communist party of australia (marxist-leninist)

[comradeadam]

Anyone had any dealings with this group?

[Leif]

Nope.

[Enragé]

website?

[comradeadam]

the website is http://www.vanguard.net.au/ its both there official paper and website for party.From what i read its sounds a little dodge and akin to the bob avakian lot.

[Hiero]

How are they like Bob Avakian.

The CPA(ML) is active around Victoria, so if you are from around there you could meet them.

[Enragé]

"The Programme of the Party is based on revolution by stages; the current stage being the struggle to win real national independence by resisting and expelling US and other imperialisms from Australia . With the establishment of a democratic peoples' republic, the working class and its allies can build and consolidate the social and material conditions for the later stage of socialism."

i think they mean communism?

"in a patriotic peoples' movement against imperialist exploitation and takeover"

patriotic?!?


on top of that they have a quite dogmatic way of putting things, which in itself does not have to mean its a fucked party, but could in itself be a sign of dogmatism within the party

[bombeverything]

"The Party pays close attention to the building of unity, political consciousness and revolutionary organisation among the working class".

"To maintain and protect foreign imperialist domination of Australia , a powerful state machine has emerged. It consists of the bureaucracy, police, courts, gaols, armed forces, intelligence agencies. It seems to stand independently over Australian society but in fact it exists to enforce imperialist domination. Parliamentary democracy with its limited formal democratic rights operates within this context".

Yes that same "powerful state machine" that they wish to maintain after the revolution :rolleyes:.

Scary.

There is a similar website here:

www.cpa.org.au

[comradeadam]

Yeah they have a weird mix of nationalism and communism usually dont mix but they seem to mix it.Anyway im in the stages of joining the communist party of australia. ;)

what made me turn off the party is this

WIKI=Communist_Party_of_Australia_(Marxist-Leninist)]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Par...rxist-Leninist)[/WIKI]

The Communist Party of Australia (Marxist-Leninist) (CPA(ML)) is a minor political party in Australia, which advocates a form of communism based on the writings of Marx, Lenin, Stalin and Mao Zedong. The party describes its ideology as Marxism-Leninism, and does not use the term "Maoism" which is commonly applied to it by others.

The CPA(ML) was founded in 1964, following a split in the Communist Party of Australia (CPA). The split was a result of the rupture in the early 1960s between the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and the Communist Party of China (see Sino-Soviet split). The leading figure in the breakaway group was Ted Hill, a Melbourne barrister who had been Victorian State Secretary of the CPA. Other noted figures were Paddy Malone and Norm Gallagher of the Builders Labourers Federation, Clarrie O'Shea of the Tramways Union and Ted Bull of the Waterside Workers Federation.

At its foundation the CPA(ML) was believed to have several hundred members. Its membership has been a closely guarded secret ever since, but it is unlikely to be more than a hundred. The CPA-ML regards itself as the nucleus of a revolutionary vanguard party, and does not admit new members unless they meet its rigorous ideological standards.

During the early 1970s the CPA(ML) attracted some following among radical students at some Australian universities, notably Monash University and La Trobe University in Melbourne and Flinders University in Adelaide. The CPA(ML) operated on university campuses through "front" organisations such as the Worker-Student Alliance (WSA) and the Monash Labor Club. Its most notable student leaders were Albert Langer and Jim Bacon (Bacon later renounced communism and became Labor Premier of Tasmania). Some academic figures, such as the historian Humphrey McQueen, also supported CPA-ML policies, even if they did not become party members.

Until the death of Mao Zedong in 1976 the CPA(ML) followed the Chinese Communist Party's "line" with absolute loyalty. The party paper Vanguard reprinted Chinese statements verbatim and lauded every alleged achievement of the Chinese regime. During the Cultural Revolution of the 1960s the CPA-ML echoed the ultra-revolutionary rhetoric of the Chinese media, calling for immediate world revolution and railing against the "modern revisionists" of the Soviet Union and the pro-Soviet parties such as the CPA, which they described as "the Aarons revisionist clique."

Nevertheless the CPA(ML) immediately supported the sudden change in Chinese policy in 1972, when United States President Richard Nixon visited Beijing and established a Sino-American alliance against the Soviet Union. This, however, caused major disaffection among the party's student following. The Worker-Student Alliance collapsed in 1973 and the party lost its leading position on the far left of student politics.

