The SWP and Cuba

[kylie]

In the latest issue of Socialist Review, the monthly magazine of the Socialist Worker Party, there is an article on the issue of Cuba. It is an excellent example of why no-one who considers themselves a Marxist or left wing in any way, should support them. Below are some parts of the article, although the entire article is not here, as I am having to type it up.

The astonishing thing is that people on the international left have rushed to justify the actions of the Cuban state. Many of them have a long record of opposing imperialism, of exposing and protesting at the US’s 43 year siege of Cuba. In recent times these same voices have been raised against the abuse of power in Argentina, Chile or Uruguay and have been the first to demand fair trials, external inspection of prisons and police and the establishment of democracy.
Why then do these same people now accept without question an argument that under certain circumstances all of these rights and democratic instruments should be suspended?

Firstly, I doubt that anyone serious about their support of Cuba has given this support without questioning. This seems to be an attempt to discredit those who support Cuba, insinuating that those who do are not actually thinking enough about the situation. It’s fairly obvious that this is not the case, as I am sure you are aware.
Secondly, Cuba has said that it would allow external inspections of prisons and police, if in return the US allowed the same. But such inspections are not necessary anyway. To be put in a Cuban prison, a person must have committed a crime. Now the laws of Cuba are freely available to the Cuban people, and as such if they commit a crime, then they must be acting against Cuba. Why should Cuba spend extra resources on such people, who only work against them? ‘Establishing democracy’, what the author of this meant I do not know, as Cuba does have elections, both provincial and national. The national, provincial and municiple assemblies elect Cuban judges. So it would seem that the people of Cuba do not agree with the claim of the SWP, that ‘fair trials’ have been suspended in Cuba.

Years ago I debated the question at an early Marxism conference with a comrade from New Left Review. His central argument was that what determined whether or not a society was socialist was the public ownership of the economy. The government could be a military dictatorship, he suggested, so long as there was no private property and the government declared itself to be socialist! I replied that socialism was about freedom, about the emancipation of the working class from the tyranny of capital and the pursuit of profit.

The author of this seems to be claiming that in Cuba there is not freedom. As I have previously said, there are elections in Cuba, and workers are free of the kind of exploitation that occurs in other, capitalist based economies.

if we are to win the wider movement, we must be the unconditional, principled, consistent champions of freedom – not the cheerleaders for a lesser evil.

Yet again the SWP show their lack of true understanding, by throwing the word ‘evil’ around. Such a word has a religious basis, and seeing as how Marx explained how religion is just a bi-product of capitalism, its ironic that the author would use the word when talking about how we should support freedom in the very same sentence. If it the sentence was to be taken on its own, without a person knowing where the quote came from, it could be very easy to mistake this for something by the right-wing.

[redstar2000]

Is this the American "Socialist Workers Party"?

If so, then I understand where they're coming from. They never cared for the Cuban Revolution much...it wasn't led by trotskyists, you see. So how could it possibly be "any good"?

:cool:

[kylie]

It might be the same organisation, im not sure. Though their website is .org.uk, so i would guess not.

[Kez]

this is UK SWP, who are a shitty rump of a sect with 900 members, fuckin worthless pieces of shit

[Sandanista]

Actually its more like 4000 members

[Sensitive]

Quote: from redstar2000 on 6:37 am on June 13, 2003
Is this the American "Socialist Workers Party"?

If so, then I understand where they're coming from. They never cared for the Cuban Revolution much...it wasn't led by trotskyists, you see. So how could it possibly be "any good"?

:cool:
I know that wasn't from the American SWP, because they are pro-Cuba. And they aren't Trotskyists anymore either...

[Saint-Just]

Quote: from feoric on 12:58 pm on June 13, 2003
It might be the same organisation, im not sure. Though their website is .org.uk, so i would guess not.


This is the British 'Socialist Worker's Party'. They are Trotskyists. They have always had this view, that there has never been any socialist states that have practised socialism correctly. It is slightly misleading to say the SWP follow Trotsky, in my opinion they are libertarian, environmentalist etc. who want state capitalism. They want simply the main industries nationalised, they do not want to ever get rid of the state. They want a maximum 35 hour working week.

