The BNP, the SWP...

[Amusing Scrotum]

No to SWP Berufsverbot

To defeat the BNP, we must fight the system - and not call for ballet dancers to lose their jobs, says Jim Moody

Weyman Bennett and the Socialist Workers Party are fond of organising against fascists. But their opposition to the British National Party is conducted in a way that aims to place the SWP in the respectable mainstream rather than challenge the system that continually spawns reactionaries like the BNP.

The most recent attempt to claim the heights of moral outrage was the Unite Against Fascism picket of the English National Ballet on January 12. And why? Because a recent BNP recruit, principal dancer Simone Clarke, was appearing in a performance of Giselle. The picketers called explicitly for Clarke to be sacked - an incredibly stupid way to combat reactionary views.

If employers can sack someone because of their politics, there is nothing in principle to stop them sacking someone of whatever political colour, including red. In fact such action has more often been directed at the left - one only has to recall US McCarthyism or the West German Berufsverbot, both of which caused communists to be hounded out their jobs.

Of course, if a person’s rightwing views impacted negatively on the way they did their job, it would be entirely correct to demand their dismissal. Out and out racists ought not to be employed as teachers in inner city schools, to give an obvious example.

Representing the UAF, SWP central committee member Bennett was quoted as saying, “We would like to see Simone Clarke removed ... We believe she had used her position to support a party which fosters division …” Her views are “incompatible with a leading arts institution such as the English National Ballet” (BBC website, January 8). But no doubt others regard the views of revolutionary socialists as “incompatible” with employment by capitalist companies - or any department of the bourgeois state, for that matter.

The well-publicised picket also drew Clarke’s own party supporters out of the woodwork. So it was that at the matinee last Friday afternoon, 30 besuited BNP boot boys were in unwonted attendance, easily outnumbering UAF supporters in the auditorium. Clarke’s recruitment reflects a push by the BNP to recruit more ‘respectable’ members - BNP leader Nick Griffin has called on members to “clean up our act, put the boots away and put on suits”.

Truly, the UAFers in the auditorium seemed lacklustre in their protest, perhaps realising that they were on a hiding to nothing. According to an ENB security guard, “Two of them stood up and shouted a bit, but as soon as we tapped them on the shoulder and asked them to leave they were as good as gold” (The Guardian January 13).

Previously, when her affiliation was revealed in the same newspaper, Clarke reportedly said that the BNP “seemed to be the only party ‘willing to take a stand’ against immigration. She claimed that her boyfriend, Yat Sen-Chang, who is also an acclaimed lead dancer, encouraged her to join the BNP” (The Guardian January 1).

We communists know what fascist organisations and their members can do and would like to do. But we also know what the British state has done and is doing. Its reactionary attacks need combating now: it is the main enemy of our class. Clarke’s reason for joining the BNP was immigration, a big issue where the main bourgeois parties differ with the BNP only in the degree of their opposition to it and their support for immigration law.

A plastic bucket from China has more right to enter Britain than a person from China. Britain’s anti-working class immigration laws preventing free entry into the country were first enacted in 1905 to keep out Jews, and have been tightened ever since. As extreme democrats we do not accept the state’s right to keep anyone out or act as gatekeeper, deciding who can and who cannot live and work in Britain. Communists, Marxists and revolutionaries reject the idea that anyone can be refused entry onto any territory by any state - only our class enemy benefits from the current situation.

The ruling class delights in being able to marshal workers as they wish, to beat them down where they can, in order to ensure that they remain compliant. Asserting the authority to say who can enter any particular territory allows the state a free hand in serving the overall interests of the capitalist class. The existence in Britain of ‘illegal’ (ie, undocumented) workers from elsewhere in the world means the existence of workers who can be exploited even more than those who have to be paid the minimum wage. Even if they are paid that rate, their unofficial or temporary status serves to keep them cowed, discouraging trade union membership and weakening the overall position of workers vis-à-vis the bourgeoisie. Every restriction on entry into Britain has the gang-masters and, more importantly, employers greedy for higher profits rubbing their hands with glee. The restrictions certainly do not benefit the working class.

Although the CPGB has put forward motions at SWP-controlled forums, such as the Respect conference, calling for the removal of all border controls, SWP voting fodder has ensured that such moves have been quashed on leadership diktat. Such is the SWP’s Little Britain mentality, currying favour with phantom elements to their right. These elements of the supposed revolutionary left pretend to be in favour of no frontiers, but in practice are in the same continuum that ends at the far right. Speaking on Radio Five Live on January 12, comrade Bennett said it was “legitimate” to debate immigration. He meant in the way the mainstream parties do - only the “Nazi” BNP is beyond the pale, even though it actually participates in that debate on the pretty much the same terms as they do.