Following this change of "line" the CPA(ML) and its remaining student followers abandoned Maoist rhetoric and began to promote "Australian independence" rather than revolution, forming new fronts such as the Australian Independence Movement and using the blue Eureka Flag rather than the red communist flag. This eventually led a split in the party, with those opposed to the new "nationalist" line leaving in 1978.

After Mao's death, the arrest of the leading Maoists (see Gang of Four) and the restoration of a market economy in China under Deng Xiaoping, the CPA(ML) ceased to support the Chinese Communist Party, switching support to the ultra-Maoist regime of Enver Hoxha in Albania. The consequent loss of financial support from China caused a considerable restriction in the party's activities. With the fall of communism in Albania in 1991, the CPA(ML) was left with no country it could look to as a model of socialism. Various dissidents left the party or were expelled, founding transient Maoist groups such as the Red Eureka Movement. What remained of the party continued to advocate the Chinese "line" of the late Mao Zedong era.

During the 1980s and 1990s the founding "old guard" of the CPA-ML died or retired. Ted Hill's retirement in 1986 and death in 1988 left the party with no recognised public figure. Its last prominent trade unionist, Norm Gallagher, was jailed for corruption. The current Chairperson of the CPA(ML) is Bruce Cornwall. The party continues to publish Vanguard but otherwise conducts little visible political activity.

[comradeadam]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 10:59 PM
"The Party pays close attention to the building of unity, political consciousness and revolutionary organisation among the working class".

"To maintain and protect foreign imperialist domination of Australia , a powerful state machine has emerged. It consists of the bureaucracy, police, courts, gaols, armed forces, intelligence agencies. It seems to stand independently over Australian society but in fact it exists to enforce imperialist domination. Parliamentary democracy with its limited formal democratic rights operates within this context".

Yes that same "powerful state machine" that they wish to maintain after the revolution :rolleyes:.

Scary.

There is a similar website here:

www.cpa.org.au
Im sorry but the way i look at it CPA and ACPML are two very different groups.

[Hiero]

I am a member of the CPA. You can talk to me on MSN if you want.

[visceroid]

i have a close friend who is a member, apparently the leader, in WA is over 90 years old. they wont join the socialist alliance.

[Hiero]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2006, 01:15 AM
i have a close friend who is a member, apparently the leader, in WA is over 90 years old. they wont join the socialist alliance.
The CPA or CPA ML? Your wrong in both cases anyway about the "leader" living in WA.

[visceroid]

Originally posted by Hiero+Jan 22 2006, 01:04 PM--> (Hiero @ Jan 22 2006, 01:04 PM)
[email protected] 8 2006, 01:15 AM
i have a close friend who is a member, apparently the leader, in WA is over 90 years old. they wont join the socialist alliance.
The CPA or CPA ML? Your wrong in both cases anyway about the "leader" living in WA. [/b]
according to my sources the leader of the CPA perth is 91 and name is vic :P

[comradeadam]

Originally posted by visceroid+Jan 22 2006, 01:49 PM--> (visceroid @ Jan 22 2006, 01:49 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 01:04 PM

[email protected] 8 2006, 01:15 AM
i have a close friend who is a member, apparently the leader, in WA is over 90 years old. they wont join the socialist alliance.
The CPA or CPA ML? Your wrong in both cases anyway about the "leader" living in WA.
according to my sources the leader of the CPA perth is 91 and name is vic :P [/b]
The leader of CPA in WA is called vic williams.But he is not the secretary-general of the party is pat symons.I have sent off the application forms and everything there is like a 3 month period before i can join?! :huh: .

[Hiero]

CENTRAL COMMITTEE:
Peter Symon, General Secretary.
Hannah Middleton, President.

There is not position in the CPA called "the leader", the leader of any communist party is the General Secretary. Vic Williams may be a branch Secretary.

There is a 3 month period, but you still have to go to meetings and classes. The 3 month period is used to see if you are CPA material. Then the branch votes on your membership. So still go to meetings and any other activities.

Here is the link to why the CPA didn't join the Socialist Alliance.

http://www.cpa.org.au/garchve04/1168dsp.html


As readers of The Guardian will know, the Communist Party
of Australia declined to become part of the Socialist Alliance
not only because its early formation was gazumped by the DSP and
the ISO but because of its obvious Trotskyist orientation. From
the outset it appeared that the ultimate objective was to turn
the Alliance into a political party and this seems to be what is
now happening.