They invite U.S. imperialism, and are not patriotic at all whilst they always talk of internationalism and a great transnational revolution. How do they expect to build a powerful socialist nation if we all drastically reduce working hours? How can they say they are anti-imperialist when they support U.S. military intervention and oppose all the anti-U.S. imperialist states now and of the past.

They aim to retain bourgeois parliamentary democracy and oppose the dictatorship of the proletariat. They say that the views of Marx and Lenin must not be followed because we must build some kind of new socialism in the modern era. But truly, it is not modern, their type of socialism has existed for a long time. It is nothing but liberal bourgeois form of socialism.

'this is UK SWP, who are a shitty rump of a sect with 900 members, fuckin worthless pieces of shit

Yes true mostly apart from: 'Actually its more like 4000 members'

Yes, it is more like 4000, not 900. I thought it was nearer 10,000, but I do not know anymore. The Labour party has many more members, but that does not make it a great party. The SWP are the biggest party on the left, but they are the least left-wing and most incompetent.

Some of their members are thugs; they physically attack Stalinists, and I can't deny that Stalinists are not more than willing to return it. But the Trotskyist SWP are strictly anti-violent. The truth is most of their members have never read Marx, Lenin or Trotsky. Luckily they will likely never see any hope of power in the near future, but unfortunately neither will any of the other parties on the left.

[Sandanista]

Ok then if u say so, we are the least leftwing of the leftist parties in Britain, ABSOLUTE SHITE, we are the revolutionary socialist party, to say we want state capitalism is also crap because it was people like us who helped to highlight state capitalism in russia etc, it would be a bit stupid of us to support something we are vehemently against.

We dont support parliamentary democracy in a petty bourgeousie way, we support it because it is necessary to have a voice in parliament who back up the parties actions.

The small minority of SWP who actually pick fights with stalinists (even this claim is ridiculous) are a mindless mob, however this is pure propaganda, if an SWP member fought a stalinist then it would have been personal, not political

[ComradeRiley]

I am English and support Cuba (anyone against the yanks has my backing!)

[YKTMX]

Quote: from Sandanista on 5:41 pm on June 13, 2003
Actually its more like 4000 members


I think your under-selling us a bit there comrade. It's been about 10,000 for a few years. 4000 is more like the number that attend Marxism. Anyway, debates on Cuba are pointless. The kind of rubbish spouted on these boards by the usual suspects is the same rubbish that has been spouted by ten man sects that sell their paper outside Marxism for a decade. Mike Gonzlaez would rip any of these guys to shreds if he had ten minutes with them, but I just ignore it, not really worth arguing the point.

[YKTMX]

Quote: from Chairman Mao on 6:01 pm on June 13, 2003

Quote: from feoric on 12:58 pm on June 13, 2003
It might be the same organisation, im not sure. Though their website is .org.uk, so i would guess not.


The truth is most of their members have never read Marx, Lenin or Trotsky.



Plase, try and maintain some dignity when talking rubbish. It makes all of us look less silly.

[kylie]

Plase, try and maintain some dignity when talking rubbish. It makes all of us look less silly.

At a recent meeting of local SWP members which i went to, the following was claimed:


The fact is that Lenin and Trotsky are over-valued, they could have been in a car accident and still the revolution of 1917 would have happened.

All other people at this meeting(of around 20 people) then agreed and added upon this comment. When in fact, i very much doubt if it had not been down to Lenin and his pushing of the bolshevik party(and creation of it) then the said revolution would not have happened.

This is the British 'Socialist Worker's Party'. They are Trotskyists
I think the SWP do try to pass themselves off as Trotskyists, though there is as much truth in this as there is the claim that Hitler was a socialist.

[YKTMX]

Quote: from feoric on 8:00 pm on June 13, 2003
Plase, try and maintain some dignity when talking rubbish. It makes all of us look less silly.

At a recent meeting of local SWP members which i went to, the following was claimed:


The fact is that Lenin and Trotsky are over-valued, they could have been in a car accident and still the revolution of 1917 would have happened.

All other people at this meeting(of around 20 people) then agreed and added upon this comment. When in fact, i very much doubt if it had not been down to Lenin and his pushing of the bolshevik party(and creation of it) then the said revolution would not have happened.