But the SWP can only complain about ‘racist’ immigration controls, not the core of anti-migrant policy, which is fundamentally anti-working class. It is, of course, entirely necessary to campaign against racism, but the SWP does so in a way that merges seamlessly with official Britain’s anti-racist consensus. More to the point, if it cannot campaign against such an enormous affront to the vast majority of humanity as migration law and call for open borders, what good is it to the working class? Is this why the SWP’s UAF scurries round trying to find ‘Nazis’ to sack? This and the popular-frontist class collaborationism that imbues everything this right-moving group touches.

How is it that the SWP’s ‘united fronts’ - the UAF, Stop the War Coalition, Respect - are never organised on an explicitly working class basis, but are always positioned so as to remain within the same bourgeois political continuum? Well, activity for the sake of activity is the name of the SWP’s game. It has no programme, its members are schooled in blind obedience to the leadership on pain of expulsion and kept busy selling Socialist Worker and ‘fighting fascism’ (ie, letting the BNP set its political agenda). By such means if it cannot keep members thanks to the revolving door syndrome, at least it can hope continually to refresh its membership with new blood.

As the SWP’s creature, “Unite Against Fascism is a new national campaign with the aim of alerting British society to the rising threat of the extreme right, in particular the British National Party (BNP), gaining an electoral foothold in this country. We aim to unite the broadest possible spectrum of society to counter this threat” (my emphasis, www.uaf.org.uk/aboutUAF.asp?choice=1). The leadership of New Labour and the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties could sign up to such guff. After all, in current circumstances each of them despises the extremist right as much as they do the organised left - especially as it is the likes of the BNP that is more likely to deprive them of votes. If we had a genuine Marxist party that was united and dangerous to their class rule, then it would be a different story.

The SWP’s methodology is to attempt to bring together disparate forces in its ‘united fronts’ on the basis of current majority political opinion. And with all its talk about the Nazi BNP, the UAF (like the Anti-Nazi League before it) harks back to the rewriting of history at which our rulers were so adept after 1945. Instead of being seen for the inter-imperialist war it was - with Nazi Germany intent on rewriting the Versailles treaty and becoming the leading world power - World War II is portrayed as a war to ‘defend democracy’, with the Allies painted in humanitarian colours, striving to rid the world of the evils of Nazism and fascism. Nowadays, whichever SWP vehicle fronts it, UAF or ANL, the class act is the same, when it comes to opposing the BNP: forget the imperialist crimes of New Labour and the Tories in Iraq and Afghanistan - here is something so objectionable that we will all just have to pull together. Rather Churchillian, in fact.

In the 1930s, a substantial section of the British ruling class supported Hitler and wanted something similar to his regime in Britain. He was stamping on the Bolsheviks, after all. The Daily Mail was so rightwing it might as well have been the organ of Sir Oswald Moseley’s British Union of Fascists. In view of this, the rag certainly had some gall, given its history, when commenting on the Clarke case recently: “The BNP is certainly repellent, with its knee-jerk hatred of foreigners and history of organised thuggery ...” (Daily Mail December 30 2006). Quite like the Nazi brownshirts and Moseley blackshirts the paper used to praise to the sky.

Growth in fascism is, in any event, a symptom of failure of the left. Some of the millions disgusted with the self-serving Tory, Liberal, and Labour professional politicians cast around and latch onto the fascists because they appear to offer something different. The extreme right has appeal precisely because it presents itself as opposed to the old politics. The sectarian radical left, divided against itself organisationally, has a direct responsibility for its refusal to uphold the independent working class politics of Marxism - the only real, human alternative to mainstream bourgeois politics.

In this way the SWP contributes to a situation where parties like the BNP are seen as the way to break the smug consensus. The SWP then directs its activism against the very entity that, through its bankruptcy, it has helped to develop. What wonderful co-dependency!

-- Weekly Worker 656 Thursday January 18 2007 (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/656/swp.htm)

An interesting article -- on a few different levels.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Can a Mod or Admin change the title of the thread please -- it should say the SWP, not the SNP.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Done.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

AS, I am surprised that one as sophisticated as you are could post this lame piece.

Here are the reasons why this was done:


Simone Clarke is a principal dancer with the English National Ballet – and also a card carrying member of the fascist British National Party (BNP).