[chebol]

"obvious trotskyist orientation" my arse. Of course, that's easier to argue if you don't join, and leave the rest of us to deal with the (miniscule) trotskyist sects.

Prooblem is, the CPA won't join because they can't get over the first socialist alliance in the late eighties, which they (as the then SPA) were in with the SWP (now the DSP). It ended because of (after a series of stressful differences) the SPA's support for the Tianenmen massacre, which the SWP refused to countenance. It is nothing but pure sectarianism. There is no principled argument raised by the CPA to reject the SA, only historical shibboleths and personal problems.

"From the outset it appeared that the ultimate objective was to turn
the Alliance into a political party and this seems to be what is
now happening."

Oh, that sounds SOOOOO horrible. Lat thing a Leninist organisation might EVER want to get involved in..... :blink:

:castro: What can I say? The CPA are a rump, and the CPA (ML) are the looney fringe rump of a small rump (there was this time when members had to live in houses encircling Melbourne, equipped with guns in preparation for the impending australian 'peasant' revolution....... :lol:

The article Hiero refers to is not only slanderous, it is full of the most basic of factual errors. And I find it laughable that the CPA, the main architect of the split in the sydney Walk Against War coalition, from which they stole two thirds of the money, and excluded not only nasty 'trotskyist' organisations (of all kinds) but also independent activists who didn't condemn those 'nasty trotskyists' (most of whom aren't), still tries to blame the DSP and resistance for it- ESPECIALLY when, after years of organising miniscule anti-war demos, they come creeping back to the Stop the War Coalition (which they seem to think is run by those self-same nasty trots who aren't trots) to havea part in organising this years anti-war demo in March.

Don't get me wrong, I want to work with these people again. I value their experience and connections. I don't, however, value their political ability or understanding, as they continue to show evidence of a kind of idiocy savant in the marxist and activist spheres...

Comradely of course, (but please learn to get your facts, and logic, right)

Chebol

[comradeadam]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 11:39 AM
CENTRAL COMMITTEE:
Peter Symon, General Secretary.
Hannah Middleton, President.

There is not position in the CPA called "the leader", the leader of any communist party is the General Secretary. Vic Williams may be a branch Secretary.

There is a 3 month period, but you still have to go to meetings and classes. The 3 month period is used to see if you are CPA material. Then the branch votes on your membership. So still go to meetings and any other activities.

Here is the link to why the CPA didn't join the Socialist Alliance.

http://www.cpa.org.au/garchve04/1168dsp.html


As readers of The Guardian will know, the Communist Party
of Australia declined to become part of the Socialist Alliance
not only because its early formation was gazumped by the DSP and
the ISO but because of its obvious Trotskyist orientation. From
the outset it appeared that the ultimate objective was to turn
the Alliance into a political party and this seems to be what is
now happening.
That will be hard because i dont live where my branch ive being attached to is (port adelaide branch of CPA btw) but i will when i go to adelaide i will go to meeting etc.Anyway DSP and SA SUCK and the trots and anarchist will forever attack the CPA :( .

[kaaos_af]

The CPA(ML) are the old former ultra-Maoists from the '60s. You know, the sort of people who wear badges with ice-picks on them to offend the Trotskyists.

The CPA... they used to be the Socialist Party of Australia. they split from the old Communist Party (which collapsed in 1991) ages ago because they felt the CPA wasn't Stalinist enough.

Comrade Adam, I'm in the Democratic Socialist Perspective, and I can assure you we don't attack you guys at all. We even let your DPRK-Australia Friedship Societies use our headquarters for meetings. We invite you to join the SA every year.

The SA isn't all Trotskyists. Most of the parties in it have Trotskyist traditions, yes, but many of these parties aren't even all that big. The DSP isn't Trotskyist- we abandoned Trotskyism after shithouse experiences with the Fourth International, the Nicaraguan Revolution, which disproved Trotsky's theory of Permanent Revolution and reconfirmed Lenin's Two-Stage theory, and after the British SWP's opportunism in the women's liberation movement, which proved to us that Trotskyists are hostileto the idea of autonomous organising. We do, however, support Trotsky's writings concerning the USSR- we feel they explain the collapse of the USSR well. We are no Trotskyists- we are Leninists. If we were Trotskyists, we wouldn't have sent solidarity brigades to Cuba and Venezuela, and we most definately wouldn't be being invited to attend this year's congress of the Communist Party of Vietnam.