This is the British 'Socialist Worker's Party'. They are Trotskyists
I think the SWP do try to pass themselves off as Trotskyists, though there is as much truth in this as there is the claim that Hitler was a socialist.

Really, it is very, VERY immature to pass of the arguments (though, to be honest I think you're probably exaggerating/lyring) of a few members as that of an entire party. The fact that the party publishes books on Marx, Lenin, Trotsky and others, and puts up a staunch support and defence of all these people seems to have slipped under your radar. Amazing.

[kylie]

Really, it is very, VERY immature to pass of the arguments (though, to be honest I think you're probably exaggerating/lyring) of a few members as that of an entire party.
I would not assume that this was the opinion of the entire organisation, if it were for not one person disagreeing with what was said. But this was not the case, and so i find it hard to believe that the opinion of one region of the SWP can be so out of sync with what the rest of the organisation believes.

Another example of the SWP's idea of socialism: supprting the UN.

Let there be no mistake we regard Saddam and his regime as a real threat to his own people, to neighbouring countries and to the world. Saddam must end repression of his people, abandon his efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction and respect the legitimate role of the United Nations as it ensures that he does.

(Edited by feoric at 10:15 pm on June 13, 2003)

[Kez]

i dont know who feroic is, but he seems to be pretty much bang on.

SWP has 900members according to your own NEC member who leaked it, or left and gave information out, im not buillshiting, i got better things to do

SWP is NOT a revolutionary group, and are opportunist, shown by their standing in elections, when CLEARLY as lenin sed that only by smashing the state could we have socialism, not by using the apparatus of the bourgeoise.

the fact that the SWP supported the UN takes the piss when clearly the UN is a club of capitalists, not even with a member of a deformed workers state (unless u includee china who do fuck all anyway).

there have been theories of the SWP being tool of MI5 but i cudnt possibly give evidence for this, although i have often wondered where they get their money from, and y they are so harsh to normal ppl in demos

[FAB]

Quote: from Chairman Mao on 7:01 pm on June 13, 2003
[quote]
Yes, it is more like 4000, not 900. I thought it was nearer 10,000, but I do not know anymore. The Labour party has many more members, but that does not make it a great party. The SWP are the biggest party on the left, but they are the least left-wing and most incompetent.


And thex never came into the british parlament because they have so a unfair choice -system for small partie's in uk.

[Sandanista]

Kamo, how can u say the swp is oppurtinst as it stands in elections, u urself are a member of the labour party, the governing party in the uk

[il Commy]

" SWP is NOT a revolutionary group, and are opportunist, shown by their standing in elections, when CLEARLY as lenin sed that only by smashing the state could we have socialism, not by using the apparatus of the bourgeoise. "

Bullshit. I know nothing about the SWP, but that's just a distortion of Lenin. To remind you, Lenin himself and his Bolshevik party attended the Duma. He did say that we have to destroy the state, but until the revolution a revolutionary party must have a voice in the parliament. A parliament is a stage in the strugle, just like trad-unions, street demonstrations, communication medias etc are. We must not be disconnected from the working-class interests before the revolution.

[Communist Superhero]

It is interesting to see that the extent of peoples class struggle is coming onto this website and slagging the SWP off...I haven't read the article in the Socialist Review, but does Cuba really have the Communist society Marx talked about?

[Communist Superhero]

People spend there whole political lives slagging the SWP off. It is sad to see that people who claim to be revolutionaires confine themselves to internet message boards and spout a bucnh of sectarian bollocks.

The SWP was on the for front of the STW steering commitee which helped organize the two million strong demonstration in London. The SWP have open forums which allow members of the public to attend and debate Marxism etc. They have paper sales every saturday to try and build the party.

In fact, as you all sit on this message board the SWP are out trying to organize workers in their work places. The SWP is building for Marxism 2003, is talking to workers, attempting to politicise them.

The idea is to educate and organize. These are two principles which the SWP fight for every day. They do not come and sit on these websites and slag off other organizations.

The revolutionary left is so fucked up because people like you have no perspective anymore. There is a tidel wave of action waiting to happen. People are becoming disillusioned and are looking for alternatives. We need to build the party, not try and break it down. One of you said that the SWP is no more revolutionary than Hitler was a Socialist...how can this be, when they are on the streets talking to workers about issues, setting up forums and organizing universities and colleges...You are all out of tune with what is going on, and it is about tme that you re-evaluate your priorities...the revolutions isnt going to be won at your computer screens

Organize, Build, Fight!

