The working class are superior in every imaginable way.

[SpineyNorman]

It's true, that's just how it is. We're better than everyone else. If you disagree then say why and prepare to have your arguments destroyed.

[bcbm]

workers don't matter at all except in their ability to halt production and the reproduction of capitalism

[SpineyNorman]

That's nice. This is a thread about the inherent superiority of the working class though.

[ZeroNowhere]

The working class aren't superior in terms of per capita wealth. In any case, us communists wish to abolish the working class, so if you think so highly of it maybe you should begin getting comfortable in this forum.

[bcbm]

there is no inherent superiority in any group of people

[Thug Lessons]

Yes! Left-volkism! Who needs science and historical analysis anyway?

[bcbm]

science and history are for nerds

[SpineyNorman]

There is you know. Your middle class types get everything handed to them on a plate, yet still need to spend fuck knows how much on psychoanalysts and stuff. Whereas we just get on with it. We're better at enjoying ourselves too.

Then there's the biological superiority - working class people are more likely to marry members of different ethnic groups, meaning greater biological diversity. As any student of biology knows, increased levels of diversity in a group make it easier to adapt and more likely to fight off illnesses. Contrast this with your inbred chinless toff. This also shows that we're less racist.

Face it, working class is just better. It may be an uncomfortable truth but truth it is.

[SpineyNorman]

Yes! Left-volkism! Who needs science and historical analysis anyway?

lol Who said there was anything wrong with science and historical analysis? This thread is about the superiority of the working class. The rationale behind my argument is based upon science and historical analysis.

[Thug Lessons]

A pampered labor aristocrat from "Great" Britain claiming to be working class? Gimme a break.

[SpineyNorman]

science and history are for nerds

No, this isn't an anti-intellectual thread. Nice bit of anti-working class sentiment there though. Call yourself a communist?

[bcbm]

There is you know. Your middle class types get everything handed to them on a plate, yet still need to spend fuck knows how much on psychoanalysts and stuff. Whereas we just get on with it. We're better at enjoying ourselves too.

Then there's the biological superiority - working class people are more likely to marry members of different ethnic groups, meaning greater biological diversity. As any student of biology knows, increased levels of diversity in a group make it easier to adapt and more likely to fight off illnesses. Contrast this with your inbred chinless toff. This also shows that we're less racist.

Face it, working class is just better. It may be an uncomfortable truth but truth it is.

u dumb

[SpineyNorman]

A pampered labor aristocrat from "Great" Britain claiming to be working class? Gimme a break.

Oh christ, we have a third worldist in our midst. Why do you hate the first world working class?

[SpineyNorman]

u dumb

My dear Oscar, I wish I'd said that.

[Thug Lessons]

Oh christ, we have a third worldist in our midst. Why do you hate the first world working class?
You've got internet access and free healthcare. Face it, you're positively posh even compared to an Amerikkkan, let alone the global poor.

[bcbm]

No, this isn't an anti-intellectual thread. Nice bit of anti-working class sentiment there though. Call yourself a communist?

communism has nothing to do with class chauvinism there is nothing special about workers and we want to destroy the working class and all others not put them on a pedestal

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

The working class is the best class.

[bcbm]

there's no class like no class

[Lumpen Bourgeois]

Unlike pimpin, trollin is easy.

[SpineyNorman]

There's probably an argument for the working class in places like China and India being superior even to me, I'll grant you that.

However, we have universal health care because we faught for it. We also have public libraries, where I access the internet, because we faught for them.

Make what you will of that.

Face it - the working class are superior. The working class in some countries probably have it a bit harder, in which case they are probably superior to me.

But this is a general theory of class superiority, so the distinction being discussed is between classes, not nationalities.

[SpineyNorman]

The working class is the best class.

Good to see there's someone else on here with a bit of sense.

[SpineyNorman]

workers don't matter at all...

And here we see the ethos of the bourgeois "communist" laid bare.

[Thug Lessons]

There's probably an argument for the working class in places like China and India being superior even to me, I'll grant you that.

However, we have universal health care because we faught for it. We also have public libraries, where I access the internet, because we faught for them.
Actually I believe you'll find in terms of standard of living, you're easily in the global to 15%. You're not just middle-class, but straight-up bourgeois. And by the way, you didn't fight for anything. You scooped it up with the silver spoon that you were born with in your mouth, while the real working class the fought for it is long dead or confined to rest homes.

[Thug Lessons]

Let this thread stand as an example to all ye who would troll OI.

[SpineyNorman]

we want to destroy the working class

Quoted for posterity. If this is your "communism" I want nothing to do with it. My communism is all about working class self-emancipation and class pride.

[SpineyNorman]

Actually I believe you'll find in terms of standard of living, you're easily in the global to 15%. You're not just middle-class, but straight-up bourgeois. And by the way, you didn't fight for anything. You scooped it up with the silver spoon that you were born with in your mouth, while the real working class the fought for it is long dead or confined to rest homes.

That's lovely. And there I was thinking that class was defined by realtionship to the means of production. How foolish of me.

[SpineyNorman]

Let this thread stand as an example to all ye who would troll OI.

Oh yes, you've really showed me. Not trolling, just trying to drum some sense into you.

So, when you stand on your platform of "all first world workers are in fact pampered parasites" how do you think that will go down? I think you're guaranteed a great reception myself.

[Thug Lessons]

That's lovely. And there I was thinking that class was defined by realtionship to the means of production. How foolish of me.
But wouldn't that make the 'middle-class' actually working-class as well? No, it's not about means of production but income, and by those standards you're a fat cat ripe for the JDPON. Make your time.

[SpineyNorman]

But wouldn't that make the 'middle-class' actually working-class as well? No, it's not about means of production but income, and by those standards you're a fat cat ripe for the JDPON. Make your time.

No, it really isn't. The middle class are the managerial class - their relationship to the means of production is different from mine. This is abc stuff, do keep up.

[SpineyNorman]

But wouldn't that make the 'middle-class' actually working-class as well? No, it's not about means of production but income, and by those standards you're a fat cat ripe for the JDPON. Make your time.

I just want to get this straight - are you saying Marx was wrong on his analysis of class relationships and economic stratification?

[ZeroNowhere]

Quoted for posterity. If this is your "communism" I want nothing to do with it. My communism is all about working class self-emancipation and class pride.No, we pretty much want to destroy the working class.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

The question is complicated.

True, to an extent the working class tends to have a greater pool of genetic diversity, less prone to in breeding (the Windsors are at the stage where they have to marry "commoners", too many people like Charles). However talk of "genetics" opens a whole complicated can of worms.

Working class people are nicer, able to see though ruling class propaganda-generally true, I think.

The ruling class does have a monopoly and control over culture.The NY Times and NPR exemplifies this-talk of posh gallery openings, avante garde musicians and film makers, etc while US culture as a whole has been massively dumbed down. Few people in the US have a grasp of basic history, people are discouraged from political involvement. Stuff like American Idol and reality TV are huge.There is a huge potential for a self directed working class culture to develop but as far as I know, outside of music, this isn't happening.

As others have said, the goal of communism is to have the working class abolish class society and therefore itself.

[SpineyNorman]

No, we pretty much want to destroy the working class.

Fascist! :D

[Thug Lessons]

And here we see the ethos of the bourgeois "communist" laid bare.
Look at this bougie little Eichmann try to tell us what communism is. Little does he know that the bourgeoisie and proletariat depend on each other, and with the one's disappearance the other must disappear as well.

[bcbm]

Quoted for posterity. If this is your "communism" I want nothing to do with it. My communism is all about working class self-emancipation and class pride.

communism is about the rediscovery of our species being and the establishment of a humanity for itself which necessarily means the destruction of all classes and the opening of human possibility. the working class emancipates itself by destroying class society and thus itself as a class

[SpineyNorman]

The question is complicated.

True, to an extent the working class tends to have a greater pool of genetic diversity, less prone to in breeding (the Windsors are at the stage where they have to marry "commoners", too many people like Charles). However talk of "genetics" opens a whole complicated can of worms.

Working class people are nicer, able to see though ruling class propaganda-generally true, I think.

The ruling class does have a monopoly and control over culture.The NY Times and NPR exemplifies this-talk of posh gallery openings, avante garde musicians and film makers, etc while US culture as a whole has been massively dumbed down. Few people in the US have a grasp of basic history, people are discouraged from political involvement. Stuff like American Idol and reality TV are huge.There is a huge potential for a self directed working class culture to develop but as far as I know, outside of music, this isn't happening.

As others have said, the goal of communism is to have the working class abolish class society and therefore itself.

At last, a considered reply. Of course I was being provocative in my OP, but I do believe there is something to it, and I believe too many on the left have been sucked into the political cul-de-sac of identity politics. Class is very different from other identities as it is not immutible - alter the class structures and you alter the class identity of every member of that society. The same cannot be said of ethnicity, gender, etc.

The part about genetics was deliberately provocative, but it's also true. This is why the Royal family sometimes bring in middle class people like what's her name that William just married. When too many of their kids are being born with seven toes they have to widen the gene pool.

I think, though, that people under-estimate the greatness of working class culture. The football terraces, working mens' clubs, works bands, etc. More recently, and one I was personally involved in, was the outdoor rave scene. Until that was hijacked by middle class trustafarians and lifestylists that was dominated by the working class. We have our own culture, a culture that transcends every boundary you can think of - ethnic, national, religious, you name it. Why is this culture less valuable than bourgeois culture?

[Thug Lessons]

I just want to get this straight - are you saying Marx was wrong on his analysis of class relationships and economic stratification?
No, I'm saying that Marx posited an division of society into two class, bourgeoisie and and proletariat, not three, and that you, as part of the global elite, belong to the former.

[bcbm]

I think, though, that people under-estimate the greatness of working class culture.

there is no working class culture, proletarians only exist as proletarians when they are at work outside of work they have no inherent traits in common, nothing unites them, they can listen to rap as easily as country enjoy a bender as easily as a church bbq

[SpineyNorman]

Look at this bougie little Eichmann try to tell us what communism is. Little does he know that the bourgeoisie and proletariat depend on each other, and with the one's disappearance the other must disappear as well.

Put down you Ward Churchill books and look at reality. The bougeoisie needs the working class. We don't need them. It's all very well talking about what happens when we reach classless society but to the best of my knowledge that's not happened yet. If all the working class were wiped out the rich would die in their own filth. Were the opposite to occur (and no, I'm not advocating classicide as Michael Mann would call it) we'd deal with the situation with ease. And that's the point - ultimately everyone is dependent on the working class. We're the ones that make shit work.

[SpineyNorman]

there is no working class culture, proletarians only exist as proletarians when they are at work outside of work they have no inherent traits in common, nothing unites them, they can listen to rap as easily as country enjoy a bender as easily as a church bbq

Bollocks.

[SpineyNorman]

No, I'm saying that Marx posited an division of society into two class, bourgeoisie and and proletariat, not three, and that you, as part of the global elite, belong to the former.

How did Marx define class? Come on, this is simple stuff. It's implicit in everything he wrote.

And he didn't say there were only two classes. That's factually incorrect.

[bcbm]

you gave one example "outdoor rave" but that was hardly the entire class, working people also create punk bands and hip hop and metal and christian reading circles and jazz appreciation groups or do crossword puzzles or watch football or prefer nascar or even watch fucking golf or whatever

[SacRedMan]

How can we support the working class if we want a classless society?

[hatzel]

http://www.chriskern.co.uk/pblog/images/20060831090413_multi.jpg

Sell that fashionable labour, you inherently superior son of a gun! :thumbup:

[SpineyNorman]

you gave one example "outdoor rave" but that was hardly the entire class, working people also create punk bands and hip hop and metal and christian reading circles and jazz appreciation groups or do crossword puzzles or watch football or prefer nascar or even watch fucking golf or whatever

So what? Does it have to involve the whole class in order for it to qualify as working class culture? Of course it doesn't.

My point is that we're not lumps of plasticine that can be moulded as our superiors see fit. We are capable of constructing our own culture. Often that culture is co-opted by the upper strata, as with football, rave, rap, etc. But that just confirms the superiority of the working class - our culture is so good, despite the additional challenges we face, that they can't keep their hands off it.

[SpineyNorman]

http://www.chriskern.co.uk/pblog/images/20060831090413_multi.jpg

Sell that fashionable labour, you inherently superior son of a gun! :thumbup:

Wonderful! Someone whose signature includes a quote from Nietszche is mocking me for talking about superiority.

[hatzel]

Wonderful! Someone whose signature includes a quote from Nietszche is mocking me for talking about superiority.

I'm not mocking you for it. But also the Übermensch isn't defined by his relation to the means of production, in case you didn't read that bit :)

[SpineyNorman]

How can we support the working class if we want a classless society?

I can't decide whether you're being sarcastic or just terminally stupid.

[SpineyNorman]

I'm not mocking you for it. But also the Übermensch isn't defined by his relation to the means of production, in case you didn't read that bit :)

I now have no idea what you're talking about.

[SacRedMan]

I can't decide whether you're being sarcastic or just terminally stupid.

Oh I'm sorry but I just don't understand something. Or what do you think, that everyone here is smart and intelligent? I'm here for learning things about communism, not to read arrogant reactions on my interpretations :sneaky:

[Manic Impressive]

You've got internet access and free healthcare. Face it, you're positively posh even compared to an Amerikkkan, let alone the global poor.


In the UK over 13 million people in poverty. That’s one in five without enough to live on, discriminated against and stereotyped, forgotten by the government, and given far fewer opportunities than the rest.
http://www.oxfam.org.uk/oxfam_in_action/issues/poverty-in-the-uk.html

[SpineyNorman]

Oh I'm sorry but I just don't understand something. Or what do you think, that everyone here is smart and intelligent? I'm here for learning things about communism, not to read arrogant reactions on my interpretations :sneaky:

Fair enough. I apologise - I thought you were being sarcastic. The working class is the only class that can bring about communism. It has the power, by means of withdrawal of labour, to kill the old order. And it's the only class in whose material interests it is to bring about classless society. That being the case, it is necessary to empower the working class in order to bring about classless society.

People on here seem to be labouring under the false impression that I don't understand communism, that I am ignorant of Marxist theory. This is simply not true.

Whereas that third worldist who was spouting crap about the British working class being members of the oppressor class shows just how un-Marxist some self professed "Marxists" can be. Marx defined class by relationship to the means of production. If you define class differently then you're not adhering to the Marxist analysis of class. Simple as.

[SpineyNorman]

http://www.oxfam.org.uk/oxfam_in_action/issues/poverty-in-the-uk.html

Don't, you'll make the third worldists' heads explode.

[SacRedMan]

I thought you were being sarcastic

Seems like I'm terminally stupid instead of sarcastic.

Apoligies accepted.

[SpineyNorman]

Seems like I'm terminally stupid instead of sarcastic.

Apoligies accepted.

Not at all. If you're learning from those on this thread who appear to think they're "pwning" me then it's hardly surprising that you're confused. Ever read the Manifesto? That would be the place to start.

[SacRedMan]

Ever read the Manifesto? That would be the place to start.