The ISO is Trotskyist, yes, and so is Worker's Liberty. But the Somali, Iraqi and Sudanese affiliates aren't. In fact I believe the Iraqi comrades sell Stalin tea-towels and Little Red Books on May Day. The SA is a broad group. If every socialist party in Australia pulled their act together and worked together, we'd be as strong as the Greens- except we'd be a revolutionary organisation- not a bourgeois reformist one. Comrades don't realise that this is Australia- not Nepal or Venezuela. We must adapt to Australian conditions, and that is what SA and the DSP are doing.

[kaaos_af]

I know we both hate Socialist Alternative- why don't we band together and fight them, then? :D Who cares about the capitalists.

[chebol]

Well, to be honest, I just attacked them (the CPA) in my previous post. It was, however, a response to what should be an all too familiar piece of neo-stalinist DSP-baiting. Maybe I was a bit harsh, or maybe not.

I would seriously recommend anyone thinking of joining the CPA to think twice, and do a bit of research into what their history is and WHAT THEY ACTUALLY DO TODAY. I think you'll find the latter is 'very little', and that's something of a shame.
A balanced read of the CPA's 'reasons' for not joining the Alliance finds very little actual justification, or even reason and logic. Just dishonest attacks on the DSP.

Witness this paragraph:
"The present initiative of the DSP (and it is the DSP which is the
dominant player in the new political spin) is intended to create
a divisive and opposition pole to the communist movement
throughout the world. Somewhat similar "multi- tendency" parties
are being formed in a number of other countries."

That's right. According to the wacky logic of Peter Symon, unity is "division", and existing outside of a CP that refuses to take part in unity is "opposition".

The following paragraphs are worse. Not only do they defy the rules of logic, they defy history too. Accusing the DSP and Resistance of trying to take-over the anti-war movement through the Books-Not-Bombs student strikes is ridiculous.

Symons even tries to claim that the other forces were prevented from organising a youth and student demo by the DSP "gazumping" it. As a participant in those meetings, it is my sad duty to inform you that this is total bullshit! The other forces didn't want to organise a student strike in the immediate term, and as the war started, began to retreat politically.

We went ahead anyway, as SOMEONE needed to stand up to the warmongers, and we got over 10,000 youth on the streets at a time and organised three huge rallies. DESPITE the oppositionism of the conservative elements in the WAWC (CPA, ALP, churches and some peace groups), and the mainstream media. Those lovely chaps in the CPA then helped preside over a (secret) split in WAW, which resulted in them taking almost $10,000 (most of the money), and setting up their own fuddy-duddy selective-entry Sydney Peace and Justice Coalition, which spent a lot of time wasting the money and organising very few people.

Then there's the lovely little swipe about vietnam. Last time I checked, the vietnamese were militarily weak at the time of US withdrawal. It was their courage and determination that kept the US from winning. But the withdrawal of US troops was not determined by that alone, but by the combined effect of VN resistance and antiwar sentiment at home, especially the effect of this on the troops (fragging, going AWOL, communist infiltration, refusal to fight). Symon tries to simplify our position to caricature it (surprise).

Or how about this logical gem?
"The statement speaks of "Being implacably opposed to the ruling
class of your country, and fighting to overthrow it, and building
a strong united socialist party in your own country as the means
to reach that goal". The DSP seems to be not only talking of
Australia but other countries as well.

This conclusion is strengthened by reference to "class struggles
in other countries" and, "helping where possible, without
creating an external centre to direct others' work or distorting
newer parties and groups".

There is no recognition in this statement to the existence of a
number of socialist states, others which are led by communist
parties such as Laos and Cambodia, the left front governments in
India, or the emerging left progressive governments, particularly
in Latin America. It is the responsibility of genuine socialists
and communists to support such governments against the constant
imperialist threats of intervention and war. The above
unqualified statement could be read as a call to "overthrow"
these governments too."

Laughable as this is, it is an example of how devoid the CPA is of political insight. This from the same organisation that barely mentioned Venezuela in the resolutions from their conference last year.
The thrust of the (selectively quoted) DSP statement is that we do not try to construct "toy" internationals. We don't interfere with or try to direct the revolutionary movements in other countries. We might offer advice, but always bear in mind that we don't know the details on the ground in those countries, that we are not in the midst of the battle, and therefore our input has only a minimal and limited use.