[kylie]

I haven't read the article in the Socialist Review, but does Cuba really have the Communist society Marx talked about?
No it is not communist, but to an extent it is socialist. See my first post for responses to the various criticisms about Cuba by the SWP and its claim that socialists should not support the country.

People spend there whole political lives slagging the SWP off. It is sad to see that people who claim to be revolutionaires confine themselves to internet message boards and spout a bucnh of sectarian bollocks.
In the past month, one topic has been created about the SWP on this forum. And how is it that you know the people who post on this site do not do anything else?

The idea is to educate and organize. These are two principles which the SWP fight for every day. They do not come and sit on these websites and slag off other organizations.

There is nothing wrong with attempting to educate the public, as long as what is said is actually true. This is not the case with the SWP, who, as i have shown above, are infact socialist pretenders. I note you have not actually responded to what has been said. Does this mean you agree, that Lenins role in 1917 was unimportant, or that we should support the UN?
As for the SWP not getting involved in polemics, this sounds very similar to how many capitalist parties ignore or dodge questions on certain issues, or just refuse to answer. It really doesnt take that long to explain a viewpoint, the SWP not doing so only worsens their reputation.

People are becoming disillusioned and are looking for alternatives.
And it is for this reason that the petty bourgeois parties of the left need to be exposed for what they are. Otherwise more who go to the left wing will be wasted in one of these parties, which stop the people from looking further left, to the organisations that a true to the working class.



(Edited by feoric at 3:12 pm on June 14, 2003)

[YKTMX]

Quote: from TavareeshKamo on 11:38 pm on June 13, 2003
i dont know who feroic is, but he seems to be pretty much bang on.

SWP has 900members according to your own NEC member who leaked it, or left and gave information out, im not buillshiting, i got better things to do

SWP is NOT a revolutionary group, and are opportunist, shown by their standing in elections, when CLEARLY as lenin sed that only by smashing the state could we have socialism, not by using the apparatus of the bourgeoise.

the fact that the SWP supported the UN takes the piss when clearly the UN is a club of capitalists, not even with a member of a deformed workers state (unless u includee china who do fuck all anyway).

there have been theories of the SWP being tool of MI5 but i cudnt possibly give evidence for this, although i have often wondered where they get their money from, and y they are so harsh to normal ppl in demos


Hmm, we don't even HAVE a NEC so that's rubbish for a start. As for elections, the BOLSHEVIKS stood in elections so that's CLEARLY more rubbish. I'd like to see proof of what the SWP supposedly said about the UN, because going by the rest of your proof, you're not exactly a "reliable source".

[kylie]

It is from Lindsey German's(the leader of the SWP) speech that was read out during the London anti-war demonstration on the 28th of september 2002.

(Edited by feoric at 4:41 pm on June 14, 2003)

[Communist Superhero]

Lenin played a key role in the 1917 october revolution. To my knowledge he led it. However, this does not mean that he wasnt in the right place at the right time.

Lenin did not start the first world war that murdered millions of russian workers, capitalism did. Lenin did not create the terrible working conditions and famine in Russia, Tzarism did, and neither did he impose the restictions on workers human rights. Lenin was born out of those conditions...if it wasn't Lenin, it would have been someone else, and maybe that was the point of the meeting.

Feoric, what party are you alligned with?

[YKTMX]

Quote: from feoric on 4:39 pm on June 14, 2003
It is from Lindsey German's(the leader of the SWP) speech that was read out during the London anti-war demonstration on the 28th of september 2002.

(Edited by feoric at 4:41 pm on June 14, 2003)


Well, fair enough. I have heard her say diffirent thousands of times, so.