I did, 2 times ;)

[SpineyNorman]

I did, 2 times ;)

OK. So what did it say about the role of the working class in bringing about communism? And what does that say about the way communists should relate to the working class?

Do you think the attitude of the third worldist, who basically claims that the working class in countries like Britain is a privileged oppressor class, will open the working class up to communist ideas? Or do you think it will alienate us, driving some into the arms of the right?

It strikes me that some are far more concerned about looking as radical and right on as possible, rather than thinking about what strategies will work in the long term.

The working class has been in retreat for the past 30 years. The most important task faced by the left at the moment is to empower and defend the working class. We win over workers by actually helping them, workers learn through experience, not abstract theory. And when they realise that our methods are the best for improving their lot in the short term they may start to listen to our ideas about long term aims.

Contrast this with the third worldist, who is basically saying that workers in Britain have it too good, are part of the problem, and that communism will mean a fall in their material standards of living. Which strategy do you think will wield the best results?

And this, by the way, is the reason why communists need to have a presence in the working class. If we don't we lose touch completely and turn into Sparts or third worldists who make the kind of daft arguments we've seen in this thread.

[L.A.P.]

But wouldn't that make the 'middle-class' actually working-class as well? No, it's not about means of production but income, and by those standards you're a fat cat ripe for the JDPON. Make your time.

No, it is about the role in the means of production. Enough of your third worldist bullshit.

[hatzel]

And it's the only class in whose material interests it is to bring about classless society.

http://www.meta-opinions.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/possible-reason-of-his-cough.jpg

[Invader Zim]

http://images.icanhascheezburger.com/completestore/2009/3/1/128803826644607904.jpg

[red cat]

The working class can evolve into a new species, the bourgeoisie can't.

[SpineyNorman]

you [/I]didn't fight for anything. You scooped it up with the silver spoon that you were born with in your mouth, while the real working class the fought for it is long dead or confined to rest homes.

Nice sneaky edit there, thought you'd sneak that in without me noticing, eh? You know those people who faught for it? What class were they? People like my grandparents for instance. Also, as any revolutionary knows, winning concessions like a full safety net and universal healthcare is not sufficient - they also need to be defended. That these things still exist is testament to the power of the working class. The government is trying to remove universality from healthcare provision in this country - we're fighting off attacks against these gains as we speak. And we're winning.

Interesting interpretation of "silver spoon" too. My earliest memories are of the miners' strike, when my family had no income whatsoever, the government even prevented us from having free school meals. Yet we survived. And we did it through class solidarity. So nerrr.

All in all your brilliant refutation doesn't really amount to much, does it?

[SpineyNorman]

The working class can evolve into a new species, the bourgeoisie can't.

Another good point. We're just better. Face it toffs.

[SpineyNorman]

http://www.meta-opinions.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/possible-reason-of-his-cough.jpg

How profound. What's your point again?

[SpineyNorman]

http://images.icanhascheezburger.com/completestore/2009/3/1/128803826644607904.jpg

Yes. Clearly anyone who questions the third worldist mantra is a troll. Silly sod.

[SacRedMan]

So what did it say about the role of the working class in bringing about communism?

To make a revolution.


And what does that say about the way communists should relate to the working class?

The communists should help them with it.

I know my awnsers are simplistic and short, but it's getting late here and don't have much time left.

[Property Is Robbery]

You should go read a book if you're seriously not a troll. And stop calling yourself a communist until you know what that means.

[SpineyNorman]

To make a revolution.



The communists should help them with it.

I know my awnsers are simplistic and short, but it's getting late here and don't have much time left.

That's pretty much it. You don't need anything else. When workers are striving to improve our lot communists should be helping us. That's it, all you need to know.

Your understanding is far better than that of pseudo-intellectuals like our third worldist friend, who would likely tell British workers who are striving for material improvements that they're oppressors seeking to increase their already unjustifiable privilege.

Now, who do you think will get the best response among the working class? People who take your (and my) position, or people who take the daft, anti-working class position of the third worldist? Of course communists want to improve the lot of the poorest workers in the world. But not at the expense of their brothers and sisters in the first world.

[SpineyNorman]

You should go read a book if you're seriously not a troll. And stop calling yourself a communist until you know what that means.

1) Which books would you recommend, oh enlightened one? I've read all Marx and Engels' major works, a fair bit of Lenin, Luxemburg and Trotsky and much of the more recent stuff by Harvey and the like.

2) I do know what it means. It's just that there is room in my understanding for nuance. This probably doesn't fit well with the Marxism/Anarchism by numbers approach of many on this board but that's your problem, not mine.

[SacRedMan]

Now, who do you think will get the best response among the working class?

At this moment, almost nobody. I think there are new stages:

1. learning the society what communism really is, in Marxist sence of course
2. capitalism at the edge of society, and finally overthrow it with a revolution
3. create a socialist society
4. transform into a communist one


You should go read a book if you're seriously not a troll. And stop calling yourself a communist until you know what that means.

For who is this post?

[Property Is Robbery]

For who is this post?
not you

[Property Is Robbery]

1) Which books would you recommend, oh enlightened one? I've read all Marx and Engels' major works, a fair bit of Lenin, Luxemburg and Trotsky and much of the more recent stuff by Harvey and the like.

2) I do know what it means. It's just that there is room in my understanding for nuance. This probably doesn't fit well with the Marxism/Anarchism by numbers approach of many on this board but that's your problem, not mine.
But you claim you want to retain the working class and that the middle class is managerial. My family is what would be considered lower middle class in America and we are definitely working class. If you had read any Marx and got something out of it you would know that Marx said there was the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. I don't know why you want to maintain your current status of wage slave

[Cork Socialist]

No, this isn't an anti-intellectual thread. Nice bit of anti-working class sentiment there though. Call yourself a communist?

Surely if you call your self a communist you would be looking to get rid of class divisions and Create a classless society. In which the working class would not be superior as there is no "working class" in a communist society.

[SpineyNorman]

At this moment, almost nobody. I think there are new stages:

1. learning the society what communism really is, in Marxist sence of course
2. capitalism at the edge of society, and finally overthrow it with a revolution
3. create a socialist society
4. transform into a communist one

Might I respectfully suggest that there's an earlier stage that you've missed out? The first priority must be action, as Gramsci pointed out, Marxism is the philosophy of Praxis. Most workers don't become communists because we read a book. We become communists because we realise, through our own actions, that it's the only way we can really solve our problems. So the first priority is to get workers to fight for improvements in our own living conditions, and do this under the capitalist framework. This serves two main purposes. 1) It strengthens the working class and increases class consciousness, as workers realise that our interests are intertwined. 2) It will eventually become clear that workers cannot free ourselves without destroying capitalism - learning through action. 3) Communists are the best class fighters - by taking a leading role in struggles we win we gain the trust of our fellow workers. Once we've done that we can start to think about the stuff you mention.




For who is this post?

Me. Don't worry though, I'm sure he/she is about to educate me, to remove the scales from my eyes and show me how to be "pure".

[SpineyNorman]

Surely if you call your self a communist you would be looking to get rid of class divisions and Create a classless society. In which the working class would not be superior as there is no "working class" in a communist society.

I do seek to get rid of class divisions, as I have already clearly stated. Do keep up. Unless there have been some very significant changes I've missed we haven't yet managed that. We live under capitalism. In capitalist world we inhabit there are classes. And the working class is the best one.

Something about looking reality in the face.

[Kuppo Shakur]

I can't believe y'all could leave this guy hanging like this...

*Pulls SpineyNorman's finger*

[Cork Socialist]

In a capitalist society the Capitalist class would be the best class, The working classes are brutally exploited and bear the brunt of cut backs and attacks from the Ruling classes, I fail to see how we have it best.

Personally I think its irrelevant who the "best" class is though.

[SpineyNorman]

But you claim you want to retain the working class and that the middle class is managerial. My family is what would be considered lower middle class in America and we are definitely working class. If you had read any Marx and got something out of it you would know that Marx said there was the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. I don't know why you want to maintain your current status of wage slave

Where do I say I want to retain a working class? Where do I say I want to retain my current status as a "wage slave"? (the Marxist term in proletarian)

The American establishment has been very successful in producing and perpetuating the myth that most Americans are middle class. It's nonsense. Your class status is defined by relationship to the means of production - if you work on it but don't control it you're working class. I'm not the one saying people like you and your family are part of the oppressor class - your third worldist buddy is the one doing that.

And if you'd read Marx and got something out of it you'd know that he pointed out that some groups (eg. the petty bourgeois) had self-contradictory class interests. The modern managerial class, the class I'd define as the middle class, also fits this model. Marxism isn't a dogma, it's an analytical framework. And as relations of production have changed so too has the class makeup of society. However, there is still a working class, or proletariat, and a ruling class, the bourgeoisie. It is between these two classes that the battle lines are drawn. The managerial class can be divided between the two according to the degree to which their class interests are closer to one or other group. However, it is still worth pointing out the distinction - like the petty-bourgeoisie, there is no way of knowing which side they will be on.

[SpineyNorman]

In a capitalist society the Capitalist class would be the best class, The working classes are brutally exploited and bear the brunt of cut backs and attacks from the Ruling classes, I fail to see how we have it best.

Personally I think its irrelevant who the "best" class is though.

I didn't say we had it best. I said we are better, and we are. Read the thread - I've essentially proven it already.

[SpineyNorman]

I can't believe y'all could leave this guy hanging like this...

*Pulls SpineyNorman's finger*

Thank christ for that, I was starting to get stomach cramps.

[Cork Socialist]

How are we better then? you said were "better at enjoying ourselves" this is a matter of opinion and does not make anyone superior, I like one thing my friend doesn't doesnt make me superior.

"There is you know. Your middle class types get everything handed to them on a plate, yet still need to spend fuck knows how much on psychoanalysts and stuff. Whereas we just get on with it" fail to see again how that makes us superior?

"biological superiority" source that working class people are biologically superior ? or is just another Opinion?

"The rationale behind my argument is based upon science and historical analysis" i fail to see any besides what you said about biology and diversity, and i don't think working class people are more likely to marry different ethnicities. I'm not saying your wrong with this one just would like to see a source.

[SpineyNorman]

How are we better then? you said were "better at enjoying ourselves" this is a matter of opinion and does not make anyone superior, I like one thing my friend doesn't doesnt make me superior.

It does. Look at your toffs - they have to spend a sodding fortune on champaign and yachts to have a good time, and even then they don't look like they're enjoying themselves. Whereas your working class fella can get a crate, a bag of weed and a football and we'll have a scream with our mates. This is better, quite clearly. We don't need to spend a fortune to have a good time, they do.


"There is you know. Your middle class types get everything handed to them on a plate, yet still need to spend fuck knows how much on psychoanalysts and stuff. Whereas we just get on with it" fail to see again how that makes us superior?

Think about it. We have to struggle a lot more to get by, yet somehow we manage it without the need to pour our hearts out to some over-paid shrink.


"biological superiority" source that working class people are biologically superior ? or is just another Opinion?

Diversity. Ask any biologist - a group with a more diverse gene pool is better at adapting and surviving.


"The rationale behind my argument is based upon science and historical analysis" i fail to see any besides what you said about biology and diversity, and i don't think working class people are more likely to marry different ethnicities. I'm not saying your wrong with this one just would like to see a source.

Can't be arsed to dig out the stats but it's a well documented fact - this quote from an old Red Action article (http://www.redaction.org/race_and_class/time_to.html) will have to do for now: "Yet, even a casual glance at the make up of any inner-city community, reveals the conceit of an 'inherently racist' white working class to be a lie. It is among the working classes, and statistically, only among the working classes, that interracial relationships thrive."

To summarise, I'd rather be working class.

[Cork Socialist]

My problem with this is it alot of your opinion making us superior, For example "they don't look like there enjoying themselves" I'm sure they are otherwise they wouldn't do it, How much it costs someone or what they do to have fun doesn't make you superior.

Psychiatrists(spelling is probably wrong) is not directly linked to a single class. It is unfair to say as a class we are superior because we cope better. Mental health again like interests aboves varies from person to person.

I don't think we have a more diverse genepool tbh :S again would like to see a source for that.

[hatzel]

We have to struggle a lot more to get by, yet somehow we manage it without the need to pour our hearts out to some over-paid shrink.

Not to get technical or anything, but plenty of working class types seek psychotherapy, and benefit substantially from it...

[Cork Socialist]

Not to get technical or anything, but plenty of working class types seek psychotherapy, and benefit substantially from it...

Exactly, I should have made that point. Its not limited to a certain class, Peoples ability to "withstand" for lack of a better word problems mentally etc differs from person to person not from class to class.

[SpineyNorman]

Not to get technical or anything, but plenty of working class types seek psychotherapy, and benefit substantially from it...

It's ok, I might be a cultureless prole but I can understand technical language. The point is that toffs seek the help of councilors when they miss the bus, no, sorry, the limo, to work. It generally takes a serious crisis for a member of the w/c to seek such help.

[SpineyNorman]

Exactly, I should have made that point. Its not limited to a certain class, Peoples ability to "withstand" for lack of a better word problems mentally etc differs from person to person not from class to class.

So you dispute the idea that a group that is more used to tackling adversity will be better able to cope with it? Seems a bit daft to me.

[Cork Socialist]

It's ok, I might be a cultureless prole but I can understand technical language. The point is that toffs seek the help of councilors when they miss the bus, no, sorry, the limo, to work. It generally takes a serious crisis for a member of the w/c to seek such help.
You can't prove any of that. Again that is your opinion which is not the case at all. Its a complete overstatement to says "toffs" seek help when they miss buses. Thats a ridiculous statement.

[Cork Socialist]

So you dispute the idea that a group that is more used to tackling adversity will be better able to cope with it? Seems a bit daft to me.
What matters in those cases is in the Individual person not the class that they come from.

[SpineyNorman]

My problem with this is it alot of your opinion making us superior, For example "they don't look like there enjoying themselves" I'm sure they are otherwise they wouldn't do it, How much it costs someone or what they do to have fun doesn't make you superior.

Psychiatrists(spelling is probably wrong) is not directly linked to a single class. It is unfair to say as a class we are superior because we cope better. Mental health again like interests aboves varies from person to person.

I don't think we have a more diverse genepool tbh :S again would like to see a source for that.

1) It does. If you need to spend a fortune to enjoy yourself you're probably not very good at it. If all you need to do so is a packet of johnnies or a crate of beer and a football you're clearly better at it. Call it opinion if you want, I call it self-evident truth.

2) Of course it varies according to the individual. But social analysis is all about generalisations. Rich people are more likely to seek professional counselling for trifling matters. And no, I'm not providing a source for that one - it's blindingly obvious in its own right.

3) Are you suggesting that a an economic class withing which people are more likely to marry outside their own ethnic group won't have greater biological diversity? Seriously? Would you ask for a reference if I said 1+1=2?

[Cork Socialist]

I doubt all well off people have to have to spend loads of money to enjoy themselves. How much you spend anyway doesn't not determine if you can have a good time or not. A lot of rich people I imagine also like to just sit around with a crate of beer and watch the football match on tv. It is your opinion.

You cannot generalize something like enjoying yourself which comes from the individual not the Class you come from. A lot of working class people I would think would not have fun with a crate of beer and a football, Working class people who don't drink for example or like football.