To try to infer that by this we mean the overthrow of the governments of Laos or Cambodia or certain governments in India (such as West Bengal), or, heaven forbid "emerging left progressive governments, particularly in Latin America" is plain ludicrous. Weve got better relations with some of these governments that the CPA does. In fact, we're touring the International Relations Director of the Venezuelan CP, Dr Carolus Wimmer (who is also a member of Latin American parliament and head of international relations for the Venezuelan National Assembly) around Oz in February. We intend to invite the CP to meet him (I met him in August). Nevertheless, the measure remains the class struggle, and if those governments aren't a tool in the hands of the working class......... well we'll leave it up to the people of those countries to decide exactly what to do next. And we'll criticise and support measures taken as necessary, without dictating terms like generals from afar or sending comrades out to start a "section".

The article then finishes on utter shite. The DSP supports Tibetan "self-determination", not an absolute separatism. It is premised on the sovereign right of any national grouping to determine their own future. (Wonder what Lenin would say?)

KLF my arse!

And the Gorbachev thing WAS true, and is no longer. Truth was, despite CPA refusal to admit it, that 'socialism' in the USSR wasn't very democratic. Our hope was that 'perestroika' might help bring that about. We were wrong. Better than supporting stalinism, wot? (Or the tianenmen square massacre).

The whole article is an excercise in hatchetry (or perhaps an attempt at swinging an ice-pick :blink: ). It reads like a damning expose on the DSP, unfortunately, it is nothing but the work of an aging pseudo-stalinist with an axe to grind and a selective memory. Still, the CPA are not TOTALLY useless, despite having an average age of over 55.

On the other hand, I suggest anyone thinking of joining the CPA (ML)- if you can actually find them outside of a pile of papers dumped regularly in Trades Hall in Melbourne- should get their head checked. :P :rolleyes:

[Hiero]

(but please learn to get your facts, and logic, right)

Well before you get worked up again for a third time take note i actually didn't say anything i merely posted an article.


The article Hiero refers to is not only slanderous, it is full of the most basic of factual errors. And I find it laughable that the CPA, the main architect of the split in the sydney Walk Against War coalition, from which they stole two thirds of the money, and excluded not only nasty 'trotskyist' organisations (of all kinds) but also independent activists who didn't condemn those 'nasty trotskyists' (most of whom aren't), still tries to blame the DSP and resistance for it- ESPECIALLY when, after years of organising miniscule anti-war demos, they come creeping back to the Stop the War Coalition (which they seem to think is run by those self-same nasty trots who aren't trots) to havea part in organising this years anti-war demo in March.

I'm not sure about the whole Anti War movement split. I can hardly believe the CPA would plan the split of the anti war movement at Sydney, or let alone have the influence and numbers to cause a split. What i have heard that happened at Sydney and Newcaslte, the ALP and the SA formed the major factions within the organising body and they formed the split.

The CPA speakers at the last CPA congres all followed the same line that the CPA should work with both splits. And this has been the case, the CPA has worked with, or tried to work with both splits. Now why would the CPA create a split, and not join one side of the split? The CPA has actually made moves for unity in the anti war movement.


Then there's the lovely little swipe about vietnam. Last time I checked, the vietnamese were militarily weak at the time of US withdrawal. It was their courage and determination that kept the US from winning. But the withdrawal of US troops was not determined by that alone, but by the combined effect of VN resistance and antiwar sentiment at home, especially the effect of this on the troops (fragging, going AWOL, communist infiltration, refusal to fight). Symon tries to simplify our position to caricature it (surprise).

There is a constant trend amongst the Trots to downplay the role of the Vietnamese people and claim the people in the imperialist countries stopped the imperialists. Anyone who is leaning to that sort of social-chauvinist line of thinking should be criticised before we start getting people forgot the real heroes of the Vietnam war, the Vietnamese people.


This from the same organisation that barely mentioned Venezuela in the resolutions from their conference last year.

We mention them enough, we are not going to run our whole congress on what the Venezuelans are doing. Unlike the SA, which run a campaign that makes me think maybe Hugo Chavez is runing for Prime Minister of Australia.