[Kez]

Quote: from YouKnowTheyMurderedX on 6:04 pm on June 14, 2003


Well, fair enough. I have heard her say diffirent thousands of times, so.

going back to my point on them being opportunist and unprincipled...

the SWP had bout 5-10 representatives in my city demonstration anti-war in march, (manchester) if this is anything to go by i doubt very fuckin much that you have "10,000 (!!!) members" to be honest i think it is utter bollocks

you say you have meetings etc to persuade the workers of socialism then why is there no theory page on your site

feroic once again was right in callin u a party with a petit bourgeoise outlook. You are too comfortable with the status quo and dont want change, merely reform, thats why u dont link the troubles of society to capitalism but rather to "the bad government" as opposed to the bad system

[Severian]

Quote: from redstar2000 on 12:37 pm on June 13, 2003
Is this the American "Socialist Workers Party"?

If so, then I understand where they're coming from. They never cared for the Cuban Revolution much...it wasn't led by trotskyists, you see. So how could it possibly be "any good"?

:cool:

No, it's the Brits, and your statement about the SWP in the US is 180 degrees wrong.

As for the rest of the thread, it probably would have been more interesting and useful to examine the ideas in the article, and show why they're wrong, than to engage in small-group organizational rivalry and gossip.

[Communist Superhero]

"feroic once again was right in callin u a party with a petit bourgeoise outlook. You are too comfortable with the status quo and dont want change, merely reform, thats why u dont link the troubles of society to capitalism but rather to "the bad government" as opposed to the bad system"

Where do you get your information from?...from what basis are you building this argument? where have you come across any comrade that has a "petit bourgeoise outlook"? Actually mate, I take great fucking offence to the implication that because I am a member of the SWP I am somehow in league with the ruling class, that my views are based on the preservation of capitalism. I am a revolutionary, a Marxist, and I would lay down my life to fight for the emancipation of the working class and so would my comrades in the SWP. Never have I met anyone who has called for reform. Every comrade who I know believes passionatly in the over through of Capitalism, so I am confused by where your information is coming from...As for there not being a theory page on the website, these are arguments you should be having with them. Their not animals, their human beings, and I am sure they would appreciate your argument and would be happy to give you an explanation. Lets get out of this school yard mentality and start organizing

[bolshevik1917]

Even the un-elected leader of your party?

[Sandanista]

Well in scotland the SWP are now a platform within the SSP, every year we elect our convenor, tommy boy usually wins it.

The SWP are a revolutionary party, who, despite what some people say, are not sectarian, if they were sectarian they wouldnt have participated in the merger with the SSP.

The SSP are mostly reformists on the whole, but the ISM and the SWP are the revolutionary elements within the party.

[Communist Superhero]

who is the unelected leader of the SWP?

[Sandanista]

lindsey german as far as i know, but she isnt unelected

[bolshevik1917]

Chris Hayward I beleive.

Anyway, check this out....

From Scotland On Sunday 15 06 03

CIVIL war has broken out in the Scottish Socialist Party (SSP) over one of its candidates in the Scottish Parliament elections, it emerged last night.

Leaked confidential documents have revealed bitter in-fighting in the Mid Scotland and Fife region over Linda Graham, who narrowly missed out on becoming an MSP. One regional organiser complained about Graham’s "venom" towards other SSP members, while a branch chair accused her allies of acting "like animals".

Graham claimed "reactionaries" in the party had worked to undermine her and called for them to be "driven from our party". The bust-up appears to centre on suggestions that Graham and her supporters are Socialist Workers Party (SWP) members bent on sowing disunity in the SSP. The papers were for an SSP executive committee meeting in June, calling for an internal investigation into problems in Mid Scotland and Fife.

One complaint from regional organiser Jock Penman said Graham had "crossed the line" with an outrageous attack on several party members after her defeat at the polls. He wrote: "Her venom is not just aimed at me, but at other good comrades, even whole branches."

Another complaint from Benarty branch chair Lorna Bett said the infighting had left her "physically sick". She said: "Never in my life have I seen such a vociferous, poisoned bunch of people. I never understood why people were so up in arms about the SWP joining our party. Now I know why."

Bett added: "They were like animals. They really showed their teeth. It was disgusting."

In her personal reflections on the election, Graham accused her opponents of "naked careerism, backstabbing and a personal attack culminating in a vote of no confidence in me weeks before the election".

Commenting on the situation, party leader Tommy Sheridan said: "The SSP now has over 3,000 members and it’s inevitable that the bigger we become the more diverse our membership, and everyone doesn’t always see eye to eye.

"I regret the comments made by Linda but she was probably disappointed at failing to be elected by a mere 126 votes.