You are generalizing the classes to much.

[SpineyNorman]

What matters in those cases is in the Individual person not the class that they come from.

I really shouldn't need to tell a Marxist that all social analysis, including class analysis, is based upon generalisation. And in general what I say is the case is the case. Of course there's variation within the groups but so what?

[SpineyNorman]

I doubt all well off people have to have to spend loads of money to enjoy themselves. How much you spend anyway doesn't not determine if you can have a good time or not. A lot of rich people I imagine also like to just sit around with a crate of beer and watch the football match on tv. It is your opinion.

You cannot generalize something like enjoying yourself which comes from the individual not the Class you come from. A lot of working class people I would think would not have fun with a crate of beer and a football, Working class people who don't drink for example or like football.

You are generalizing the classes to much.

You've said all that already. Class is itself a generalisation so unless you're generalising beyond the boudaries of the class how can you possibly generalise too much? Come on, you can do better than that.

[Cork Socialist]

I really shouldn't need to tell a Marxist that all social analysis, including class analysis, is based upon generalisation. And in general what I say is the case is the case. Of course there's variation within the groups but so what?

When it comes to what past times you enjoy or the ability to have more fun than one person. That is the Individual not the class.

[SpineyNorman]

You can't prove any of that. Again that is your opinion which is not the case at all. Its a complete overstatement to says "toffs" seek help when they miss buses. Thats a ridiculous statement.

It is, nonetheless, true.

[Cork Socialist]

It is, nonetheless, true.
Prove that it is true ? besides an opinion that you hold. You do not know every single "toff" there cannot claim that they as a whole will get mental help because they miss a bus....

[SpineyNorman]

When it comes to what past times you enjoy or the ability to have more fun than one person. That is the Individual not the class.

So you're suggesting that the way you view the world, the things you enjoy, the things you do, are not affected by your social class? Doesn't sound very Marxist to me.

Anyway, I'm off to work now. I'll be back tomorrow to further demonstrate my inherent class superiority ;)

[SpineyNorman]

Prove that it is true ? besides an opinion that you hold. You do not know every single "toff" there cannot claim that they as a whole will get mental help because they miss a bus....

You don't need to know every toff to generalise - that's the point of generalisations.

There are some technically working class people who have more disposable income than middle class people. Does that mean that the statement that working class people are, in general, less wealthy than the middle class is invalid? No, of course it doesn't. As I said, in general a member of the w/c will have more experience of adversity and so will be better equipped to cope. I really can't see why this is a controversial statement.

I really must go now or I'll be late for work, and then I might need to see a counsellor to get my head straight. After all, I'm as likely to need it as Paris Hilton is, right? :D

[Cork Socialist]

So you're suggesting that the way you view the world, the things you enjoy, the things you do, are not affected by your social class? Doesn't sound very Marxist to me.

Anyway, I'm off to work now. I'll be back tomorrow to further demonstrate my inherent class superiority ;)
Of course they do, But it is not the not the sole factor in which past times you will like. I am talking purely about your point that the working class enjoy themselves more, You cannot make this point on the basis of what class you come from, Many comrades on this board would have completly different interests to me or to you,Just because they have different interests doesn't mean that I have more fun than them because what I like seems less snobbish or upper class to me. If you like Polo go for it, it thats what works for you, If you like soccer thats fine. Doesn't mean that you have more fun because the game is different.

Im working class i like Cricket, I'm sure many working class people in ireland would puke at the idea of cricket.

[Tim Finnegan]

Then there's the biological superiority - working class people are more likely to marry members of different ethnic groups, meaning greater biological diversity.
I think that the dynamics of class-ethnicity intersection as pertaining to romantic relationships are rather more complex than just "proles do it more".


A pampered labor aristocrat from "Great" Britain claiming to be working class? Gimme a break.
Are you trying to out-stupid him, or is this just how you always talk?

[Thug Lessons]

Are you trying to out-stupid him, or is this just how you always talk?
It's more like if he's going to be a left-volkist with a moralistic class analysis that boils down to "less money=better" then why not go whole-hog?

[Tim Finnegan]

It's more like if he's going to be a left-volkist with a moralistic class analysis that boils down to "less money=better" then why not go whole-hog?
Ah, fair enough! :laugh:

[SpineyNorman]

I'm posting from my phone so these will be very brief. I can, if necessary, expand on this when I return home.


I think that the dynamics of class-ethnicity intersection as pertaining to romantic relationships are rather more complex than just "proles do it more".

So what? It doesn't make it any less true. Had I said that cheap footballs are made of rubber would you then have said, "yes, but there's more to it than footballs are rubber," expecting me to further analyse the chemical structure of rubber? Of course not.



Are you trying to out-stupid him, or is this just how you always talk?

If that's your view I'm not the one who needs to be "out stupided". Others have realised there's something behind my arguments, that they're intended to provoke debate on my assertion that the revolutionary left has all but abandoned class in favour of identity politics. Sometimes it's necessary to look below the surface and sometimes it's necessary to be provocative in order to solicit debate.

[SpineyNorman]

It's more like if he's going to be a left-volkist with a moralistic class analysis that boils down to "less money=better" then why not go whole-hog?

Had that been my argument you'd have a point. This massive error is due, in no small part, to your complete misunderstanding of the Marxist conception of class. That's your fault, not mine.

You've still not answered my question by the way, why do you hate the first world working class? Yours is a vulgar third worldist position, not a Marxist one.

[Tim Finnegan]

So what? It doesn't make it any less true. Had I said that cheap footballs are made of rubber would you then have said, "yes, but there's more to it than footballs are rubber," expecting me to further analyse the chemical structure of rubber? Of course not.
Then I'll elaborate; there is no blanket rule that the working class are more prone to ethnic inter-marriage than anybody else. These things depend on a pretty wide variety of factors, so reducing it to results alone- that is, taking the observation that, in your area, at this time, X is true- and posing it as a general rule is intellectually lazy.


If that's your view I'm not the one who needs to be "out stupided". Others have realised there's something behind my arguments, that they're intended to provoke debate on my assertion that the revolutionary left has all but abandoned class in favour of identity politics.And you don't think that "Class X is the best" is a form of identity politics? :confused:


Sometimes it's necessary to look below the surface and sometimes it's necessary to be provocative in order to solicit debate.Ironic, given the above.

[Lynx]

When you're a worker, you're taken for granted. Your pay stub will confirm this.
Being a professional will gain you more money, higher regard, maybe even recognition.
If you demonstrate leadership, the sky is the limit.

When other people or classes don't see you as superior, then you aren't. Your only option is to make them fear you.

[Blackscare]

This is a silly, silly thread.

[Invader Zim]

http://www.anomalousmaterial.com/movies/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/troll_2_02.jpg

[SpineyNorman]

Then I'll elaborate; there is no blanket rule that the working class are more prone to ethnic inter-marriage than anybody else. These things depend on a pretty wide variety of factors, so reducing it to results alone- that is, taking the observation that, in your area, at this time, X is true- and posing it as a general rule is intellectually lazy.

It's not just in my area and at this time, it's across industrial society and studies began around 1900. But this isn't really the point.


And you don't think that "Class X is the best" is a form of identity politics? :confused:

Ironic, given the above.

Yes, it is isn't it? Have you thought that maybe, just maybe, that might be my point? (Although I'd have to qualify that by pointing out that class identity is very different from ethnic/national/linguistic/religious/cultural identity, since changes to the economic infrastructure will inevitably alter class relations and therefore class identity itself - class politics isn't identity politics).

My problem is that many of the revolutionary socialist/anarchist groups I know of, and many people I have seen posting on here (the thirdworldist weirdo on this thread is a case in point) seem to have abandoned class in all but their rhetoric. There seems to be a view that the working class in the "wealthy" nations are pampered and inherently reactionary. And so the focus is put on ethnic, religious, gender, etc. minorities. It's very similar to the liberal middle class guilt that makes people praise "hard working immigrants" in contrast to the "feckless British working class". Besides the fact that this is completely wrong, do you think it will attract workers to our politics? I don't.

This leads to the likes of the SWP essentially defending the status quo and supporting the top-down establishment model of multiculturalism, which is anti-working class, reactionary and dangerous. Dangerous because if the "Muslim community" (because, obviously, all Muslims are the same - there's no class distinctions within the Muslim community, oh no!) and other such "communities" have "community leaders" speaking for them then the "white" working class will also seek their own "community leaders" and up step the BNP. It's also incredibly harmful to class consciousness, since it encourages people to see their allegiance as being along cultural rather than class lines. It's a tactic that worked incredibly well for the European colonial empires. Now they've brought it home. You've only got to look at the sectarian and ethnic violence in places like Rwanda, India, Pakistan and the like to see how dangerous this can be. And are the larger left groups opposing it? No, even the best ones merely ignore it - many give it their full support. I know of only one, very small, organisation in the UK that recognises this for the problem it is - a group that only has a presence in a couple of cities.

I would still rather be working class though. It's just better.

[SpineyNorman]

When you're a worker, you're taken for granted. Your pay stub will confirm this.
Being a professional will gain you more money, higher regard, maybe even recognition.
If you demonstrate leadership, the sky is the limit.

When other people or classes don't see you as superior, then you aren't. Your only option is to make them fear you.

How insightful. Rich people have more money - who'd have thought it?

[SpineyNorman]

http://www.anomalousmaterial.com/movies/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/troll_2_02.jpg

I hope you asked for your family's permission before you posted these holiday snaps.

[Thug Lessons]

http://www.anomalousmaterial.com/movies/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/troll_2_02.jpg
Those are actually goblins.

[hatzel]

Those are actually goblins.

Nah, they're Brits. We hardly have a reputation for being attractive, you know :lol:

[SpineyNorman]

left-volkist... privileged labour aristocrat... Amerikkka... free healthcare...

Do you howl at the moon in your spare time?

[SpineyNorman]

Nah, they're Brits. We hardly have a reputation for being attractive, you know :lol:

Speak for yourself sunshine. Although you're from that London so maybe... ;)

[hatzel]

class, class relations, identity politics, imaginable, liberal wankers, lol, middle class liberal disaster, superior, third worldism, working, working class

http://howlingforjustice.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/wolf-howl.jpg

[Imposter Marxist]

lumpen runs yo shit

[hatzel]

lumpen runs yo shit

NXZ52-XgUjA

[SpineyNorman]

I know you are, you said you are, so what am I?

That would work if it hadn't been my point to start with. I'm holding up a mirror.

Good that you think the worst and most damaging mistake the revolutionary left has made over the last 30 years is a joke. May I point you in the direction of the one UK based group that's actually managed to take a progressive line on this?

http://www.iwca.info/?p=10146

http://www.iwca.info/?p=10150

http://www.iwca.info/?p=10154

http://www.iwca.info/?p=10148


What's your priority? Looking all wight on and wadical? Or is it winning, making gains for the working class? Pathetic.

[SpineyNorman]

Yes, Marx's sneering contempt for the "lumpen proletariat" wasn't the most endearing element of his philosophy. But it's got to be dealt with - with the decimation of big industry and the unions that were built on the back of it we're all lumpen now. Fries with that sir?

I'm not sure if Rabbi K thinks that video's funny - I certainly don't. It's sneering class chauvinism at its worst. I think, for a lot of people, revolutionary socialism is merely a way of feeling superior without the need for guilt - much closer to liberalism than the true spirit of Marxism, which is first and foremost pro-working class.

When you're doing antifascist work do you mock them for being council house benefits scum? That's really productive too.

[#FF0000]

Yes, Marx's sneering contempt for the "lumpen proletariat" wasn't the most endearing element of his philosophy. But it's got to be dealt with - with the decimation of big industry and the unions that were built on the back of it we're all lumpen now. Fries with that sir?

what do you think lumpen means

[#FF0000]

lol those links

HURPL FLIUP MULTICUTLARUTISM

[RedSunRising]

Yes, Marx's sneering contempt for the "lumpen proletariat" wasn't the most endearing element of his philosophy. But it's got to be dealt with - with the decimation of big industry and the unions that were built on the back of it we're all lumpen now. Fries with that sir?


The Independent Working Class Association actually taken a pretty tough line on lumpens which is something I admire them for among others.

But you are right, people who consider themselves middle class, and are basically labour aristocrats are not the people who are going to make the revolution are they?

There are too many students and trendy hipster scum on the left who discredit it in the eyes of ordinary people.

[SpineyNorman]

what do you think lumpen means

It's the "human dust" - petty thieves, gypsies, etc. But the reactionary role given to them by Marx had more to do with their isolated position in society - they weren't part of the organised working class and were unlikely to become so. The same could be said of many of the people in the McJobs are fast becoming the only option for vast swathes of the population.

[RedSunRising]

It's the "human dust" - petty thieves, gypsies, etc. But the reactionary role given to them by Marx had more to do with their isolated position in society - they weren't part of the organised working class and were unlikely to become so. The same could be said of many of the people in the McJobs are fast becoming the only option for vast swathes of the population.

http://www.iwca.info/?p=10134

Read what the IWCA say about them PLEASE!

[SpineyNorman]

lol those links

HURPL FLIUP MULTICUTLARUTISM

Nice to see a considered response. I'm surprised to be honest - when I've read these boards you've generally come across as one of the more rational posters. Oh well. I suppose the IWCA are wacists, right? How, then, do you explain the flawless antifascist pedigree of its members? The organisation has a proud history, going back to RA and AFA in the '80s and '90s.

Cling to your identity fetish if you want - it's one of the main reasons for the utter irrelevance of the so called hard left.

[#FF0000]

There are too many students and trendy hipster scum on the left who discredit it in the eyes of ordinary people.

in my experience it's the hardliners who march w/ stalin portraits who do that.


Nice to see a considered response. I'm surprised to be honest - when I've read these boards you've generally come across as one of the more rational posters. Oh well. I suppose the IWCA are wacists, right? How, then, do you explain the flawless antifascist pedigree of its members? The organisation has a proud history, going back to RA and AFA in the '80s and '90s.

Too bad they have to wreck all that by complaining about eastern hordes taking white jobs


Cling to your identity fetish if you want - it's one of the main reasons for the utter irrelevance of the so called hard left.

This is coming from a guy who said "WORKING CLASS BEST CLASS"

I'm not big on identity politics.

[RedSunRising]

They have gone down hill big time for the glory days of Red Action though.

A lot of their critque of multi-culturalism is actually pretty spot on. If you understood England you would agree with most of it. And I say that as a Maoist.

However now of days they are basically a community version of a Trade Union.

[RedSunRising]

in my experience it's the hardliners who march w/ stalin portraits who do that.

As to the CPGB ML doing that well its London, a city with people from all over the world and outside the west Stalin doesnt have the bad rep he might have here. Its something a lot of people can identify with.

[SpineyNorman]

http://www.iwca.info/?p=10134

Read what the IWCA say about them PLEASE!

Relevance? Am I posting stuff in invisible ink only users with high post counts can see or something? It's the only explanation for way people appear to be reading into my posts things that aren't actually there.