As to the CPA not joining the SA, i think the DSP movs to "disolve" into the SA or whatever it said, is very threatening to the independance of the parties in the alliance.

Anyway your post were very slanderous and seem to aim to scare people away from the CPA. Your trying to make out that the CPA causes problems for the SA, then say the CPA is a small party of a average age of 55. I wonder how can such a small party of pensioners can cause such problems from you perfect party.

[chebol]

I'll reserve the right to get worked up when people post lies (consciously or otherwise) that are related to my main areas of day-to-day work.

And I'm calmer now. But lets take a couple more points up.

Firstly, yes. I am trying to dissuade people from joining the CPA. I do not think that this is the most useful thing for a revolutionary in Australia to do.

But slanderous? I may be trying to 'ruin' the CPA's (potential) reputation as 'the party to join' (if people are inclined to join one), but I'm not trying to use falsehoods to do it, only the facts themselves. If I've made a mistake, it was inadvertent, and would like to have it pointed out.

The CPA was involved in the secret, behind-closed-door dealings with the ALP and church-groups in the WAWC that set up the new organisation, excluded many member-groups and individuals in the WAWC, and took off with most of the money. (OK, maybe not "the" main architect, but "a" main architect.)
They showed no interest at first to take part in Stop The War Coalition (which was what the groups and people NOT INVITED to join the new group formed), and despite dozens of approaches BY THE STWC, the other coalition has ONLY NOW agreed to unity talks, or at least, to co-organise the march 18 rally. The only group I know of that has been in both groups is the Greens.
The CPA has NOT been involved in building unity with the STWC (or even trying to) until now, and I welcome the decision by your conference to work towards building it. As I said earlier, I want to work with you. But you can't dress up a horse and call it a senator.

Once again, the SA did not "form the split". The secret group declared itself the Sydney Peace and Justice Association, fully formed, and dissolved the WAWC unilaterally. Full stop.

QUOTE: "Now why would the CPA create a split, and not join one side of the split?"

You tell me, comrade. You tell me. Only, first tell me why they helped form one in the first place.

SA is not campaigning around Venezuela. Resistance and the DSP are, as we support the revolution taking place there, as are some individual SA members. We have helped set up the Australia-Venezuela Solidarity Network, which campaigns around, well, you guessed it, Venezuela. Somehow we still manage to do hundreds of other things too. (Where I don't often see the CPA involved).

Chavez isn't likely to run for PM. (He may be travelling in the Pacific region in the next 12 months tho'......). ;)

Finally, let's get back to the point.

QUOTE: "As to the CPA not joining the SA, i think the DSP movs to "disolve" into the SA or whatever it said, is very threatening to the independance of the parties in the alliance."

Would you care to actually explain how you think the DSP's (then- it has not been our goal for almost a year, and is not at the moment, although we still aim to build a single united multi-tendency party) proposal of becoming an internally organised tendency of the SA threatens the independence of the other parties, and how this reasonably recent proposal relates to the refusal of the CPA to take part in the first place? Unless, of course, the CPA has no interest in building unity of the left in Australia outside of itself.

As to importance, I value every person who could help to organise, build, educate, etc, the largest, most effective revolutionary movement in Australia, and think it important that we work together in our struggle. To that end, the sectarianism of the CPA does worry me, especially if people are attracted to it unaware of it's nature. The left would be the stronger for the CPA taking a more comradely and cooperative approach to the class struggle in Australia, and I urge you to think about it. (And to have a bit of think about China 1989 too). ;)

:castro:

[Hiero]

This is all bullshit, you can't provide any proof. This is typically Trot drama, they like to make things up and create dramas. Talking about "secret behind the door mettings", Trots do have a good imagination. All this comes from a guy who says the CPA are secterian, a guy who likes bag out ever other party.

But im not going to go on and on with this, it is a Trot thing to talk about how more revolutionary they are then everyone else. I don't care if people join the SA, but if you get over the SA you should check out the CPA, and if you were going to join the CPA then at least check them out and do not go off the words of someone like Chebol who is so intense on convincing people to not join the CPA.

[chebol]

Nice try Hiero.

One. I'm not a "trot". Nice attempt at old-school insult though. Fortunately I'm immune, and think it kind of childish.

Two. You've posted an article on this site contining allegations and arguments that I tried to take up as they are fallacious, a fact I know from my own experience. If you can find yourelf a copy of the WAWC minutes, you'll certainly have an interesting time. Or ask one of the indepenents who were there.