"The SSP increased its vote by over 200% but we narrowly missed out in both Mid Scotland and Fife and Highlands and Islands. However I suppose the fact that an internal row now makes the news is a tribute to the development of the SSP as a political force in Scotland.

The party and the executive are well aware of the situation and inquiries are under way."

Graham said: "If there are any problems in the Mid Scotland and Fife region then the Mid Scotland and Fife region will sort them. We don’t really want any press involvement."

[YKTMX]

the SWP doesn't have a leader, they have a Central Commitee of about 12 or so, long standing members.

[Reuben]

For the record, until a few years ago, the SWP were lead by Tony Cliff, and had had the same leader for FORY YEARS! This from an organisation who attack cuba for being too top down.

[Sandanista]

Well he was elected, and he was fucking fantastic.

[YKTMX]

He was the founder member, as far as I know, he was never officially leader.

[Son of Scargill]

Quote: from Severian on 6:29 am on June 15, 2003

Quote: from redstar2000 on 12:37 pm on June 13, 2003
Is this the American "Socialist Workers Party"?

If so, then I understand where they're coming from. They never cared for the Cuban Revolution much...it wasn't led by trotskyists, you see. So how could it possibly be "any good"?

:cool:

No, it's the Brits, and your statement about the SWP in the US is 180 degrees wrong.

As for the rest of the thread, it probably would have been more interesting and useful to examine the ideas in the article, and show why they're wrong, than to engage in small-group organizational rivalry and gossip.




Probably the best advice in this thread.
I,however,am going to engage in small-group organizational rivalry for the moment.

For all the SWP members who do not wish to be offended,look away from your screens...now!
http://www.geocities.com/socialistwanker/

[Communist Superhero]

The guy who made that sight was not only a sexist but a defender of bourgois ideals.

According to him, it is acceptable to use the word chick, when refering to pulling them in clubs, and he seems to think that 42 pounds a week is an acceptable amount of money to give to an unemplopyed person. Infact he goes so far as to imply that those people who attempt to get more money to support themselves are some how parasites. He goes on to talk about how the SWP undermine the welfare state..GOOD! The welfare state is a big bag of wank and leaves working class people and the most vulnarable in poverty.

The sight has no constructive political arguement, it is by his own admission a way to vent the chip on his shoulder. I wonder what Lenin would have thought about this form of revolutionary fighting...hmmm

He complains about the SWP's activities within campaign groups, yet gives no argument to say what should be an alternative, and in fact while the SWP are trying to fight with these campaigns, he is making websites like this.

He speaks about how the SWP try and somwhow brainwash people...Since when has trying to politicise people been called brainwashing. What kind of nonsense is that. The SWP don't force their oppinions on people, they fight their argument with conviction.

And exactly how do you people think that the working class should be organized, how do you fight your argument. Is it not the belief of all revolutionaires that the way to stop this oppression is by organized marxist revolution. Because I do, and so do my comrades, and when we are on the streets we fight our cause with conviction.

People think we are somehow trying to force them into being a member of the party, or trying to brainwash them. Come on people, grow up. One of the first steps of consciousness must be that you can defend your beliefs with conviction not hide away in fear because the big scarey nasty man with the newpapers spoke well. For a reality check, its called debate. And if someone believes that parliment is the way to change society, well their wrong, and we all know that. We need an organization to show how that is wrong. This is an argument the SWP try and fight against, but then get accused of trying to brainwash people. By other revolutionaries...what is going on?

And one other thing, what the fuck is the problem with getting comrades to sell the newspaper. It shouldnt be five they have to sell, it should be fifity five!

Now lets all start behaving like adults and get thinking about how we are going to organize!

SMASH, FIGHTBACK, OVERTHROW

[Son of Scargill]

You were warned...but would you listen?

[Communist Superhero]

I wasn't offended, just confused!

[kylie]

Apologies for the delay in replying, but i was unable to access this yesterday.

Lenin played a key role in the 1917 october revolution. To my knowledge he led it. However, this does not mean that he wasnt in the right place at the right time.