Since subtlety seems to fall on stony ground round these parts I'll have to be a bit more blunt - the "lumpen" are growing, and have grown, into a group that can no longer be ignored. It's no good to just dismiss them as inherently reactionary - we need to relate to them. Now, I don't consider anyone to be infallible, including the IWCA - if they taken a contradictory position to mine that wouldn't, on its own, cause me to change my mind. However, I don't think any of what I said contradicts their analysis - quite the opposite.

[SpineyNorman]

However now of days they are basically a community version of a Trade Union.

What's wrong with that? With the death of big industry there are few workplaces big enough to organise mass trades unions. In my community unions are essential.

[RedSunRising]

Lumpen are dangerous scum involved in drug dealing and crime that preys on ordinary working class people, they should all be sent to re-education camps...Lumpen does not mean those casual or part time work, or even necessarily those on the dole.

[SpineyNorman]

in my experience it's the hardliners who march w/ stalin portraits who do that.



Too bad they have to wreck all that by complaining about eastern hordes taking white jobs

That's what you think they're doing is it? Or could it be that they're just being honest - EU immigration has had a negative impact on the earning capabilities of unskilled workers. To say that doesn't make you a racist. And to deny it damages your credibility.




This is coming from a guy who said "WORKING CLASS BEST CLASS"

I'm not big on identity politics.

You seem to be missing the point by a mile. I don't actuall believe in class superiority. I was being deliberately provocative and satirising the way in which liberal multiculturalism puts certain groups on a pedestal.

Carry on.

[RedSunRising]

What's wrong with that? With the death of big industry there are few workplaces big enough to organise mass trades unions. In my community unions are essential.

Because reformism, fighting for a nicer capitalism is a dead end, a dead end even in winning real reforms. Their focus now is making capitalism nicer rather than over throwing it.

[RedSunRising]

Too bad they have to wreck all that by complaining about eastern hordes taking white jobs


Where exactly do they say that?

[SpineyNorman]

Lumpen are dangerous scum involved in drug dealing and crime that preys on ordinary working class people, they should all be sent to re-education camps...Lumpen does not mean those casual or part time work, or even necessarily those on the dole.

So what? Are you saying that the development of atomised forms of production don't alter intra-class relations? And are you really trying to suggest that these "scum" are "scum" in abstraction from the world in which they live? Or could they not be the inevitable bi-product of a form of economic organisation that elevates self-interest to the level of high moral principle? They're a reflection of the world they inhabit. You can stick your camps up your arse.

[SpineyNorman]

Where exactly do they say that?

They don't - but the trendy lefty never misses an opportunity for a big of knee-jerk moralising. Oh, and Poles ARE in the main white. How can they be taking "white" jobs?

[SpineyNorman]

Because reformism, fighting for a nicer capitalism is a dead end, a dead end even in winning real reforms. Their focus now is making capitalism nicer rather than over throwing it.

Who said anything about reformism? I've said it on this thread before but it bears repeating: Most workers don't become communists because we read a book. We become communists because we realise, through our own actions, that it's the only way we can really solve our problems. So the first priority is to get workers to fight for improvements in our own living conditions, and do this under the capitalist framework. This serves two main purposes. 1) It strengthens the working class and increases class consciousness, as workers realise that our interests are intertwined. 2) It will eventually become clear that workers cannot free ourselves without destroying capitalism - learning through action. 3) Communists are the best class fighters - by taking a leading role in struggles we win we gain the trust of our fellow workers. Then we can start to think about revolution.

Had you been in Russia in the early 20th century you'd have been denouncing the soviets in the same way.

[SpineyNorman]

They have gone down hill big time for the glory days of Red Action though.

A lot of their critque of multi-culturalism is actually pretty spot on. If you understood England you would agree with most of it. And I say that as a Maoist.

However now of days they are basically a community version of a Trade Union.

I'd say the opposite is true. Of course, what they do isn't as fashionable, and it's not much fun, but it demonstrates a far better understanding of both the causes of fascist sympathies among the working class and of what's needed to build a genuine pro-working class movement. The IWCA of course has to be part of a wider strategy, but just like trade unions community unions are a vital part of this. The anti-poll tax movement shows just how powerful these kinds of organisations can be.

[#FF0000]

That's what you think they're doing is it? Or could it be that they're just being honest - EU immigration has had a negative impact on the earning capabilities of unskilled workers. To say that doesn't make you a racist. And to deny it damages your credibility.

So what does the IWCA actually propose when it comes to immigration?


I was being deliberately provocative and satirising the way in which liberal multiculturalism puts certain groups on a pedestal.

I have never seen this kind of thing outside of racist editorial cartoons. v:mellow:v

[SpineyNorman]

So what does the IWCA actually propose when it comes to immigration?

To the best of my knowledge they don't really have a "line". They're not a political party that seeks state power as such, which is why so many anarchists are willing to join. They don't really have a "programme" as such. Going by their analysis I'd say that they think this is just a small part of the way in which neoliberal policies attack the working class. Their analysis is very thoughtful and so I'd imagine they realise that bolting the doors shut and ending immigration isn't the answer.


I have never seen this kind of thing outside of racist editorial cartoons. v:mellow:v

I want to be clear on this before I respond - are you calling me a racist?

[727Goon]

Those are actually goblins.

But whats a goblin to a goon?

[SpineyNorman]

But whats a goblin to a goon?

Black nationalism is, like BNP, the logical conclusion of liberal multiculturalism. You're in good company here it seems.

[RedSunRising]

Black nationalism is, like BNP, the logical conclusion of liberal multiculturalism. You're in good company here it seems.

LOL....Nope. Blacks in the USA are a nation, and not a cultural or ethnic minority so bit of a difference their mate.

[RedSunRising]

I have never seen this kind of thing outside of racist editorial cartoons. v:mellow:v

What exactly are you refering to?

[#FF0000]

To the best of my knowledge they don't really have a "line". They're not a political party that seeks state power as such, which is why so many anarchists are willing to join. They don't really have a "programme" as such. Going by their analysis I'd say that they think this is just a small part of the way in which neoliberal policies attack the working class. Their analysis is very thoughtful and so I'd imagine they realise that bolting the doors shut and ending immigration isn't the answer.

I would hope not. I was reading some comments and they way some users explained the position of the IWCA was a little better than the way the IWCA itself explained it.

What I'm extremely uncomfortable with, aside from this scapegoating of immigrants (Here's an idea, how about get immigrants into the union so they get the pay and benefits, maybe?) is the whole "anti-multicultualism" thing. That gets me because, and maybe I'm the only one who defines it this way, multiculturalism means pakistanis and poles and british people living in the same neighborhood. I'm not sure how this is a problem and how being against this is not a racist position.


I want to be clear on this before I respond - are you calling me a racist?

No but I think you have a dumb idea of what people actually believe.

[#FF0000]

What exactly are you refering to?

The whole "promotion of certain groups" thing. Racists think people actively promote black people over white people, usually because anti-racists acknowledge black people exist.

I think I'm noticing a difference in definitions here tho, Norman. Are you talking about multiculturalism in the "cultural isolation = cultural uniqueness = diversity" sense, and not the "people of different cultures just kickin' it" sense?

[RedSunRising]

The whole "promotion of certain groups" thing. Racists think people actively promote black people over white people, usually because anti-racists acknowledge black people exist.

I think I'm noticing a difference in definitions here tho, Norman. Are you talking about multiculturalism in the "cultural isolation = cultural uniqueness = diverty" sense, and not the "people of different cultures just kickin' it" sense?

Labour and Liberal Democrats keep communities divided by playing one ethnic or cultural group off another to corner their votes, also there is a large element of wider social control in the whole thing probably. It hasnt just led to tensions and violence between whites and others, but between sikhs and muslims, afro-carribians and sikhs, muslims and afro-carribians....the whole "racialization" of local politics in the UK, whatever people might have said at one point has been a diasaster. Thats what he means by "multi-culturalism".

[SpineyNorman]

LOL....Nope. Blacks in the USA are a nation, and not a cultural or ethnic minority so bit of a difference their mate.

You'll have to expand on this. Isn't black nationalism a form of communalism? (not to be confused with communism)

[RedSunRising]

You'll have to expand on this. Isn't black nationalism a form of communalism? (not to be confused with communism)

I really need a shower so I will get back this.

No, blacks in the USA are a nation forged together through slavery, this was recognized by the Third International and even Trotsky believed this. They are an oppressed nation in need of national liberation, national liberation struggles can of course either be led by the working class in their own interest or by middle class nationalists.

[RedSunRising]

That gets me because, and maybe I'm the only one who defines it this way, multiculturalism means pakistanis and poles and british people living in the same neighborhood. I'm not sure how this is a problem and how being against this is not a racist position.
.

No multiculturalism doesnt mean that in the UK, it means seperate housing lists, keeping different groups seperate by overly promoting ethnic identity over a wider community identity.

[#FF0000]

Labour and Liberal Democrats keep communities divided by playing one ethnic or cultural group off another to corner their votes, also there is a large element of wider social control in the whole thing probably. It hasnt just led to tensions and violence between whites and others, but between sikhs and muslims, afro-carribians and sikhs, muslims and afro-carribians....the whole "racialization" of local politics in the UK, whatever people might have said at one point has been a diasaster. Thats what he means by "multi-culturalism".

Yeah. I was reading a thing about how the way the welfare states works out it basically creates ethnic ghettoes and segregation in basically every sphere of social life.

Words in England are fucking weird.

[#FF0000]

Man, this crazy "Johnny Foreigner" talk on the IWCA talk is still making me hella uncomfortable.

[hatzel]

Man, this crazy "Johnny Foreigner" talk on the IWCA talk is still making me hella uncomfortable.

I'm pretty sure I've only heard that expression in the phrase "Johnny Foreigner, coming over 'ere, takin' our jobs"...I'd say you're right to feel uncomfortable, this one isn't about words in England being weird...

[SpineyNorman]

I would hope not. I was reading some comments and they way some users explained the position of the IWCA was a little better than the way the IWCA itself explained it.

The "users" on there aren't all IWCA - in fact I'd say the majority probably are not. It's also worth pointing out that the Red Action were the main founders of the IWCA, and on their boards they allowed fascists to post in order that their "arguments" could be destroyed (and they were). Some fash will probably have followed them to the IWCA website.


(Here's an idea, how about get immigrants into the union so they get the pay and benefits, maybe?)

I agree, and so I'm sure do the IWCA. I know at least two Asian people in the IWCA, and given that I only know about 10 of their current members that suggests they're pretty well represented.


What I'm extremely uncomfortable with, aside from this scapegoating of immigrants

Who is scapegoating immigrants? Both the IWCA and I are very clear that capitalism itself, and in particular its neoliberal form, is the problem, not immigrants.


is the whole "anti-multicultualism" thing. That gets me because, and maybe I'm the only one who defines it this way, multiculturalism means pakistanis and poles and british people living in the same neighborhood. I'm not sure how this is a problem and how being against this is not a racist position.

What's happening here is that we're confusing terms. I have been clear (as have the IWCA) that it's top-down liberal multiculturalism as it actually functions in the UK that is the problem. I'm pro-melting pot, as are the IWCA. Top-down liberal multiculturalism is the opposite - you have the "muslim community", the "hindu community" etc. And this is often formalised too, so you get "community leaders" who are generally clerics or businessmen, who claim to speak for the whole "community". They are even, in many cases, able to call on bloc votes and use this to influence policy. It suggests that there is something inherently different about muslims/[insert minority here] and that all the people in these "communities" are homogenous. It encourages muslims/[insert minority here] to identify themselves along cultural rather than class lines. And in terms of the fascist threat it gives the likes of the BNP/EDL a great opportunity - after all, if these minorities have their "community leaders" why shouldn't someone speak out for the "white" community? This is what I mean when I say the BNP are multiculturalists.

Contrast this with my vision - where we just have the community, organised in IWCA like unions, comprising people of all faiths and ethnicities together, fighting together for improvements in our lives.

I oppose top-down liberal multiculturalism precisely BECAUSE I am an anti-racist.

Maybe it's different in your country, but liberal top-down multiculturalism in Britain has made the left (who have embraced it to their detriment) irrelevant and the far right (who claim to oppose it but are in fact its greatest proponents) stronger. The BNP may be weak now but that's because of incompetent management - there is still a massive constituency open to its ideas. And apart from neoliberalism itself top down liberal multiculturalism is the main cause.


No but I think you have a dumb idea of what people actually believe.

I could say the same about you. You've consistently read into my posts things that are not there, motives that are not there. And if you've read the IWCA piece on multiculturalism you've clearly failed to understand it.

[SpineyNorman]

I'm pretty sure I've only heard that expression in the phrase "Johnny Foreigner, coming over 'ere, takin' our jobs"...I'd say you're right to feel uncomfortable, this one isn't about words in England being weird...

So you're suggesting I'm a racist are you? Come on, out with it.

Total fucking joke.

[SpineyNorman]

I really need a shower so I will get back this.

No, blacks in the USA are a nation forged together through slavery, this was recognized by the Third International and even Trotsky believed this. They are an oppressed nation in need of national liberation, national liberation struggles can of course either be led by the working class in their own interest or by middle class nationalists.

How's that not communalism? Sounds like the very definition to me.

Anyway - I think my time on here may be done. I don't take kindly to being called a racist by total fucking idiots who don't know me and can't even be bothered to read what I've written. (that's not directed at you by the way)

[#FF0000]

Multiculturalism in England means segregation I guess.

[#FF0000]

So you're suggesting I'm a racist are you? Come on, out with it.

Total fucking joke.

Nah. The guy who was going on about Johnny Foreigner in the IWCA comment section probably is, tho

[SpineyNorman]

I'm pretty sure I've only heard that expression in the phrase "Johnny Foreigner, coming over 'ere, takin' our jobs"...I'd say you're right to feel uncomfortable, this one isn't about words in England being weird...

Come on, who's used the "Johnny Foreigner" term? If this is how you talk to people there's no wonder the left in the UK is fucked.

[SpineyNorman]

Nah. The guy who was going on about Johnny Foreigner in the IWCA comment section probably is, tho

Probably. So what? I've already explained the history of the IWCA and why they get such people commenting. But these ideas gain a lot of traction among certain sections of the w/c. Is it not better that we speak to these people rather than leave them be exploited by the far-right predators? Or we could take the UAF position on focus everything on getting the minority vote out against the BNP - tell people to vote for the status quo that's fucking them in order to stop the fash, thus making them identify us with the establishment and adding credence to the BNP's claims at being a "radical alternative".

[SpineyNorman]

Multiculturalism in England means segregation I guess.

Basically, yes. It's not a formal segregation as such but it has definite segregationist dynamics, if that makes sense.

[#FF0000]

words

Nope. I was just explaining that Rabbi K wasn't directing anything at you there.

[SpineyNorman]

Nope. I was just explaining that Rabbi K wasn't directing anything at you there.

Fair enough. At least you and he have had the guts to say what you think. I respect that. Contrast this with "Sam B" who has just told me to "shush". Let me guess - SWP or one of the organisations its spawned in one of its many splits?

Just to be very clear - the SWP and their fellow travellers are the very worst on this. Respect, UAF, the list goes on. There's no wonder the working class want nothing to do with them - their actions suggest total contempt for workers.