Three. Your response has not been to address the points made, but to call me a "trot" and to denigrate my argument by insulting me. True, I've probably given as good as I've got towards the CPA, but I've also tried to back it up with facts. You're just being rude.

I don't care whether you think my "trot imagination" is running wild or not. You can keep deluding yourself all you like. To me, it is important that the truth be told. If people still want to join the CPA, fine. But they should do so knowing the kind of actions and dishonest revisionism it's leadership engages in. I would still urge the CPA either as a group, or as individuals, to join the SA. But if it's a choice, I feel a responsibility to dissuade people from joining the CPA.

I could say more about the CPA's behaviour and history. I won't. It's not on topic, and wouldn't be useful right now.

You haven't managed to take up the points that I raised, and, as you appear unwilling or unable to, I am also willing to let the issue drop. I just hope that you try and find out more before making such assertions again.

Maybe next time you're in Sydney we could catch up, and I could show you some "proof".

Comradely,

Chebol

[Hiero]

Three. Your response has not been to address the points made,

Yes i have, as much as i can, i told you i don't all that goes on at Sydney so don't play that card that im not answering you. All i know is your claims do not match up to the actions i have seen in the CPA and the actions i know take place in the CPA in regards to the splits from the anti war movement.



I could say more about the CPA's behaviour and history. I won't. It's not on topic, and wouldn't be useful right now.

Yes i would advise you to keep your fat mouth shut, or unless you want to continue to embarres yourself a bit more as a spiteful person who comes from a spiteful group.


I would still urge the CPA either as a group, or as individuals, to join the SA. But if it's a choice, I feel a responsibility to dissuade people from joining the CPA.

What the hell is this? You want us to join the SA, but you hate us? What can be your motives when you slag us off, then ask use to join your holy alliance? Then you have the balls to say Comradely at the end, as if you are my comrade. Which line are you going to play, either you hate us or you think we should all join the SA? You can't play both, and you are being a nuisance. Is this what they train you to do at the SA, to attack other groups in hope to destroy them?

And i wont be meeting you at Sydney since i have seen how much hate you have towards the CPA. Do you think i am that stupid?

[chebol]

Like I said, I'm letting the matter drop.

There appears to be no point trying to argue with you, as you avoid the points, and try and turn everything into a vengeful attack.

Learn to debate politics, rather than melodramatically feigning surprised that, not being in your party, I might not want to encourage people to join your party. Kind of an obvious point, no?

If you can't get beyond that point, I dunno how you're going to get to the point where we can have a meaningful discussion about the left in australia.....

chao.

[Hiero]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 04:16 PM
Like I said, I'm letting the matter drop.

There appears to be no point trying to argue with you, as you avoid the points, and try and turn everything into a vengeful attack.

Learn to debate politics, rather than melodramatically feigning surprised that, not being in your party, I might not want to encourage people to join your party. Kind of an obvious point, no?

If you can't get beyond that point, I dunno how you're going to get to the point where we can have a meaningful discussion about the left in australia.....

chao.
You so full of shit. You are the one who started this, and you were the one who kept it going. Don't act like you are the good one, you started with the attacks.

[comradeadam]

Originally posted by Hiero+Jan 27 2006, 05:31 AM--> (Hiero @ Jan 27 2006, 05:31 AM)
[email protected] 27 2006, 04:16 PM
Like I said, I'm letting the matter drop.

There appears to be no point trying to argue with you, as you avoid the points, and try and turn everything into a vengeful attack.

Learn to debate politics, rather than melodramatically feigning surprised that, not being in your party, I might not want to encourage people to join your party. Kind of an obvious point, no?

If you can't get beyond that point, I dunno how you're going to get to the point where we can have a meaningful discussion about the left in australia.....

chao.
You so full of shit. You are the one who started this, and you were the one who kept it going. Don't act like you are the good one, you started with the attacks. [/b]
Yeah your right chebol go get a life SA are hire a crowd wankers and as for splitting/overtaking orgainisations DSP are the biggest culprits, hell they lobbied for lift of the rule that your only allowed to join/members of one group/party etc.Because what they do is get in the orgainisation take it over and then dissolve it and take there assets and money and use it for the DSP.So dont go lecturing the CPA when your orgainisation is the worst at the thing you accuse us of. :angry: