and explains why Alex Callinicos is talking sense", "The death of Mary Rosser has opened up a can of worms. Sammy Hollingworth wonders why leading CPB members have such a strained relationship with the past", and of course "Robbie Rix is encouraged by the many comrades prepared to support us financially". I don't like to talk about other parties too much but they really can be a bunch of fucking pricks sometimes. We got student protests, binmen on strike, teachers on strike, cops beating the shit out of children on the streets of London, illegal wars, just about everything that could possibly be wrong with the world and this country, is. And so the top story in this week's edition if the Weekly Worker is about some dude who the working class don't even give a shit about losing his position in the SWP. I'm showing some restraint here, this shit makes me angry. No priorities whatsoever, and motherfuckers actually give these people their money? Weekly Worker, what a joke!

[Sam_b]

You shouldn't be surprised. This is an organisation around the time of the last CWU mass action that led on their frontpage with the role of John Reese in the SWP.


There obviously was a minor split, otherwise Counterfire wouldn't exist, right Sam_b?

Three people leaving your organisation may count as a split Q, but that doesn't rub here.

Again, how can the article be 'spot on', ar eyou merely cheerleading again?

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

B-b-b-b-boring.

[Spawn of Stalin]

Oh I'm certainly not surprised, I think almost everyone on the left on this island is used to their crap by now. No, not surprised at all, I think "sick and tired" would be a more appropriate description of my attitude towards them. I have criticisms of every party going, including my own, and I never shy away from voicing my opinions, but regardless of the positions of the SWP, the CPB, anyone, at least they're doing party work, you know, stuff which actually makes them activists, but the Weekly Worker people have been around since before the fall of the Berlin Wall, they should be past the stage of just putting out a newspaper and having the occasional get-together. I'm active in three cities and haven't seen anyone from CPGB since May Day. I don't think it would be unfair to say that they should probably drop the "P" from "CPGB".

[electro_fan]

lol,, to be honest i think there are worst things to be worrying about in terms of the damage to the movement and who could do that damage than the SWP at the moment, (think about people trying to pose themselves as revolutionaries so they can get a job in the guardian at the end of it lol im sure some of you know who i mean :))

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Q:


As critique equals sectarianism.

Ah, yet another late convert to the dread 'law of identity' I see.:lol:


Your logic excells again.

In fact, as we can now see, yours excells even more.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

ElectroF:


lol,, to be honest i think there are worst things to be worrying about in terms of the damage to the movement and who could do that damage than the SWP at the moment, (think about people trying to pose themselves as revolutionaries so they can get a job in the guardian at the end of it lol im sure some of you know who i mean

No, who?

[Steve_j]

What the fuck is wrong with with the British public? We got more daily drama than coronation street has in a week! I just dont get why the left is so insignificant, we got infighting, backstabbing, family fueds, hell even kinky sex! (Everyone loves a little horizontal recruitment :lol:)

[Steve_j]

lol,, to be honest i think there are worst things to be worrying about in terms of the damage to the movement and who could do that damage than the SWP at the moment, (think about people trying to pose themselves as revolutionaries so they can get a job in the guardian at the end of it lol im sure some of you know who i mean :))

Students?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Steve_j:


What the fuck is wrong with with the British public?

Er..., about 0.0000001% of the 'British public', in fact.

[blake 3:17]

So how can it be 'spot on'? Also, how much do you work with the SWP and no its internal goings on from day-to-day to justify it being 'spot on', taking into account you take everythingh from the Weekly Worker as verbatim?

Well it's clear that the British SWP are imploding. They were prone to oscillations which have only grown since Tony Cliff's death.

Is there any part of the party leadership which has any real base? They got rid of the US section and the organizaton here is in a shambles. They don't appear to recruit anybody. A faction of the local leadership has been operating independently doing very very good united front work in solidarity with the Bolivarian revolution and the Palestinian struggle, while the organizational loyalists bloc is stacked with union staffers. So much for the anti-bureaucratic politics which was the strength of IS politics.

[Sam_b]

I don't think this is 'clear' at all. Perhaps in the fact you haven't really cited anything apart from so-called 'bureaucratic' office members.

[Devrim]

Personally I think the SWP is very ill equipped to flourish in the current period, and will not be able to take advantage of it in the way that the SP will.

However, the Weekly Worker has predicted about nine of the last two SWP splits.

Devrim

[Aurora]

Well it's clear that the British SWP are imploding.
People have been saying this for years and it hasn't happened the SWP is still the largest left group in Britain, there 'real' membership according to the article is around 3,000 i think, which means they are larger than the SP and according to their figures they have gained and kept 400 members in the last 3 years. I would be worried that they seem to be running on a (large?)deficit though.
The article was interesting especially showing the leaderships view on the anti-cuts movement and the opinions of the rank and filers quoted in the article were mostly dead on. Nothing too unexpected in it really, interesting that the IST has 'normalised' relations with the US ISO.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Devrim:


However, the Weekly Worker has predicted about nine of the last two SWP splits.

Except, not a single one was an actual split.:lol:

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Blake:


Well it's clear that the British SWP are imploding.

I think you are confusing two words here: "imploding" with "discussing".

The latter is what democratic organisations do, the former is what your argument does.

[Devrim]

Except, not a single one was an actual split.:lol:

It was a joke, nine of the last two..

Never mind, it is not funny when you have to explain it.

Devrim

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Devrim:


Never mind, it is not funny when you have to explain it.

In fact, it was even less funny before that.

[blake 3:17]

I'm not a hater. I agree with the SWP about 95% of the time.


Perhaps in the fact you haven't really cited anything apart from so-called 'bureaucratic' office members. I'm not referring to office staff, I'm referring to folks employed in the labour bureaucracy. There are very fine lines between deep involvement in one's union, taking book offs, being an elected union official and being a full time union or social movement staffer. I don't have a problem with revolutionaries taking staff jobs -- it is a deal with the devil and any genuine radical recognizes it as such.

And this isn't just a criticism of the SWP or IST groups, we're all going through it. Locally there's been some good coalition work which has happened because a number of left union staffers have retired and aren't tied to the official leadership anymore but have legitimacy within the unions and the social movements.


I think you are confusing two words here: "imploding" with "discussing" Hopefully you are right.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Blake:


Hopefully you are right.

Well, I have been in and around the SWP since the late 1970s, and I have lost count of the times I have been told by left sectarians that it is about to implode/disintegrate/collapse...

[Sam_b]

FTR I'm not calling anyone 'haters'.


I'm not referring to office staff, I'm referring to folks employed in the labour bureaucracy. There are very fine lines between deep involvement in one's union, taking book offs, being an elected union official and being a full time union or social movement staffer. I don't have a problem with revolutionaries taking staff jobs -- it is a deal with the devil and any genuine radical recognizes it as such.

I agree, which I why I think we've been very careful in the last few years with our approach to the Trade Unions. Of course, we have got strong links with some of the trade union bureaucracy - Mark Serwotka immediately springs to mind - but we've made sure that there are no trade union bureaucrats actually incorporated into the organisation.

[blake 3:17]

I'm going to be pr

Never heard of Mark Serwotka til now. I don't see there being a massive problem with the revolutionary Left having friends in high places. It's a question of what kind alliances are made.


but we've made sure that there are no trade union bureaucrats actually incorporated into the organisation.

I wouldn't make it a fetish. Most of our groups have academics who have lives not all that different from the labour bureaucracy -- flexible time, decent pay, confidence building, etc, etc. I don't think these inequalities can be just shoved aside.

I see class stratification as the biggest challenge for the working class movement here and in your neck of the woods. I think it was EP Thompson who said, "Class happens", and in the same way, class stratification happens -- they are series upon series of events that produce inequality and injustice and there is no magic formula to stop this.

[The Idler]

Given that the Weekly Worker claims to be a paper of the left rather than a mass paper, then its probably fair to report accurately Martin Smith's dismissal by the Central Committee for reasons as yet unknown. I don't suppose this is reported in Socialist Worker? Or will all be revealed in internal members bulletin? Either way these things should be out in the open and scrutinised and held accountable. But public transparency, scrutiny and accountability aren't qualities that bring the SWP to mind.

[Sam_b]

Either way these things should be out in the open and scrutinised and held accountable

Yes, within our own organisation.

Why would we feature it in Socialist Worker, when there's much more mportant stuff to be reporting on, stuff that the CPGB pays lip service to?

[electro_fan]

Students?
no i mean people like laurie penny etc

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

^^^On Laurie Penny:

http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=23522

--------------------

Blake -- Mark Serwotka:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Serwotka

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

no i mean people like laurie penny etc

That's a silly thing to say. What are you basing this on?

Now's not the time to be turning people away from the movement. In actual fact, Laurie raises some good points to Alex Callicinos, notably the issue of paper selling which has needed to become something more dynamic for a while, and the issue of the SWP sometimes being involved in confrontation with other leftist groups.

In all fairness, Alex's reply is a fairly solid one; the SWP have been fairly impressive, at an organisational level, in the past few months.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

^^^Alex's reply to Laurie's reply to him can be found at the first of the two links above.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I know, i've read it.

I was questioning the basis for implying that Penny is a careerist enemy of ours.

[IndependentCitizen]

Having personally met Martin Smith, I'm going to be honest and say, this is probably a good thing for the SWP. The man was a bit of a fruit loop, and instead of engaging in debate, he tells people to fuck off. And he just ranted on - I've yet to have read an article about SWP policies or party stances from Smith, if anyone has any articles, please send me a PM to read them.

Let's hope a new member within the committee helps SWP get on its tracks, as I've said before - many of their fronts just seem to be ways of recruiting and selling papers. SWP needs to be putting forward strategies, needs to be putting forward arguments. The only argument I have seen is the their diagram about what the deficit which was good, don't get me wrong, but they never said how they plan to get there. I think the SWP just needs a little tweaking. Removing an individual, especially someone as minor as Smith is 'meltdown'.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Independent:


many of their fronts just seem to be ways of recruiting and selling papers.

Unlike the SP, of course.:rolleyes:


SWP needs to be putting forward strategies, needs to be putting forward arguments. The only argument I have seen is the their diagram about what the deficit which was good, don't get me wrong, but they never said how they plan to get there. I think the SWP just needs a little tweaking. Removing an individual, especially someone as minor as Smith is 'meltdown'.

Where have you been -- selling papers?

They do in fact have 'strategies'. You might not agree with them, but that's a different matter.

And wtf does this mean?


The only argument I have seen is the their diagram about what the deficit which was good,

:confused:

[bricolage]

Unlike the SP, of course.:rolleyes:
Do the SP even have any 'united' fronts though?
I mean for SWP I can think of... UAF, StW, RtW, EAN, Globalise Resistance, Defend Council Housing, that one against police brutality...

For the SP I can only think of the fees one.
I'm sure they'd be ramming themselves down fronts if they could, they just don't seem as good at setting them up as your lot.

[Tower of Bebel]

These are not united fronts but just fronts. You can't have multiple united fronts as a united front stands for an alliance with the working class (as a whole). Multiple united fronts would mean alliances with different classes like the capitalist class or the petty bourgeoisie.

[blake 3:17]

These are not united fronts but just fronts. You can't have multiple united fronts as a united front stands for an alliance with the working class (as a whole). Multiple united fronts would mean alliances with different classes like the capitalist class or the petty bourgeoisie.


The SWP may indeed create and domineer front groups, but I don't see why multiple groups can't be set up on the principle of the united front.

And in practice, cross class alliances will happen. I can think of a number of local examples where there have been temporary tactical alliances between the radical left, official labour/social democratic groups and middle class liberals.

I'll stop there, cuz it's getting very drifty...

[Die Neue Zeit]

Like what I said in this Communist Students debate thread (http://www.revleft.com/vb/communist-students-opposition-t147229/index.html), I have more to say about popular fronts, united fronts, populist fronts, and communitarian populist fronts (without bourgeois communitarians or "libertarian"/individualist populism), but that may be the topic of another thread.


And in practice, cross class alliances will happen. I can think of a number of local examples where there have been temporary tactical alliances between the radical left, official labour/social democratic groups and middle class liberals.

I'll stop there, cuz it's getting very drifty...

Why, then, are those organized to the left of the Labour party not working in a *populist* front with the Greens, rank-and-file Lib Dems, and an unnamed populist minor petit-bourgeois party to the right of the Lib Dems on the question of properly proportional representation and on some other democracy questions?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

bricolage:


Do the SP even have any 'united' fronts though?

I was in fact referring to selling papers and recruiting, which is what Independent Citizen was talking about -- not United Fronts.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Rakunin:


These are not united fronts but just fronts. You can't have multiple united fronts as a united front stands for an alliance with the working class (as a whole). Multiple united fronts would mean alliances with different classes like the capitalist class or the petty bourgeoisie.

You seem to be locked into a very rigid, and non-dialectical view of the matter, comrade.:rolleyes:

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Blake:


The SWP may indeed create and domineer front groups

Don't you mean 'dominate'. 'Domineer' means something quite different.

[Zanthorus]

First of all, Rosa, this thread is about the SWP, not dialectics.

Second of all, I notice that many people criticise the CPGB for focusing on the internal issues of left groups rather than the movements of the class itself in the Weekly Worker. Well, that's sort of the point. The CPGB's view is that only a class movement which is democratic and has healthy internal discussion can flourish, and their activity is directed towards rectifying the current situation among the various socialist groups which tends to stifle discussion. The focus on immediate action serves in a lot of cases as an excuse to ignore these issues and gloss over them.

Oh yes, and the CPGB does not regard itself as a party. It retains the name 'CPGB' in order that it might be used by future movements of the class, rather than being stolen by EuroCommunists and the like.

I don't agree with much of the CPGB's politics, but many of the arguments against them here are quite weak and depressingly typical.

[bricolage]

The CPGB's view is that only a class movement which is democratic and has healthy internal discussion can flourish,
I suppose that depends on whether you consider the CPGB and the 'parties' they write about as part of a 'class movement'. To a large degree they are not.

In any case the whole approach is focussed on the idea that struggle is being held back by a disunited 'left', therefore if the 'left' could unite such struggle would increase in relation to this. This is predicated on the flawed notion that revolutionaries and not classes bring about struggles. Revolution is not a 'left' affair ;)

And I think the point is if the SWP did actually collapse in on itself then there would be something to address. I've got no love for the SWP but what the CPGB write about are speculative splits, as opposed to anything concrete.

[Wanted Man]

Second of all, I notice that many people criticise the CPGB for focusing on the internal issues of left groups rather than the movements of the class itself in the Weekly Worker. Well, that's sort of the point. The CPGB's view is that only a class movement which is democratic and has healthy internal discussion can flourish, and their activity is directed towards rectifying the current situation among the various socialist groups which tends to stifle discussion. The focus on immediate action serves in a lot of cases as an excuse to ignore these issues and gloss over them.

That's weird. What kind of business of theirs is it that most of the left consists of closed sects? Surely, if they want to change that around, the best thing to bother with would be anything but that? I mean, this is like a heavy metal fan who never listens to heavy metal, because he's spending all his time and money attending R&B concerts to tell people that R&B sucks.


Oh yes, and the CPGB does not regard itself as a party. It retains the name 'CPGB' in order that it might be used by future movements of the class, rather than being stolen by EuroCommunists and the like.

Well that's pretty funny. Do they consider themselves "dialecticians"? Rosa would probably find this amusing.

The current status is not much better. In the Eurocommunist form, a "CPGB" would be distracting to working-class struggle. In its current form, it would be the same, except that it doesn't register on the radar of class struggle and never will. Who cares what happens to the ruddy name if these are the only choices?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Z:


First of all, Rosa, this thread is about the SWP, not dialectics.

1) But, Rakunin is a devotee of that persuasion, and, as such, one would expect him not to put things in 'rigid', 'either-or' categories.

2) Anyway, if according to that creed, everything is connected, then this is not just about the SWP. Of course, if not all things are connected, I am happy to acknowledge this is not about the dialectic. Either way, the dialectic takes a body blow.


Second of all, I notice that many people criticise the CPGB for focusing on the internal issues of left groups rather than the movements of the class itself in the Weekly Worker. Well, that's sort of the point. The CPGB's view is that only a class movement which is democratic and has healthy internal discussion can flourish, and their activity is directed towards rectifying the current situation among the various socialist groups which tends to stifle discussion. The focus on immediate action serves in a lot of cases as an excuse to ignore these issues and gloss over them.

This would be apposite if it were true that there is no internal discussion in the SWP. Since that is false, the WW is misguided.


Oh yes, and the CPGB does not regard itself as a party. It retains the name 'CPGB' in order that it might be used by future movements of the class, rather than being stolen by EuroCommunists and the like.

I don't agree with much of the CPGB's politics, but many of the arguments against them here are quite weak and depressingly typical.

Nearly as weak as your defence of them, and half as weak as those WW articles themselves.

[Tower of Bebel]

Rosa, you can still implement elements of the united front tactic without the creation of an actual united front. I pointed out that you cannot speak of multiple united fronts because there's only one class. The united front is a tactic developed by the early Comintern in a (pre-)revolutionary period when the working class was, in many countries, devided into two camps: social democrats and communists.

The current situation is a lot different, and we should keep that in mind. Look at how Trotsky proposed an alternative tactic based on the UF policy, namely entryism. He did so because the UF could not be implemented as once proposed in the theses of the early Comintern.

So blake is right, hypothetically speaking you can set up multiple fronts on the basis of UF principles. But there's a lot of discussion among marxist organisations on whether and how this can be done at the present time. You can also agree on alliances with other classes, but only on the basis of a decent marxist minimum programme that will create the foundations for working class rule.

On a side note, I also think that the WW must undertake a certain change of priorities. They should publish more articles about actual struggles. I believe so because I think they actually can.

[Q]

On a side note, I also think that the WW must undertake a certain change of priorities. They should publish more articles about actual struggles. I believe so because I think they actually can do this.

I agree, but I note that in recent times there has been a notable change. A year ago the WW would cover about the SWP (pre-/post-)conference period pretty much every week, this year I've only seen 1 article so far. This to the agony of some on the Leftist Trainspotters list ;) But I think they re-focus on actual struggles is a step forwards and their theoretical linking towards such struggles has been an addition to the movement I dare say.

[blake 3:17]

Why, then, are those organized to the left of the Labour party not working in a *populist* front with the Greens, rank-and-file Lib Dems, and an unnamed populist minor petit-bourgeois party to the right of the Lib Dems on the question of properly proportional representation and on some other democracy questions?

In the case of democratic reforms and defence of civil liberties I would advocate a "populist" front as a short term tactic. The question of a formal bloc or just practical co-operation is another question that would depend on circumstance. PR is an issue I see cross class alliance as acceptable. Here in Canada some of the best proponents of PR come from either PC or Reform backgrounds.

Other examples I can think of are around defence of political prisoners -- the Globe and Mail (for those of you non-Canadians it's Canada's oldest newspaper and conservative) tends to defend civil liberties and rights of association. In recent years a group I was in worked with a number of very mainstream centrist NGOs. If a bit of compromise keeps a sister or brother out of prison and draws some attention to what got them in trouble in the first place, I say go for it.

Anyways, driftin driftin

[Die Neue Zeit]

I agree, but I note that in recent times there has been a notable change. A year ago the WW would cover about the SWP (pre-/post-)conference period pretty much every week, this year I've only seen 1 article so far. This to the agony of some on the Leftist Trainspotters list ;) But I think they re-focus on actual struggles is a step forwards and their theoretical linking towards such struggles has been an addition to the movement I dare say.

Macnair's Rule of Law article was the best example of what WW articles should be about: doses of theory, links to struggles, and "gossip" jabs at the SWP, SPEW, CPB, etc.

[Broletariat]

Either way, the dialectic takes a body blow.
That poor dead horse being continually beaten on :/

[IndependentCitizen]

Independent:



Unlike the SP, of course.:rolleyes:



Where have you been -- selling papers?

They do in fact have 'strategies'. You might not agree with them, but that's a different matter.

And wtf does this mean?



:confused:

We're actually discussing our strategies at branch meetings ready for our conference ;)

And come on, every movement should have a strategy - how else does it go forward? You can't just turn up at a demo, and say "fuck fees" then walk away. You need to emphasis community groups that are specifically brought to together to fight whatever, in this case - the cuts. How can a movement be successful if all it does is just protest? Protesting is a way to get heard, and is a way to show anger. It won't do much else. For example, the Anti-poll tax movement in the late 80s, and early 90s. They didn't topple the government because of the Battle of Trafalgar square, it was because of mass non-payment. That was a strategy, and it bloody well work.

Yes, the SP doesn't have a set strategy yet, that's because we're still debating what we think we should do. A lot of it seems to involve many other left groups, rather than taking it on just as SP vs Government vs Every other left group out there.

My criticism of selling papers and recruitment is only because you guys have people who do it at the wrong time. On London the 9th a couple of SWP members, as friendly as they were - didn't bother asking if people are alright, and if they need any help. Whilst everyone else fighting with the cops, smashing up the treasury and looking after those who have never been on a large demonstration before. Fire away your criticism, but please send that to my inbox rather than spamming the thread up with "I'm better" and "no I'm better".

In my opinion, this could be a step forward for the SWP, and I don't see this as a problem so much for the SWP.

[Devrim]

It won't do much else. For example, the Anti-poll tax movement in the late 80s, and early 90s. They didn't topple the government because of the Battle of Trafalgar square, it was because of mass non-payment. That was a strategy, and it bloody well work.

This is a bit of a leftist myth. The government wasn't toppled and in fact remained in office until 1997, winning the election in 1992. What happened was that the Conservative party changed leaders. Of course this was partly due to the Poll Tax, but Thatcher's intransigence on the ERM, and the disaster in the Eastbourne by-election, also had a very serious influence on persuading the party to dump her.

Devrim

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Broletariat:


That poor dead horse being continually beaten on

1. Unfortuantely, it's not dead.

2. It can't be beaten enough.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Independent:


And come on, every movement should have a strategy - how else does it go forward? You can't just turn up at a demo, and say "fuck fees" then walk away. You need to emphasis community groups that are specifically brought to together to fight whatever, in this case - the cuts. How can a movement be successful if all it does is just protest? Protesting is a way to get heard, and is a way to show anger. It won't do much else. For example, the Anti-poll tax movement in the late 80s, and early 90s. They didn't topple the government because of the Battle of Trafalgar square, it was because of mass non-payment. That was a strategy, and it bloody well work.

Which SWP-er does just this:


"fuck fees" then walk away

So, on what basis are you alleging the SWP has no strategy?

The whole point of their up-coming Natioanl Conference is to up-date that strategy in the light of changed circumstances. I am sure the SP does the same sort of thing.


My criticism of selling papers and recruitment is only because you guys have people who do it at the wrong time. On London the 9th a couple of SWP members, as friendly as they were - didn't bother asking if people are alright, and if they need any help. Whilst everyone else fighting with the cops, smashing up the treasury and looking after those who have never been on a large demonstration before. Fire away your criticism, but please send that to my inbox rather than spamming the thread up with "I'm better" and "no I'm better".

So, let me get this straight: based on what two SWP paper sellers allegedly did or did not do, you are judging the entire SWP?

Is that it?

And what makes you think I want to use these phrases:


"I'm better" and "no I'm better"

You:


rather than spamming the thread

Unlike you filling it up with baselesss allegations about the SWP?:rolleyes:

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Devrim:


The government wasn't toppled and in fact remained in office until 1997

Thatcher's regime was toppled.

And it's not a 'leftish myth' since few on the left will argue that the government was toppled.

Unless you have the quotations to prove otherwise, of course...

[Devrim]

Thatcher's regime was toppled.

And it's not a 'leftish myth' since few on the left will argue that the government was toppled.

Unless you have the quotations to prove otherwise, of course...

I don't actually need quotations to show that it is a leftist myth. I think that most people are aware of it, and the poster above is repeating it, which at least shows that some people believe it:


They didn't topple the government because of the Battle of Trafalgar square, it was because of mass non-payment.

The whole thing about 'Thatcher's regime' being toppled is absurd liberal leftist jargon, the same party remained in power, won the next election and continued to attack working class living standards.

Even then, the idea that the Poll Tax toppled Thatcher is in stark contradiction to the facts. Yes, it played a part, but so the the ERM, and also the fact that her own party had begun to believe that she was an electoral liability after Eastbourne. Of course it is impossible to attributed the causes as terms of the percentage of the damage done, but I think that anybody who denies that the question of the EU and ERM had anything to do with, is sadly avoiding the facts.

Devrim

Devrim

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Devrim:


I don't actually need quotations to show that it is a leftist myth. I think that most people are aware of it, and the poster above is repeating it, which at least shows that some people believe it:

In that case, can we see the original data from the survey you must have conducted, upon which your claim that "most people are aware" of the fact that it's a leftist myth that although the government didn't fall they think it actually did?

Oh wait, you have the post of one individual -- that proves it alright.:rolleyes:


The whole thing about 'Thatcher's regime' being toppled is absurd liberal leftist jargon, the same party remained in power, won the next election and continued to attack working class living standards

Are you denying then that she resigned?

And, of course the same party won the next election, but that was because of the crass election campaign run by Mandelson and Kinnock.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/foot-paul/1992/05/lablost.htm

But Thatcherism died when she left office, and the Major campaign was in no way like the 1979, 1982 or 1987 Thatcherite campaigns.

And when Labour won the 1997 campaign, this also happened:


continued to attack working class living standards

Which had nothing to do with Thatcher.


Even then, the idea that the Poll Tax toppled Thatcher is in stark contradiction to the facts. Yes, it played a part, but so the the ERM, and also the fact that her own party had begun to believe that she was an electoral liability after Eastbourne. Of course it is impossible to attributed the causes as terms of the percentage of the damage done, but I think that anybody who denies that the question of the EU and ERM had anything to do with, is sadly avoiding the facts.

The last straw was the fact that she had lost control of the streest in her capital city and major sections of the middle class were alienated by the poll tax.

Sure, other factors played their part, but the Poll Tax finally finished her off.

You plainly have little faith in the UK working class.

[Devrim]

In that case, can we see the original data from the survey you must have conducted, upon which your claim that "most people are aware" of the fact that it's a leftist myth that although the government didn't fall they think it actually did?

That is not what I was claiming even. What is a leftist myth is that the Poll Tax struggle brought down Thatcher when in reality it was one of a number of issues that eventually forced the Conservative Party to replace her.

For those who aren't aware of the actual time scale of events, the main Poll Tax demonstration took place at the end of March, whereas Thatcher was forced to resign at the end of November with the crisis for her premiership begin ing with Howe's attack on her over the ERM at the start of that month.


Oh wait, you have the post of one individual -- that proves it alright.

And ironically enough I have you actually defending exactly the same idea here.


The last straw was the fact that she had lost control of the streest in her capital city and major sections of the middle class were alienated by the poll tax.

It is quite amazing how quickly the bourgeoisie can react in a crisis and how in just less than only seven months there was a challenge to her leadership within her own party.

Actually what happened was that the final straw was over the ERM though this doesn't mean that the Poll Tax wasn't a contributory factor, and the Conservative Party did act pretty quickly. Howe made his attack on her within the commons just one day after the "No, No, No" speech, and the leadership ballot took place within three weeks.


You plainly have little faith in the UK working class.

Of course, understand the events as they actually happened, and not the later myth that was built up surrounding it, has nothing at all to do with my faith, or lack of it in the working class.

Devrim

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Devrim:


That is not what I was claiming even. What is a leftist myth is that the Poll Tax struggle brought down Thatcher when in reality it was one of a number of issues that eventually forced the Conservative Party to replace her.

And we are still waiting for the original data from your survey about what most leftists believe...


Of course, understand the events as they actually happened, and not the later myth that was built up surrounding it, has nothing at all to do with my faith, or lack of it in the working class.

Still waiting...

[Die Neue Zeit]

You can also agree on alliances with other classes, but only on the basis of a decent marxist minimum programme that will create the foundations for working class rule.

Wasn't the original problem with the Popular Front three-fold?

- Collaboration with the liberal bourgeoisie
- Shutting up (Macnair's stuff about the traditional "we've got to shut up or we can't have unity")
- Dare I say, collaboration based on something even below a Kautskyan minimum program

That third point I raised, because of radical political and socioeconomic reforms not being advocated within Popular Front activity.


In the case of democratic reforms and defence of civil liberties I would advocate a "populist" front as a short term tactic. The question of a formal bloc or just practical co-operation is another question that would depend on circumstance. PR is an issue I see cross class alliance as acceptable. Here in Canada some of the best proponents of PR come from either PC or Reform backgrounds.

Other examples I can think of are around defence of political prisoners -- the Globe and Mail (for those of you non-Canadians it's Canada's oldest newspaper and conservative) tends to defend civil liberties and rights of association. In recent years a group I was in worked with a number of very mainstream centrist NGOs. If a bit of compromise keeps a sister or brother out of prison and draws some attention to what got them in trouble in the first place, I say go for it.

Anyways, driftin driftin

Not at all. I forgot to add "Pirate Party" phenomenons as temporary petit-bourgeois allies in PR campaigns, but can you guess which "unnamed populist minor petit-bourgeois party to the right of the Lib Dems" I'm referring to? ;)

[blake 3:17]

"unnamed populist minor petit-bourgeois party to the right of the Lib Dems" I have no idea.