[gorillafuck]

does lunch count as a class?

[SpineyNorman]

does lunch count as a class?

Depends if you're the one making it or the one eating it.

[RedSunRising]

I'm pretty sure I've only heard that expression in the phrase "Johnny Foreigner, coming over 'ere, takin' our jobs"...I'd say you're right to feel uncomfortable, this one isn't about words in England being weird...

From the anarcho-pacifist who supports the state of Israel ;)

Ordinary people have economic concerns about immigration which does not make them necessarily racist. Its best that these issues can be discussed frankly rather than swept underneath the carpet.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

To change the subject a bit, SpineyNorman, what's your take on Trotsky's theory of culture? Trotsky disagreed with the "Proletkult" movement, he felt there could not be a specific "working class culture". He felt great culture of the past, produced in class societies, often , but not always, for the benefit of the aristocracy, Bach, Shakespeare, etc. was the heritage of the working class.

[RedSunRising]

To change the subject a bit, SpineyNorman, what's your take on Trotsky's theory of culture? Trotsky disagreed with the "Proletkult" movement, he felt there could not be a specific "working class culture". He felt great culture of the past, produced in class societies, often , but not always, for the benefit of the aristocracy, Bach, Shakespeare, etc. was the heritage of the working class.

The problem with the British Left has been the influence of Trotsky. Trotsky has got the working class in England where they are now.

Without pride in your class and without identifying with the larger whole of your class your arent going to be great at overthrowing another class, thats basically what he is arguing.

[SpineyNorman]

To change the subject a bit, SpineyNorman, what's your take on Trotsky's theory of culture? Trotsky disagreed with the "Proletkult" movement, he felt there could not be a specific "working class culture". He felt great culture of the past, produced in class societies, often , but not always, for the benefit of the aristocracy, Bach, Shakespeare, etc. was the heritage of the working class.

I haven't read anything he's written on it so won't dismiss it completely but to be honest it sounds like bollocks. A lot of what I've read of Trotsky has had value though, I think he pretty much nailed Stalinism in Revolution Betrayed and his writings on National Socialism are very insightful.

[hatzel]

From the anarcho-pacifist who supports the state of Israel ;)

Ordinary people have economic concerns about immigration which does not make them necessarily racist. Its best that these issues can be discussed frankly rather than swept underneath the carpet.

I don't see how any of this post has any relevance to anything in the post of mine you quoted...but don't worry! You a'ight! :thumbup1:

[#FF0000]

I'm kinda inclined to agree with Trotsky on the whole prolekult thing, kind of. I mean, the working class is absolutely massive, and two workers might not necessarily have much in common aside from the fact that they are wage-earners.

[RedSunRising]

I haven't read anything he's written on it so won't dismiss it completely but to be honest it sounds like bollocks. A lot of what I've read of Trotsky has had value though, I think he pretty much nailed Stalinism in Revolution Betrayed and his writings on National Socialism are very insightful.

So you support the idea of shotting workers for turning up late to work and having people canned in factories?

That is what Trotsky was advocating when he was in the USSR and Stalin fought him on those issues.

[SpineyNorman]

So you support the idea of shotting workers for turning up late to work and having people canned in factories?

That is what Trotsky was advocating when he was in the USSR and Stalin fought him on those issues.

What does any of that have to do with whether his critique of Stalinism was valid? And you're going to have to try harder than that if you're going to present Stalin as a champion of workers' freedoms/rights.

[hatzel]

What does any of that have to do with whether his critique of Stalinism was valid? And you're going to have to try harder than that if you're going to present Stalin as a champion of workers' freedoms/rights.

You're only trying to discredit Stalin to pick up your next pay cheque from the Nepalis :sneaky:

[RedSunRising]

What does any of that have to do with whether his critique of Stalinism was valid? And you're going to have to try harder than that if you're going to present Stalin as a champion of workers' freedoms/rights.

What have you read about Stalin outside of western or Trotskyite propaganda?

Why do you think that the majority of the workers opposition sided with Stalin against Trotsky and that Alexandra Kollantai remained faithful to him to the very end?

[SpineyNorman]

I'm kinda inclined to agree with Trotsky on the whole prolekult thing, kind of. I mean, the working class is absolutely massive, and two workers might not necessarily have much in common aside from the fact that they are wage-earners.

It doesn't have to be a single homogenous culture, and nor does it have to abandon the good elements of bourgeois culture. My argument is that we're capable of producing our own culture - whether adapted from bourgeois culture or completely new. I don't know if Trotsky agrees or disagrees with that, but if the post referring to his work is accurate then he's wrong on that one.

[Sam_b]

Contrast this with "Sam B" who has just told me to "shush". Let me guess - SWP or one of the organisations its spawned in one of its many splits?

Let me rephrase that for you: "Contrast this with "Sam_b" who had just told me through the neg-rep function to "SHHHHHHHHHHHH". I then looked at his profile, understood he was a former longstanding member of the SWP, and made a sweeping generalisation that has nothing to do with the topic at hand".

[Lenina Rosenweg]

So you support the idea of shotting workers for turning up late to work and having people canned in factories?

That is what Trotsky was advocating when he was in the USSR and Stalin fought him on those issues.

Care to share your sources with us? Oh right I forgot how Stalin saved thousands from being shot.

BTW Jolly good show on the other thread the other day. Its amazing how one or two posts can speak volumes

Anyway instead of RevLedft you might want to try posting here, oh Wise Daughter of Mao

http://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/

[Sam_b]

There's no wonder the working class want nothing to do with them - their actions suggest total contempt for workers.

If these are the largest leftist organisations in Britain, why does the working class 'want nothing to do' with the left at all?

[SpineyNorman]

What have you read about Stalin outside of western or Trotskyite propaganda?

Why do you think that the majority of the workers opposition sided with Stalin against Trotsky and that Alexandra Kollantai remained faithful to him to the very end?

I'd imagine that you'd consider anything other than Stalinist apologetics to be Trotskyite or "western" so that's a daft question. And I'm not going to get into a daft Stalin vs Trotsky argument, especially as I'm not even a Trot.

But if you're going to defend Stalin can you do it in quiet please, so nobody hears you? If anything's going to put people off the left more than its identity fetish it's Stalin.

[RedSunRising]

Care to share your sources with us? Oh right I forgot how Stalin saved thousands from being shot.

BTW Jolly good show on the other thread the other day. Its amazing how one or two posts can speak volumes

Anyway instead of RevLedft you might want to try posting here, oh Wise Daughter of Mao

http://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/

Never heard of "Militarization of Labour"?

[SpineyNorman]

If these are the largest leftist organisations in Britain, why does the working class 'want nothing to do' with the left at all?

Precisely because they're the largest leftist organisations in Britain. That's the problem. I've been to Marxism - prolefest it is not.

[RedSunRising]

But if you're going to defend Stalin can you do it in quiet please, so nobody hears you? If anything's going to put people off the left more than its identity fetish it's Stalin.

Outside of Europe, and even outside of the English speaking world Stalin is rather popular so you are being a parochial.

[SpineyNorman]

Can we have the Stalin vs Trotsky bunfight elsewhere please? It's tedious and I'm sure it's all been done before. Maybe if we spent less time obsessing over what happened in Russia nearly 100 years ago we'd have got somewhere by now.

[Sam_b]

If anything's going to put people off the left more than its identity fetish it's Stalin

So why are Marxist-Leninists, specifically 'Stalinist' parties and organisations growing and a political force in some regions, such as (off the top of my head) Nepal or West Bengal?

Do you operate on generalisations as a rule?

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Anyway I was referring to this
http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1923/art/tia23c.htm

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/oct2008/cult-o23.shtml

[SpineyNorman]

Outside of Europe, and even outside of the English speaking world Stalin is rather popular so you are being a parochial.

Of course he is. That's not what my Bulgarian housemate tells me.

[RedSunRising]

So why are Marxist-Leninists, specifically 'Stalinist' parties and organisations growing and a political force in some regions, such as (off the top of my head) Nepal or West Bengal?

Do you operate on generalisations as a rule?

Greece? Turkey? Germany? Ecudor? The Philipines?

[Sam_b]

Precisely because they're the largest leftist organisations in Britain

That would indicate that these groups have a degree or influence of support within the working class, thus negating your statement.


I've been to Marxism - prolefest it is not

You were keen earlier to emphasise ideas of class as being relative to the labour market - so did you immediately identify the thousands of people at Marxism as being ruling class or otherwise just by looking at them?

[SpineyNorman]

So why are Marxist-Leninists, specifically 'Stalinist' parties and organisations growing and a political force in some regions, such as (off the top of my head) Nepal or West Bengal?

Do you operate on generalisations as a rule?

Yes, I do. Unless you hadn't noticed, I'm trying to focus on the UK here. There ain't much I can do about what's happening in Bengal.

[Sam_b]

That's not what my Bulgarian housemate tells me

Is he speaking for the rest of the world in the same way you're speaking for the working class?


There ain't much I can do about what's happening in Bengal

Are you not an internationalist?

[hatzel]

ou were keen earlier to emphasise ideas of class as being relative to the labour market - so did you immediately identify the thousands of people at Marxism as being ruling class or otherwise just by looking at them?

Presumably their lack of inherent superiority was self-evident...

[SpineyNorman]

That would indicate that these groups have a degree or influence of support within the working class, thus negating your statement.

No it doesn't negate my statement. The SWP came to dominate the British left when it still had politics, when the likes of Hallas, Cliff and Foot were still around. Their size is largely and artifact of that. Since then they've gone to shit and are putting people off right, left and centre. I ask you this - why hasn't any left group been able to grow in the way the BNP did pre-meltdown? Answer: because people associate the left with the shrill preaching of the SWP. (Among whom Chris frothy mouth Bamberry is one of the worst. I mean, Respect? What was that all about? And UAF? Vote Labour/Tory to stop the BNP! Look at how wadical we are!




You were keen earlier to emphasise ideas of class as being relative to the labour market - so did you immediately identify the thousands of people at Marxism as being ruling class or otherwise just by looking at them?

Yes. Now are you going to address the point? (the point being your the SWP's toxic influence over left politics in the UK)

[SpineyNorman]

Presumably their lack of inherent superiority was self-evident...

Oh dear.

[SpineyNorman]

Is he speaking for the rest of the world in the same way you're speaking for the working class?

Now when have I claimed to speak for the working class?


Are you not an internationalist?

Yes, I am. But I'm also a realist - I realise that I can influence things where I live far more easily and more effectively than I can elsewhere. I'm surprised that's controversial to be honest.

Anyway, I'm off to work now. Behave while I'm gone please.

[hatzel]

Anyway, I'm off to work now. Behave while I'm gone please.

http://www.cartoonstock.com/newscartoons/cartoonists/mly/lowres/mlyn327l.jpg

[SpineyNorman]

Let me rephrase that for you: "Contrast this with "Sam_b" who had just told me through the neg-rep function to "SHHHHHHHHHHHH". I then looked at his profile, understood he was a former longstanding member of the SWP, and made a sweeping generalisation that has nothing to do with the topic at hand".

On the contrary, it has everything to do with the topic at hand - your organisation has been at the forefront of everything I've been criticising in this thread.

Anyway, I really must be off now. Cheers for the debate FF (sorry, can't see your name and I can't remember it in full) I hope you now understand that it's possible, no vital, to criticise multiculturalism as it functions in the UK from a progressive, anti-racist perspective. Cheers also RedSun.

I'll hopefully have time to respond to any future posts tomorrow.

[Sam_b]

Since then they've gone to shit and are putting people off right, left and centre

I agree: I'd use a real and concrete argument about why the organisation is capitulating, as calling it 'shit' is unhelpful and lessens our understanding. Yet, it still appears to be the largest grouping. Now, we're talking about different periods when we mention Foot, Cliff, Hallas etc; so ther eis no historical point or referencing as to why things went so bad, which kind of makes it a moot point. It would also lessen your analysis that the working class are 'superior' if the large membership is some sort of hangover from the 1980s, which would appear to indicate that somehow workers are stupid enough to stay in politically ineffectual organisations.


I ask you this - why hasn't any left group been able to grow in the way the BNP did pre-meltdown?

You're not asking me a question if you're going to answer it yourself.


Answer: because people associate the left with the shrill preaching of the SWP

There is absolutely no evidence for this. If you do defend your statement then it again suggests that the SWP has influence over the entire working class, and thus has had a negative influence. I don't think you'd find any SWP member who would say the party has such a wide influence - almost to the point you would have to argue with this logic that it is a mass party or vanguard.


Among whom Chris frothy mouth Bamberry is one of the worst

Chris is no longer in the SWP. It's also spelled 'Bambery'.


I mean, Respect? What was that all about?

If you're starting with 'I mean' that would indicate you're putting down the RESPECT coalition as being organised in the hands of Bambery. Now, putting aside the fact that RESPECT was and to my knowledge still is a coalition (you've said nothing, interestingly enough, about the likes of CPB and Socialist Resistance) and thus cannot be the classic 'SWP front', but the SWP's relations and organisation within RESPECT was actually coordinated by John Rees, who also is no longer in the SWP.


And UAF? Vote Labour/Tory to stop the BNP! Look at how wadical we are!


I don't particularly have a problem with the electoral strategy, seeing as the grouping isn't an organisation. But I do have criticisms about UAF. No real point here though it seems.


Now are you going to address the point?

Not really a 'point', as you made an assertion that wasn't backed up by any evidence whatsoever.

How, in your opinion, does the idea of class and the labour market affect physical attirubtes on people?

[Sam_b]

Now when have I claimed to speak for the working class?


the working class want nothing to do with them


If anything's going to put people off the left more than its identity fetish it's Stalin


people associate the left with the shrill preaching of the SWP

Is the class homogenous?


I realise that I can influence things where I live far more easily and more effectively than I can elsewhere

Yes, but that wasn't the point. The idea that you can do nothing about the situation in Bengal indicates you haven't actually tried.

[Sam_b]

your organisation has been at the forefront of everything I've been criticising in this thread.


So again the influence of the SWP must be far and wide!

[Thug Lessons]

class, class relations, identity politics, imaginable, liberal wankers, lol, middle class liberal disaster, superior, third worldism, working, working class

[Decolonize The Left]

Sooo many capitalists in this thread... hurts... so... much...

Makes me wonder how can I face tomorrow.
IKqbAgpamAM

- August

[hatzel]

Don't forget who we are as a species, we are Total alpha dogs compared With cockroaches of the world. A cockroach has no money, we Have thumbs and can Make Money so forget about bourgeois we are Fucking gods and to hell with those cockroaches

But still we're pwned by these guys:

http://desktop.freewallpaper4.me/preview/6730-baby-polar-bear.jpg

[Tim Finnegan]

Now when have I claimed to speak for the working class?
Quite honestly, the fact that you keep talking is becoming offensive enough in its own right.

[SpineyNorman]

You're an arrogant little prick, aren't you sammy?


I agree: I'd use a real and concrete argument about why the organisation is capitulating, as calling it 'shit' is unhelpful and lessens our understanding.

How can it possibly "lessen" our understanding? Does it remove grey matter or something? No, it's a succinct way of summarising what's happened. If people want me to expand they only have to ask. It's gone to shit for several reasons, relating to the politics of the SWP. There was a downturn in the struggle, correctly identified by the SWP leadership. I don't know precisely what happened within the party, what with not being a member. But I can tell you what the result was (and in reality it set in before the deaths of the three prominent members I mentioned earlier. In response to the downturn, rather than concentrating on recruitment within the class, which was always going to be hard work at a time like that, and the growth of union cadre, the SWP engaged in a series of bandwagon jumping exercises. My memory is hazy, what with me only being a kid at the time, but I think the first was the ANL (MKI). This wasn't a complete disaster, it actually worked as a successful front, bringing a large number of very good, active working class comrades into the party. Unfortunately the ANL also brought in plenty of fashionable liberals and students. Now, some of those w/c comrades actually paid attention to, and acted on, the request to "smash the BNP". This was a bit embarrassing for the leadership, bearing in mind the trendy types who were drawn in at the time and the links they were making with establishment figures in their front work within the ANL. I mentioned RA/AFA and the IWCA earlier in the thread. I think you know what's coming next - the expulsion of the predominantly working class "squadists". The sensibilities of the trendies had won out - the proles were ejected. Since then the lines have been fairly clearly drawn for the SWP. You focus recruitment on universities rather than workplaces. Try and deny it - it's obviously true. Just look at the Marxism festival - student tickets are cheaper than unwaged! And so, with this recruitment strategy in mind, they have jumped on every fashionable bandwagon going. And that's meant embracing the liberal fetishes of the day, and in this era that means identity politics. Hence the UAF and hence Respect. The "united front of a special kind" I believe they called it.


Yet, it still appears to be the largest grouping.

Indeed - the SWP aren't the only offenders - the left as a whole must take responsibility. Some appear to believe that the w/c has let down the left. The reverse is true - the left has let down the working class. But the SWPs presence serves as an excellent example for the enemies of the left to put forward in order to reinforce the right wing stereotype. It's impacted on the ability of every group to grow within traditionally working class constituencies. It's also the first port of call for a hell of a lot of people making their first steps in progressive politics - result: 18 months down the line the "revolution is just around the corner", followed with the inevitable disappointment, results in a demoralised and burned out activist who may never engage in activism again. I know more examples of this than I do of 1)happy members or 2) members who have gone on to find a happy home elsewhere on the left. And they've remained the biggest organisation because of this opportunistic recruitment strategy.



Now, we're talking about different periods when we mention Foot, Cliff, Hallas etc; so ther eis no historical point or referencing as to why things went so bad, which kind of makes it a moot point.

No it wouldn't. And I'm not sure what you mean anyway - are you saying those three weren't in the party together? I'm fairly sure they were. Are you saying that since they were in charge years ago things are different now? If so yes, that's my point. Or are you saying that it should be put into context? If so OK - I've just done that. The fact is that there's a large vacuum that's been opened up since labour's complete embrace of neoliberalism and abandonment of the working class (and clause IV) in the mid '90s. There's a constituency out there waiting to be won over - a working class constituency. And the only ones winning anyone over in the period since have been the BNP. The reason? They've campaigned on bread and butter issues, gaining peoples' trust along the way. It's not the racism, social conservatism or anti-immigrant sentiment that's won the BNP votes - it's their willingness (for opportunistic reasons) to campaign on these issues, to listen to peoples' concerns and build their election campaigns accordingly. The only reason they haven't done a lot better is the shitness of their politics (ultimately offers no answers as I'm sure we can all agree) and the incompetence of its elected representatives once they're tested out in the council chambers. Had the BNP been in any way competent when elected we'd be in a lot more trouble now than we are. And we could and should have been winning these people over.



It would also lessen your analysis that the working class are 'superior' if the large membership is some sort of hangover from the 1980s, which would appear to indicate that somehow workers are stupid enough to stay in politically ineffectual organisations.

Do pay attention. I'm not actually arguing that the w/c are superior. That was a bit of fun for me but it was also a way of satirising the way some on the liberal left view some "identity" groups - they idealise them. I was deliberately trying to provoke. Once the real debate got going I admitted this. This is the third time I've had to say this now, I hope it sinks in this time.




You're not asking me a question if you're going to answer it yourself.

Stunning. I bet you're really popular.




There is absolutely no evidence for this. If you do defend your statement then it again suggests that the SWP has influence over the entire working class, and thus has had a negative influence. I don't think you'd find any SWP member who would say the party has such a wide influence - almost to the point you would have to argue with this logic that it is a mass party or vanguard.

Only if you're a simpleton. It has such influence because i)as the biggest party on the left it is also the most visible - when people want to see what "the left" looks like they're likely as not going to look at the SWP. ii) Because they're so preachy and arrogant they provide the perfect example for right wingers to use to stereotype - "look, we said all lefties are moralising preachers - look at the SWP - proves it!" I wish they didn't have such influence myself.




Chris is no longer in the SWP.

I know - he recently left to join the Judean peoples' front or whatever you call it - I assumed you had too.


It's also spelled 'Bambery'.

I suppose you think that makes you look clever. It doesn't - it makes you look like an anally retentive dick.




If you're starting with 'I mean' that would indicate you're putting down the RESPECT coalition as being organised in the hands of Bambery. Now, putting aside the fact that RESPECT was and to my knowledge still is a coalition (you've said nothing, interestingly enough, about the likes of CPB and Socialist Resistance) and thus cannot be the classic 'SWP front', but the SWP's relations and organisation within RESPECT was actually coordinated by John Rees, who also is no longer in the SWP.

This would be a lot easier for us both if you were to respond to what I actually said rather than what you'd have liked me to have said. Shall we give it a try?

The point with respect was and is that they shouldn't have joined it in the first place. And it was yet another consequence of the SWP's embrace of identity politics. That's how you were able to form a coalition with notorious slum landlords and strike breakers - they were part of the "muslim community" and therefore viewed in abstraction as muslims, rather than in their economic context and exploitative parasites. And gorgeous George? LOL




I don't particularly have a problem with the electoral strategy, seeing as the grouping isn't an organisation. But I do have criticisms about UAF. No real point here though it seems.

But don't you see how this affects the way people see both the BNP and the SWP (and by association the wider left)? It's widely believed, rightly or wrongly (and I don't really care which it is) that UAF is a SWP front. People see the UAF, and you have to admit that the most active campaigners for the UAF are SWPers, telling people not to vote for the BNP because they're all nasty, and to vote for whatever party can beat them (normally labour). So they see you as on the side of the establishment and the BNP as somehow radical and anti-establishment. I know a fair few SWP members - in the main they're good people, committed activists who really do want to help - I don't doubt that. But the way they go about it is counter-productive.


Not really a 'point', as you made an assertion that wasn't backed up by any evidence whatsoever.

It's true though (if you're talking about what I think you are - I can't see what you're replying to on my screen). Just go out into an estate and ask people what they think of left wing activists. I'm right - and you can either take what I'm saying on board or ignore it - I don't care - you're irrelevant, as am I probably - I see there being some serious upheaval in the next couple of years and I think both the organised left and right will be left wondering what's happened - they certainly will if they don't buck their ideas up.


How, in your opinion, does the idea of class and the labour market affect physical attirubtes on people?

It doesn't. (Unless you lose your arm in an industrial accident or summat)

[Lyev]

You're an arrogant little prick, aren't you sammy?He prefers 'Sam_B', and is very insistent about it.

[SpineyNorman]

Is the class homogenous?

Not completely in any way. But it is in some ways yes - almost all have two arms and legs - so in terms of limps is it almost homogenous. Around half are male and around half are not - so in terms of gender it isn't. In terms of distaste for some of the trendy left's obsessions it is almost homogenous if the people I talk to are anything to go by.




Yes, but that wasn't the point. The idea that you can do nothing about the situation in Bengal indicates you haven't actually tried.

No, it indicates that I don't think I can. I haven't tried as it happens though. I'm sure you think you've scored a great "point" or something there, demonstrating how tewwibly wight on you are but you haven't. Again you've just made yourself look a tit. I'd be interested (and probably amused) to hear about the ways in which you think someone as colossally influential (two can play at that game) as me could further the cause of the Bengali people.

[SpineyNorman]

So why are Marxist-Leninists, specifically 'Stalinist' parties and organisations growing and a political force in some regions, such as (off the top of my head) Nepal or West Bengal?

Do you operate on generalisations as a rule?

Missed this one - because conditions are ripe for it, and because they don't seem to have gone down the blind alleys the more trendy lefty organisations have gone for.

[RedSunRising]

You're an arrogant little prick, aren't you sammy?


He is in the SWP so what do you expect?

Good about the IWCA is that rather jump from one trendy cause to another they actually take the time to study and learn from real working class communities about the problems that are facing them and try to struggle towards solutions, gradually building up respect within those communities. They seem to be the only ones in Britain actually doing that which is vital work in moving towards any power bid on the part of the working class. Bad about the IWCA is that they stick to local issues and dont seem to connect them to larger ones. Anti-Imperialism was a big part of the old Red Action, they were the only English leftists that were respected within the working class Republican communities in the north of Ireland as being genuine. Red Action should be criticized though for being to uncritical of the leadership of the Provisional Republican movement but thats another story. With the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan there has been a massive militarization of British society, the whole sick cult of the Poppy has gotten more and more big ups in the media.....Yet the IWCA seem to be ignoring this? Why?

[SpineyNorman]

So again the influence of the SWP must be far and wide!

More a case of the SWP suffering from the most severe case of an epidemic sweepting the across the British left.

[SpineyNorman]

class, class relations, identity politics, imaginable, liberal wankers, lol, middle class liberal disaster, superior, third worldism, working, working class

I'd get someone to take my temperature if I were you.

[SpineyNorman]

He is in the SWP so what do you expect?

Good about the IWCA is that rather jump from one trendy cause to another they actually take the time to study and learn from real working class communities about the problems that are facing them and try to struggle towards solutions, gradually building up respect within those communities. They seem to be the only ones in Britain actually doing that which is vital work in moving towards any power bid on the part of the working class. Bad about the IWCA is that they stick to local issues and dont seem to connect them to larger ones. Anti-Imperialism was a big part of the old Red Action, they were the only English leftists that were respected within the working class Republican communities in the north of Ireland as being genuine. Red Action should be criticized though for being to uncritical of the leadership of the Provisional Republican movement but thats another story. With the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan there has been a massive militarization of British society, the whole sick cult of the Poppy has gotten more and more big ups in the media.....Yet the IWCA seem to be ignoring this? Why?

I'm almost certain that you'll find that IWCA members are involved in these things. From what I can gather from speaking to people who are/have been involved was consciously designed so that people could get involved who didn't necessarily agree with them on everything. They're not the only ones who've done this - the likes of the SWP have too - but instead of siding with working class people who are fighting for the same things as you but maybe disagree on something that's happening in a country you can't hope to really influence, the SWP side with class enemies who happen to agree on the war in Iraq.

I'd also say that the cult of Wooten Bassett is massively over-estimated. Nobody I know gives a shit to be honest - a lot wear poppies and that but I don't think that means you've bought into the jingoism. My mum always wears a poppy and she's certainly not subscribed to any militaristic cult. I maintain that we owe a massive debt to the people who faught the Nazis in WW2, even if their governments sent them there for the wrong reasons. A lot of people wear a poppy to pay respects to those people.

[SpineyNorman]

Quite honestly, the fact that you keep talking is becoming offensive enough in its own right.

Swap talking for breathing and I'd return the sentiment.

[SpineyNorman]

Don't forget who we are as a species, we are Total alpha dogs compared With cockroaches of the world. A cockroach has no money, we Have thumbs and can Make Money so forget about bourgeois we are Fucking gods and to hell with those cockroaches

Are you working class Maoy? Do you feel superior to, say, Sam_B? I know I do.

[Tim Finnegan]

Swap talking for breathing and I'd return the sentiment.
I'll stop if you stop.

[hatzel]

I'll stop if you stop.

And why aren't I invited to this party? :(

[RedSunRising]

I'm almost certain that you'll find that IWCA members are involved in these things. From what I can gather from speaking to people who are/have been involved was consciously designed so that people could get involved who didn't necessarily agree with them on everything. They're not the only ones who've done this - the likes of the SWP have too - but instead of siding with working class people who are fighting for the same things as you but maybe disagree on something that's happening in a country you can't hope to really influence, the SWP side with class enemies who happen to agree on the war in Iraq.


Marx said that the country which oppresses another forges its own chains. Im not saying that you should only work with people in your community who agree with you either, but you shouldnt be afraid to discuss things that might be troublesome. Yes the problem with the left in Britain has been its total disconnect from the real lives of working class communities and its disrepect for them, one thing working class people are often very good at is spotting someone who is just out to use them, which well the left in England basically has been a lot of the time to feed their middle class egos, but I think the IWCA is failing in not providing a wider persecptive to understand things aswell as working with local issues.

[SpineyNorman]

I'll stop if you stop.

You go first.

[Tim Finnegan]

You go first.
Ok. I have now ceased to respire, and, while I can't exactly prove it here, you'll just have to take my word for it.

Now shut up.


And why aren't I invited to this party? :(
You can compensate for us by taking extra-deep breaths and posting in large, bolded letter. Keep everything good and balanced, ken? :thumbup1:

[RedSunRising]

Spiney is not a troll.

Can we stop the silliness?

[SpineyNorman]

Marx said that the country which oppresses another forges its own chains. Im not saying that you should only work with people in your community who agree with you either, but you shouldnt be afraid to discuss things that might be troublesome. Yes the problem with the left in Britain has been its total disconnect from the real lives of working class communities and its disrepect for them, one thing working class people are often very good at is spotting someone who is just out to use them, which well the left in England basically has been a lot of the time to feed their middle class egos, but I think the IWCA is failing in not providing a wider persecptive to understand things aswell as working with local issues.

The fact they've only really got off the ground in a few cities suggests there's something missing. I don't pretend to know what that is though.

[SpineyNorman]

Ok. I have now ceased to respire, and, while I can't exactly prove it here, you'll just have to take my word for it.

Now shut up.


You can compensate for us by taking extra-deep breaths and posting in large, bolded letter. Keep everything good and balanced, ken? :thumbup1:

I've changed my mind. Have you suffocated yet?

[hatzel]

You can compensate for us by taking extra-deep breaths and posting in large, bolded letter. Keep everything good and balanced, ken? :thumbup1:

Yeah, I think I can just about handle that, don't you worry...

http://media-files.gather.com/images/d732/d839/d744/d224/d96/f3/full.jpg

[Kuppo Shakur]

Hey cool tags on this thread btw.

[Tim Finnegan]

I've changed my mind. Have you suffocated yet?
I said that I was going to stop breathing, not that I actually needed to breath. We Scots can last a good few weeks on photosynthesis alone- it's all the thistle in our genetic makeup, y'see.

[Sam_b]

You're an arrogant little prick, aren't you sammy?

Well I think it's telling as to who is throwing the insults.