If Lenin had not been around, it is unlikely the RSDLP would have split, as it was Lenin and Martovs proposals which caused the disagreement which sparked it. As for those who had supported Lenin and his creation of the Bolshevik party, how many would have held the opinion they did, if it was not for Lenins strong defence of the need for a powerful leadership(one of the key issues on which Lenin and Martov disagreed). While others did also support his view, none were as prominent in doing so as Lenin.
So it is very possible that without Lenin, the RSDLP would have survived, though essentially being the same as the Mensheviks. And of course, it was these who supported Kerensky's government in 1917.
A party similar to the Bolshevik party may have formed at some time, although it would be much weaker. Many of the biggest contributers of the the Bolshevik party, such as Trotsky, joined because of Lenins arguements, so with losing Lenin, they too go.
So when people say that Lenins role in bringning about the october revolution is exagerated, i disagree.

Feoric, what party are you alligned with?
The party i agree with most is the IBT(international bolshevik tendancy).

[bolshevik1917]

Using the word 'chick' is sexist??

get a life...

And also, its only good to see people abusing the welfare state when it aint your taxes that pays for it. Its just another excuse for the government to take away more of my wages, its okay for all the SWPers though as hardly any of them work!

[sc4r]

Some of their members are thugs; they physically attack Stalinists,



And quite why is this so awful ? I've fought with Facists myself (NF racists admittedly, but the principle is the same) and I'm actually rather proud of it.

I ceryainly do not consider myself a thug.

(Edited by sc4r at 11:18 am on June 18, 2003)

[Urban Rubble]

"Lets get out of this school yard mentality and start organizing "

That's the most true thing I've read out of all 5 of these pages.

"I've fought with Facists myself (NF racists admittedly, but the principle is the same) and I'm actually rather proud of it. "

As have I, I get in fights with Nazi Skins around here all the time, simply because I don't back down to their shit. They stand on the street corners around here handing out pamphlets, I go and try to debate with them and they start talking shit and calling names. I, unlike most scared citizens, do not back down, which usually ends in me being beat by a gang of Nazi's, but about half the time I have enough friends with me to handle it.

I can't think of anything more noble than being kicked by a gang of Nazi's for not backing down from their racist rhetoric.

As for beating up Stalinists, I wouldn't really be in for that. Sure, anyone why supports a madman like Stalin has to be a little touched in the head, denying his purges is like denying the holocaust. BUT, Stalin did do some great things, and I doubt most Stalinists support his purges. I wouldn't go as far as to pick fights with them, I'd rather yell and fight with Nazi's.

[The Feral Underclass]

Quote: from bolshevik1917 on 7:36 pm on June 17, 2003

Using the word 'chick' is sexist??

get a life...



I actually take offence to not only to the word chick, but to the fact that you think it is sad to argue against people using it.

Do you think it is acceptable to dehumanize a woman like that. Would you use the word *****. Do you think using a slang name for a black person or a gay person would equally be acceptable.'

The word chick is another male word used to show their dominance of woman. There are no words to describe straight men the way straight men have words like chick to describe woman.

Using words like chick just highlights that woman are still oppressed. The time when woman are regarded as human beings will be the time when words like chick are not used anymore.

And dont give me the shit about, "well none of the woman I know care", because they should care, and when they have become conscious, they will smack you around the face.

Scumbag!

[Kez]

liberterian, first off, welcome to the board

2ndly, calm down, i think if u read more of Bolshies posts, u will see that there is not a shred of sexism in their.

It is good to see such passion on such important issues of discrimination howeverr, maybe u interterpretated his context, which was a relaxed one. And as you'll find out as a marxist he fights against all forms of discrimination

Anywho, if someone calls me a hunk (i wish :)) im not gonna be offended am i? i'll have risen above that, if i gave a shit in the first place, but i agree if the context is incorrect (which wasnt the case in teh website) then that is chauvanism, however, i think in its cntaxt it was a light hearted comment.

Once again tho, welcome to the board comrade!

[Urban Rubble]

I think people need to chill on this PC shit. Who really cares if you say chick ? It's not that big of a deal.

As Tav said, if some girl called me "dude" or "bro", I'm not going to give a fuck. The word chick is not the same as something like faggot or nigger, it's not really derogatory. Now, the words "*****" or "ho" are different, those are degrading.

Basically, I think people need to lighten up a little, if a girl is offended by that, then she can ask the person to stop using the word.