How can it possibly "lessen" our understanding? Does it remove grey matter or something? No, it's a succinct way of summarising what's happened. If people want me to expand they only have to ask. It's gone to shit for several reasons, relating to the politics of the SWP

Surely you'll agree that it is not best to be 'succinct' here (it's not actually succinct, it's merely a generalisation in fact), for the reasons of galvanising and strengthening the left. There should be arguments around organising and practice, identifying successes and failures, in order to move forward as a movement. The fact you're now going into details (I assume, I am going to read the rest of your post) begs the question of why you didn't say these things in the first place, rather than just call the SWP 'shit'.


But I can tell you what the result was (and in reality it set in before the deaths of the three prominent members I mentioned earlier. In response to the downturn, rather than concentrating on recruitment within the class, which was always going to be hard work at a time like that, and the growth of union cadre, the SWP engaged in a series of bandwagon jumping exercises

This is unusual as the accusation is usually that the SWP prioritise recruitment too much.


Unfortunately the ANL also brought in plenty of fashionable liberals and students. Now, some of those w/c comrades actually paid attention to, and acted on, the request to "smash the BNP". This was a bit embarrassing for the leadership, bearing in mind the trendy types who were drawn in at the time and the links they were making with establishment figures in their front work within the ANL. I mentioned RA/AFA and the IWCA earlier in the thread. I think you know what's coming next - the expulsion of the predominantly working class "squadists". The sensibilities of the trendies had won out - the proles were ejected. Since then the lines have been fairly clearly drawn for the SWP. You focus recruitment on universities rather than workplaces. Try and deny it - it's obviously true. Just look at the Marxism festival - student tickets are cheaper than unwaged! And so, with this recruitment strategy in mind, they have jumped on every fashionable bandwagon going. And that's meant embracing the liberal fetishes of the day, and in this era that means identity politics. Hence the UAF and hence Respect. The "united front of a special kind" I believe they called it.

First of all, it is not 'you', seeing as i'm not a member of the SWP.

When leftists talk about 'smashing the BNP' and 'smashing fascism', this should not be confused with squadism. It is primarily a class agitationist and political approach that is necessary - to smash the political organs of the BNP and the fascist movement so it cannot operate. If this means physical confrontation then so be it, but this is not a mutual exclusive.

I believe in operating in broad united fronts, as it's better to be agitating inside and winning people over than to shout from the sidelines. The idea of an ideologically pure movement is one of the reasons in which the left has faltered in the past, in my opinion - the United Front tactic needs looking at.


But the SWPs presence serves as an excellent example for the enemies of the left to put forward in order to reinforce the right wing stereotype. It's impacted on the ability of every group to grow within traditionally working class constituencies. It's also the first port of call for a hell of a lot of people making their first steps in progressive politics - result: 18 months down the line the "revolution is just around the corner", followed with the inevitable disappointment, results in a demoralised and burned out activist who may never engage in activism again. I know more examples of this than I do of 1)happy members or 2) members who have gone on to find a happy home elsewhere on the left. And they've remained the biggest organisation because of this opportunistic recruitment strategy.

I think the idea of the revolution being around the corner is not a line that the party has ever taken. I think this can be levelled morer at the likes of agitators for a fifth international. However, I broadly agree, which is why I was a supporter of the Neil Davidson document to conference, that identified the lack of cadrisation and the haemorrhaging of members.


And I'm not sure what you mean anyway - are you saying those three weren't in the party together? I'm fairly sure they were. Are you saying that since they were in charge years ago things are different now? If so yes, that's my point. Or are you saying that it should be put into context?

I'm arguing that you cannot pin down the fortunes of a class-driven organisation on the great men theory. If we're looking at the downturn, which can be argued as something the SWP never fully recovered from - then I don't see how this has to do much with Foot, Cliff or Hallas, who were agitating into the new millenium.


I've just done that. The fact is that there's a large vacuum that's been opened up since labour's complete embrace of neoliberalism and abandonment of the working class (and clause IV) in the mid '90s. There's a constituency out there waiting to be won over - a working class constituency.

I agree, but I would say that the abandonment of the class beagn decades before.


And the only ones winning anyone over in the period since have been the BNP. The reason? They've campaigned on bread and butter issues, gaining peoples' trust along the way.

But then so has the CWI. I don't think you can pin down the rise of the BNP to either a lack of strength on the left, or a single issue when campaigning. I think it ties into historical rises in the far-right and fascism itself, which i'll happily engage you with in another thread.


I'm not actually arguing that the w/c are superior.

Well that's what one has to draw a conclusion from, seeing as there was no substancein the original OPs. Does that mean that this was a troll thread all along?


I bet you're really popular.

The left and politics should not be a popularity contest.


Only if you're a simpleton

Well, see, this is all turning into a bit of a contradiction. Because if now you're talking about the apparent 'influence' of the SWP, you should have been identifying this from the start and engaging in an analysis on how to turn the party into a positive agitational model. If we were, for instance, going to talk about the bringing down of the party or the need for a new one then we'd be ignoring the existing avenue and influence model that the party has. This surely could not be ignored for good or bad - the point would be to change it.


Because they're so preachy and arrogant they provide the perfect example for right wingers to use to stereotype - "look, we said all lefties are moralising preachers - look at the SWP - proves it!" I wish they didn't have such influence myself.

How are the SWP particularly 'preachy', as compared with the rest of the left?


I know - he recently left to join the Judean peoples' front or whatever you call it - I assumed you had too.

So this is what I don't understand, really. If it's the 'Judean Peoples Front', which you are obviously saying in jest, then it diminishes the work you've taken (and some which I agree on) to point out the very serious problems within the SWP, and sends a mixed message in general. I would have thought with your line of reasoning activists breaking with the SWP would be seen as a positive thing. We shouldn't be downplaying problems - we should be analysing them.


I suppose you think that makes you look clever. It doesn't - it makes you look like an anally retentive dick.

I don't think it makes me look clever, it makes me look correct. I was assuming those who were talking about the SWP would happen to know things like key names and whatnot.


The point with respect was and is that they shouldn't have joined it in the first place.

Why?


And it was yet another consequence of the SWP's embrace of identity politics

Which was rejected in many an article by the ISJ. I don't see how this is 'identity politics' at all, less fighting Islamophobia and building broad groupings is part of 'identity politics'.


That's how you were able to form a coalition with notorious slum landlords and strike breakers - they were part of the "muslim community" and therefore viewed in abstraction as muslims, rather than in their economic context and exploitative parasites.

There were errors made within the RESPECT project, yet the SWP didn't have any real say on who could and couldn't join.


And gorgeous George? LOL

This is curious given that Gorgeous has done a lot for building the anti-war and anti-imperialist movement, and still has a certain degree of political sway.


But don't you see how this affects the way people see both the BNP and the SWP (and by association the wider left)? It's widely believed, rightly or wrongly (and I don't really care which it is) that UAF is a SWP front. People see the UAF, and you have to admit that the most active campaigners for the UAF are SWPers, telling people not to vote for the BNP because they're all nasty, and to vote for whatever party can beat them (normally labour). So they see you as on the side of the establishment and the BNP as somehow radical and anti-establishment. I know a fair few SWP members - in the main they're good people, committed activists who really do want to help - I don't doubt that. But the way they go about it is counter-productive.

I still think you're giving the SWP more credit than they deserve. To be honest it's only really been those involved in the left that have raised accusations of UAF as being a SWP front. I do reject any assertion that UAF's strategy has somehow build support for the BNP however.


It's true though (if you're talking about what I think you are - I can't see what you're replying to on my screen). Just go out into an estate and ask people what they think of left wing activists. I'm right - and you can either take what I'm saying on board or ignore it - I don't care - you're irrelevant, as am I probably - I see there being some serious upheaval in the next couple of years and I think both the organised left and right will be left wondering what's happened - they certainly will if they don't buck their ideas up.


Well that's all well and good but I was looking for sources and the like. Which i've yet to see.


It doesn't. (Unless you lose your arm in an industrial accident or summat)

Quite.

[Sam_b]

He prefers 'Sam_B', and is very insistent about it.

Sam_b


He is in the SWP so what do you expect?

I'm not in the SWP, but I understand you have trouble reading what is said in general on Revleft.

[Kuppo Shakur]

Hey I don't mean to be a bother but can somebody summarize this entire thread for me?

[Sam_b]

Not completely in any way. But it is in some ways yes - almost all have two arms and legs - so in terms of limps is it almost homogenous. Around half are male and around half are not - so in terms of gender it isn't. In terms of distaste for some of the trendy left's obsessions it is almost homogenous if the people I talk to are anything to go by.

Wise up, I thought it was obvious that I meant politically.


No, it indicates that I don't think I can. I haven't tried as it happens though. I'm sure you think you've scored a great "point" or something there, demonstrating how tewwibly wight on you are but you haven't. Again you've just made yourself look a tit. I'd be interested (and probably amused) to hear about the ways in which you think someone as colossally influential (two can play at that game) as me could further the cause of the Bengali people.

I'm not interested in points scoring, and no I do not have some sort of speech impediment. I did, however, think that this point was obvious, though perhaps not 100% on example. For instance, take WPNZ in New Zealand and their activities in support of the PFLP. Or closer to home, the practical work that the Chiapas Solidarity Campaign does.

[hatzel]

Hey I don't mean to be a bother but can somebody summarize this entire thread for me?

Yeah basically this Spiney guy has come along and declared that he's specifically trying to be offensive to instigate debate and that's why he's been calling everybody names. Oh and originally it was about how the working class are superior because they go to bed with black people which is why they don't need psychotherapists, but now it's just calling people names. And also we shouldn't forget class...and bourgeois decadence is unacceptable...

http://www.midnightsungallery.com/lrg_image.php?name=images/art/179.jpg

[Sam_b]

Rabbi K can you please read the forum rules, especially as you are a CU member.


Using pictures on the forum

Posting non-topical pictures in forums outside of Chit-Chat is strictly against the rules. There are many reasons for this, ranging from a general cluttering of the message board to the difficulty of loading picture-laden pages for those of us with slower connections, and we ask you all to respect these rules. Non-topical pictures are those which are not directly related to the subject at hand (LOL pics, etc...). An acceptable picture (or thumbnail) would be a graph, a picture related to a news story which is important to debate, etc... Again, please refrain from posting pictures in forums outside of Chit Chat, the action forums, and the cultural forums.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/faq.php?faq=general#faq_faqforumrules

[Invader Zim]

Those are actually goblins.

True. But the film is still called Troll 2. And most hilarious it is.


I hope you asked for your family's permission before you posted these holiday snaps.

7_rBidCkJxo

[hatzel]

Rabbi K can you please read the forum rules, especially as you are a CU member.
It was an example of bourgeois decadence that wouldn't be included in proletkult, thus woefully on topic, I feel :)

/bullshit

[SpineyNorman]

Well I think it's telling as to who is throwing the insults.

When those insults are well targeted and deserved it's the recipient that really matters.




Surely you'll agree that it is not best to be 'succinct' here (it's not actually succinct, it's merely a generalisation in fact), for the reasons of galvanising and strengthening the left. There should be arguments around organising and practice, identifying successes and failures, in order to move forward as a movement. The fact you're now going into details (I assume, I am going to read the rest of your post) begs the question of why you didn't say these things in the first place, rather than just call the SWP 'shit'.

Because they are shit and because, since this is a forum for the revolutionary left I assumed, fairly I think, that the things that contribute to said shitness are well known. You've also demonstrated one of the reasons why the left has gone to shit - it's all about galvanising and strengthening "the left" rather than the working class itself. This is an important distinction - one is using the w/c, the other is supporting it.




This is unusual as the accusation is usually that the SWP prioritise recruitment too much.

Read it again - my criticism isn't as simplistic as "too much" or "not enough" - it's where and how that recruitment is done.


First of all, it is not 'you', seeing as i'm not a member of the SWP.

You were during the period (ie. the last 30 or so years) when the damage was done, were you not?


When leftists talk about 'smashing the BNP' and 'smashing fascism', this should not be confused with squadism. It is primarily a class agitationist and political approach that is necessary - to smash the political organs of the BNP and the fascist movement so it cannot operate. If this means physical confrontation then so be it, but this is not a mutual exclusive.

I agree - and physical confrontation was necessary at the time - that's why those "squadists" were supported by senior members until it became embarrassing for them in front of their new establishment chums. And if it's class agitationist why have the SWP fronts accepted the likes of David Cameron as supporting members? That's not a united front - it's a popular front. It means you're working with (and in my view in the interests of) class enemies.


I believe in operating in broad united fronts, as it's better to be agitating inside and winning people over than to shout from the sidelines. The idea of an ideologically pure movement is one of the reasons in which the left has faltered in the past, in my opinion - the United Front tactic needs looking at.

United fronts are fine - but the "united front of a special kind" isn't a united front - it's a popular front. It's not about ideological purity - it's about class composition.




I think the idea of the revolution being around the corner is not a line that the party has ever taken.

Maybe not officially, but this is the impression a lot of new members get - you know it's true, you've only got to listen in on a SWSS meeting to know that.


I think this can be levelled morer at the likes of agitators for a fifth international.

Is that WP? If so yes, they're completely insane - I've heard that they've been advocating sending "international brigades" to help with the Arab uprising. Aside from being incredibly far-fetched, this would do the rebels no favours at all.



I'm arguing that you cannot pin down the fortunes of a class-driven organisation on the great men theory.

I think we may have to agree to disagree on whether the SWP are "class driven". And who's tried to pin it to the great men theory? I don't appreciate my arguments being deliberately misrepresented.


If we're looking at the downturn, which can be argued as something the SWP never fully recovered from - then I don't see how this has to do much with Foot, Cliff or Hallas, who were agitating into the new millenium.

I never said you could. But whilst these were the leading lights there was always a chance of recovery. Not so under Alex "not my role in the party" Callinicos, Martin "running man" Smith et al. They're not fit to lick Footy's shoes.




But then so has the CWI. I don't think you can pin down the rise of the BNP to either a lack of strength on the left, or a single issue when campaigning. I think it ties into historical rises in the far-right and fascism itself, which i'll happily engage you with in another thread.

But the CWI seem to have taken this on board - they are campaigning on these issues now - they seem to have learned from their mistakes. And from my experience they're more willing to engage with people who have drawn some dodgy conclusions on the causes of the problems the w/c faces, rather than just call them fascists.




Well that's what one has to draw a conclusion from, seeing as there was no substancein the original OPs. Does that mean that this was a troll thread all along?

No, it wasn't a troll thread. A troll thread is made just to antagonise, to get a negative response. This one was made with a constructive motive in mind.




The left and politics should not be a popularity contest.

Like it or not, that's exactly what it is.




Well, see, this is all turning into a bit of a contradiction. Because if now you're talking about the apparent 'influence' of the SWP, you should have been identifying this from the start and engaging in an analysis on how to turn the party into a positive agitational model. If we were, for instance, going to talk about the bringing down of the party or the need for a new one then we'd be ignoring the existing avenue and influence model that the party has. This surely could not be ignored for good or bad - the point would be to change it.

I don't think you can change it. The party is so constituted as to avoid real democratic accountability - you've just left haven't you - I assume this was because you were unable to change it, since if you could you'd have stayed and done so.




How are the SWP particularly 'preachy', as compared with the rest of the left?

I can't believe you need to ask that. Go to any protest - the shrill person with the megaphone will be SWP, and they'll be going into a town saying something like "asylum seekers welcome here." Now, there's nothing wrong with defending asylum seekers, but it's a bit rediculous for some primary school teacher who's never even set foot in an area to say who is and isn't welcome there, and when this is done at a time when there have been tensions between refugee/asylum "communities" and the long term residents it can make things even worse. I've personally witnessed, on more than one occasion, SWP members shouting people, calling them racists because they say immigrants are taking their jobs and driving down wages. The assumption is that they're saying that because they're racist. They're probably not - likely as not what they're trying to say is that there's not enough jobs and the jobs that there are aren't paid well. They've just drawn the wrong conclusions. It's possible, and often easy, to win these people over - you start by agreeing that wages and job opportunities are rubbish, then you explain why you think it is - our explanations are better because they're correct - people will find them persuasive. But only if you speak to people as equals, not as some kind of elite representative of true class consciousness. It's preachy and it's arrogant.




So this is what I don't understand, really. If it's the 'Judean Peoples Front', which you are obviously saying in jest, then it diminishes the work you've taken (and some which I agree on) to point out the very serious problems within the SWP, and sends a mixed message in general. I would have thought with your line of reasoning activists breaking with the SWP would be seen as a positive thing. We shouldn't be downplaying problems - we should be analysing them.

If the leaders of the Judean Peoples' Front types split offs had split for political reasons then maybe. It strikes me that the counterfire lot left because they weren't (they being Rees and German) in charge anymore. After all, they did everything they criticised the CC for when they were in charge - in reality they wanted it to remain the same, but with them back in charge. Bambery (did I spell it right this time? I wouldn't want the foaming mouthed loon to be offended) was involved with them - he was, if I remember correctly, part of the left platform until it became obvious they weren't going to succeed, then he changed sides. I think he did this for two reasons. 1) When he left he wanted to take his position on RTW with him - staying on the LP would have given the CC the chance of removing him before explusion. 2) He wanted to stay behind to recruit some more people, which he was successful in doing in Scotland - note, though, that it's almost all youth/student members who went with him - the old skool lot remain in the SWP.




I don't think it makes me look clever, it makes me look correct. I was assuming those who were talking about the SWP would happen to know things like key names and whatnot.

It made you look like a pedantic arse - I put an extra "r" in his name - so what? Everyone knew who I was talking about.




Why?

Because it meant joining forces with the enemy.




Which was rejected in many an article by the ISJ. I don't see how this is 'identity politics' at all, less fighting Islamophobia and building broad groupings is part of 'identity politics'.

1) They may reject it in words, but they embrace it in deed. 2) It's identity politics because people were invited to join simply because they were Muslims - they were seen as muslims first and people (with differing class interests) second.




There were errors made within the RESPECT project, yet the SWP didn't have any real say on who could and couldn't join.

They had the ultimate say in whether the SWP joined it though.




This is curious given that Gorgeous has done a lot for building the anti-war and anti-imperialist movement, and still has a certain degree of political sway.

He's better than Labour. That's the best you can say really. This (http://www.workersliberty.org/story/2011/05/01/galloway-plays-green-card), however, shows everything that's wrong with George - I'm no fan of the AWL - if anyone's worse than the SWP it's them - but the points they raise in this piece about his links with Dempsey and McBride bear these problems out. Again, it's not about ideological purity - it's about class interests.




I still think you're giving the SWP more credit than they deserve. To be honest it's only really been those involved in the left that have raised accusations of UAF as being a SWP front. I do reject any assertion that UAF's strategy has somehow build support for the BNP however.

When people at UAF events, the ones doing the most shrill preaching, are selling Socialist Worker it doesn't matter if people know it's an SWP front - they know those people are SWP.




Well that's all well and good but I was looking for sources and the like. Which i've yet to see.

To the best of my knowledge nobody's ever done a poll on this - so all we have to go by is what we're told by people on the street. And this is what they say.

[SpineyNorman]

Yeah basically this Spiney guy has come along and declared that he's specifically trying to be offensive to instigate debate and that's why he's been calling everybody names. Oh and originally it was about how the working class are superior because they go to bed with black people which is why they don't need psychotherapists, but now it's just calling people names. And also we shouldn't forget class...and bourgeois decadence is unacceptable...

http://www.midnightsungallery.com/lrg_image.php?name=images/art/179.jpg

I'd get cream for that stupid if I were you, it's really starting to show now.

[SpineyNorman]

It was an example of bourgeois decadence that wouldn't be included in proletkult, thus woefully on topic, I feel :)

/bullshit

Nothing wrong with a bit of decadence. You can fuck off if you think I'm going to eat couscous and houmous and drink mulled wine and aqua libra though.

[#FF0000]

Nothing wrong with a bit of decadence. You can fuck off if you think I'm going to eat couscous and houmous and drink mulled wine and aqua libra though.

couscous and hummus are fucking delicious tho

[SpineyNorman]

Wise up, I thought it was obvious that I meant politically.

Did you read the last sentence I wrote there?


I'm not interested in points scoring, and no I do not have some sort of speech impediment. I did, however, think that this point was obvious, though perhaps not 100% on example. For instance, take WPNZ in New Zealand and their activities in support of the PFLP. Or closer to home, the practical work that the Chiapas Solidarity Campaign does.

Yes you were and you know it. It's really quite sad. And your examples are hilarious - New Zealand isn't exactly easily accessible for me, nor is Edinburgh, which is where the nearest chapter of the CSC is. Just cheap, pathetic point scoring. And another reason for the quiet death of the left - too busy obsessing over things far away that we have no control or influence over, whilst the issues at home that we can make a difference on are left alone - and sometimes taken up by the hard right.

[hatzel]

couscous and hummus are fucking delicious tho

Through sheer coincidence, I actually made houmous (notice how I use a French-inspired spelling, because that's just how middle class I am) just this morning, and I'm just waiting for my pita dough to rise, so I've got something to eat it with. Huzzah! :thumbup:

[human strike]

Who's pro-working class anyway? Social democrats? Workers are anti-labour and so are bosses. If you're not you're essentially deluded - Keynesianism is flawed.

[Sam_b]

And your examples are hilarious - New Zealand isn't exactly easily accessible for me, nor is Edinburgh, which is where the nearest chapter of the CSC is

Do you know what an example is?


ust cheap, pathetic point scoring

This is ironic.


too busy obsessing over things far away that we have no control or influence over

Such as......?

[SpineyNorman]

Who's pro-working class anyway? Social democrats? Workers are anti-labour and so are bosses. If you're not you're essentially deluded - Keynesianism is flawed.

Cheers for the tip. What the fuck are you on about by the way? How is this in any way relevant?

[SpineyNorman]

Do you know what an example is?

You were trying supposed to be telling me how I could influence things there - it's quite clear I can't. Some of us barely have the time to keep active in our own communities, where we can have a direct impact. Are you seriously suggesting we should use this scarce time on projects that will likely have little or no effect?




This is ironic.

No it isn't - you're doing it again by the way.




Such as......?

See above.

[human strike]

Cheers for the tip. What the fuck are you on about by the way? How is this in any way relevant?

:rolleyes:

The working class is anti-itself. Being working class is not a good thing, it's a very bad thing.

[SpineyNorman]

:rolleyes:

The working class is anti-itself. Being working class is not a good thing, it's a very bad thing.

Well done - you're probably the most stupid poster on this thread - and you've faced some stiff opposition too.

I suppose in your eyes it's the working class who've failed the left/anarchist movement and not vice versa. You represent everything that's wrong with the revolutionary left. Thankfully you're also completely irrelevant so the damage will be negligible.

[Sam_b]

When those insults are well targeted and deserved it's the recipient that really matters.

I think it actually shows up your attitude when engaging with important issues on the left, but whatever. It's a bit of a shame, all this misdirected anger.


Because they are shit and because, since this is a forum for the revolutionary left I assumed, fairly I think, that the things that contribute to said shitness are well known. You've also demonstrated one of the reasons why the left has gone to shit - it's all about galvanising and strengthening "the left" rather than the working class itself. This is an important distinction - one is using the w/c, the other is supporting it.

This is a strange conclusion you're coming to seeing as it's on the back of you posting about where the left, and in particular, the SWP, has gone wrong. The idea that debates about left organisations should already be known and thus not debated on a revolutionary left forum also smacks of deflection.


Read it again - my criticism isn't as simplistic as "too much" or "not enough" - it's where and how that recruitment is done.

I did, which is why I said this was 'unusual'. This is usually not the criticism that is levelled. I was merely pointing this out.


You were during the period (ie. the last 30 or so years) when the damage was done, were you not?

I was in the party for six years. Was I somehow responsible for overall strategy and recruitment?


nd if it's class agitationist why have the SWP fronts accepted the likes of David Cameron as supporting members?

UAF isn't an SWP front, and I already said I wasn't in this game to defend UAF in general.


United fronts are fine - but the "united front of a special kind" isn't a united front - it's a popular front. It's not about ideological purity - it's about class composition.


An electoral coalition is not particularly a particular front at all though, which explains how it could neither be a Popular nor United front.


but this is the impression a lot of new members get - you know it's true, you've only got to listen in on a SWSS meeting to know that.


No, I don't particularly think it's true at all; and I see no evidence or argument to suggest the contrary.


I think we may have to agree to disagree on whether the SWP are "class driven". And who's tried to pin it to the great men theory? I don't appreciate my arguments being deliberately misrepresented.

So why bring Cliff, Hallas and Foot up as an argument for the disintegration?


But whilst these were the leading lights there was always a chance of recovery

Which is actually a rather disparaging view of the rank-and-file, which would suggest what I said at the top is correct.


And from my experience they're more willing to engage with people who have drawn some dodgy conclusions on the causes of the problems the w/c faces, rather than just call them fascists.

See, my problem here is that this is another generalisation. No party, to my knowledghe, blanketly labels the class as 'fascists'. The local issues and camapign bent that the CWI employ has been going since the Militant, so it hasn't really been a process of learning from mistakes. We shouldn't be here to keep up with the BNP.


Like it or not, that's exactly what it is

So, does that mean we're supposed to go along with this?


The party is so constituted as to avoid real democratic accountability - you've just left haven't you - I assume this was because you were unable to change it, since if you could you'd have stayed and done so.

Well perhaps, but I was never arguing that the SWP had a large base of class influence.


Go to any protest

...and parties shouldn't be trying to influence at those, should they? The idea that the left is weak would lend itself to not being demos populated by regular 'Joe Prole', and indeed demos do not encompass the whole class at large. So how does the class blanketly observe the SWP as 'preachy' if they aren't on these demos?


and they'll be going into a town saying something like "asylum seekers welcome here." Now, there's nothing wrong with defending asylum seekers, but it's a bit rediculous for some primary school teacher who's never even set foot in an area to say who is and isn't welcome there, and when this is done at a time when there have been tensions between refugee/asylum "communities" and the long term residents it can make things even worse. I

Are you seriously using this as a reason? Wow.


I've personally witnessed, on more than one occasion, SWP members shouting people, calling them racists because they say immigrants are taking their jobs and driving down wages. The assumption is that they're saying that because they're racist. They're probably not - likely as not what they're trying to say is that there's not enough jobs and the jobs that there are aren't paid well. They've just drawn the wrong conclusions.

None of this is 'preachy' though.


It's possible, and often easy, to win these people over - you start by agreeing that wages and job opportunities are rubbish, then you explain why you think it is - our explanations are better because they're correct - people will find them persuasive. But only if you speak to people as equals, not as some kind of elite representative of true class consciousness. It's preachy and it's arrogant.

That's weird. It basically boils down to everyone with a megaphone chanting slogans is some sort of preacher.


(did I spell it right this time? I wouldn't want the foaming mouthed loon to be offended)

Kind of unusual that you tell me to 'fuck off' and that I am a 'prick', yet then go on to accuse me of being 'foaming mouthed'. The summer season on Revleft isn't usually dominated by sense though in OI so i'll take it with a pinch of salt.


2) He wanted to stay behind to recruit some more people, which he was successful in doing in Scotland - note, though, that it's almost all youth/student members who went with him - the old skool lot remain in the SWP.

Incorrect. First of all, let's not draw this down 'youth/student and old skool' lines please: let's look at the real reasons. Fact of the matter is that everyone who was an activist and organiser in SWP Glasgow broke off from the party, and this is telling. Second of all, Bambery didn't 'recruit' people at all: he joined our group after we split from the organisation, and we made an approach.


It made you look like a pedantic arse

Don't care.


Because it meant joining forces with the enemy.

Who are these 'enemies' in RESPECT, and how are their class interests furthered by this particular coalition?


They may reject it in words, but they embrace it in deed

I'm sure you'll give some evidence for this then.


It's identity politics because people were invited to join simply because they were Muslims - they were seen as muslims first and people (with differing class interests) second.

I'm sure you'll give some evidence then.


They had the ultimate say in whether the SWP joined it though.

This is one of those 'reverse the question and this is my answer' sort of things. What has this got to do with the general composition and recruitment policy of RESPECT, and its coordination?


When people at UAF events, the ones doing the most shrill preaching, are selling Socialist Worker it doesn't matter if people know it's an SWP front - they know those people are SWP.


You go on about preaching, but nothing you've said to back up your answer is an actual example of preaching.


so all we have to go by is what we're told by people on the street. And this is what they say.

This is almost admitting that you generalise everything one or two people from the class say. If you can't prove it, then it's not 'true' like you say; as I certainly don't believe 'they' (the working class as a politicially homogenous group) show a mass disdain for the SWP. I'll factor that most working people probably have never heard of the organisation.

[hatzel]

Well done - you're probably the most stupid poster on this thread - and you've faced some stiff opposition too.

Yes yes, it's really difficult to be even more stupid than you are :rolleyes: *japes*

Ohoho, har-de-har, hilarity, I prefer Thug Lessons, stop just flinging insults at anybody who disagrees with you because it's such an annoying emotional wannabe internet leftist thing to do...

[Sam_b]

Are you seriously suggesting we should use this scarce time on projects that will likely have little or no effect?


Takes me ten minutes to buy Zapatista coffee for the Glasgow occupation. If yu go down to your nearest social centre there'll be plenty people with practical approaches to worldwide solidarity movements. There's no need for excuses.


See above.

That comeback doesn't work when you didn't write anything. So, one more time (with feeling!) - what international issues are the British left 'obsessing over', and why?

[human strike]

Well done - you're probably the most stupid poster on this thread - and you've faced some stiff opposition too.

I suppose in your eyes it's the working class who've failed the left/anarchist movement and not vice versa. You represent everything that's wrong with the revolutionary left. Thankfully you're also completely irrelevant so the damage will be negligible.

You're sweet, but you're counter-revolutionary. I've quite clearly labeled myself as an "autonomist" - do you know what one of those is? I'm guessing you don't. Furthermore I'm guessing you still haven't realised, despite people pointing it out repeatedly in this thread, that the working class can only liberate itself by destroying itself - by no longer being working class. I think you only embarrass yourself by throwing this "stupid" word around like that.