Unite Against Fascism protested last week outside her first performance since her support for the BNP was revealed.

Many liberal commentators have jumped to Clarke’s defence, claiming that her membership of a fascist organisation is a “personal view”.

But Clarke is not quietly keeping her opinions to herself – she gave a lengthy and unrepentant interview with the Mail on Sunday just before the new year where she showered praise on the BNP and its anti-immigration agenda.

The BNP’s entire purpose is to spread race hatred and violence. Despite recent attempts to appear “respectable”, it remains committed to removing all non-whites from Britain.

It is not a legitimate political organisation and its activities should not be tolerated or normalised. That is why there is a longstanding principle of rigorously excluding fascists from public platforms.

Clarke’s active membership of the BNP is incompatible with her high profile role in a publicly funded arts institution that has a responsibility to oppose racism.

She has chosen to join the BNP – and so her involvement in the English National Ballet has to be terminated.

And:


Protest puts pressure on the BNP ballerina Simone Clarke

Protesting outside the London Coliseum

by Anindya Bhattacharyya

Up to 100 protesters demonstrated outside the London Coliseum theatre this lunchtime against the first performance by Simone Clarke, principal dancer at the English National Ballet (ENB), since she was revealed as a card-carrying member of the fascist British National Party (BNP).

The protest, organised by Unite Against Fascism, was lively with constant chanting against the BNP. Demonstrators carried placards reading “Ballet not bigotry” and “No to fascism and racism at the ballet”. The demo also attracted significant interest from the mainstream media.

Clarke’s membership of the BNP was revealed in the Guardian newspaper over Christmas. She responded by giving a lengthy and unrepentant interview with the Mail on Sunday where she showered praise on the BNP’s anti-immigration agenda.

The actual performance of Giselle was disrupted by protesters from Love Music Hate Racism shortly after Clarke made her entrance on stage. They stood up and shouted that her presence was a disgrace, that there should be no racism in the arts, and that the BNP was a fascist organisation.

A group of a dozen or so Nazis were also at the performance, huddled around Richard Barnbrook, the BNP’s mayoral candidate and lead councillor in Barking & Dagenham. They loudly applauded and cheered when Clarke made her entrance.

Emma Blackwood, a visual artist and musician from west London, was on the Unite protest outside. She highlighted the BNP’s bigoted attitudes towards lesbians, gay men, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people.

“Simone Clarke represents a fascist organisation. That seems to me to be incongruent with the arts world, which involves lots of LGBT people,” she told Socialist Worker.

“Clarke’s allegiance to the BNP must be distressing for her colleagues as well as for artists in general. She’s being employed by a publicly funded organisation, so she should not be publicly aligning herself with a fascist political party.”

Renowned classical pianist Ian Pace was also on the Unite protest. “It is incompatible for Clarke to be an active BNP member – going to meetings and using her prominence to promote the organisation – while also being in a multicultural state funded arts organisation,” he said.

“If she were to leave the BNP, then fine. But if not, she cannot remain part of a company with an extremely diverse group of dancers, many of whom are immigrants – she has to go.

“I also think she should say what she thinks about the politics of the BNP – which include Holocaust denial, racism and criminal violence.”

According to an article in today’s Independent newspaper, Clarke’s fascist sympathies have attracted anger from colleagues and workers at the ENB.

It reports “growing frustration among the troupe’s 150 dancers and backstage staff that Clarke has not been publicly challenged about her views when nine out her ten fellow principal dancers are immigrants”.

Both the Musicians’ Union and the Bectu theatre workers’ union have spoken out against Clarke and condemned the BNP. The actors’ union Equity, in contrast, has failed to comment.

Gerry Morrissey, Bectu’s assistant general secretary, said, “Simone Clarke earns her living in the subsidised arts and with this goes certain responsibilities, with which she has failed to comply. She has brought our industry into disrepute.”

http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/article.p...rticle_id=10516 (http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/article.php?article_id=10516)

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by CompañeroDeLibertad+--> (CompañeroDeLibertad)Done.[/b]

Cheers.


Rosa Lichtenstein
Here are the reasons why this was done:

I already knew why this was done, Rosa -- because Ms. Clarke is a member of the BNP. And that shouldn't be glossed over, because someone's political affiliations are important.

However, the Weekly Worker piece transcends the root problem, and instead looks at the flaws of the proposed solution. Namely sacking someone because of their political affiliations. The pieces you posted, don't really deal with the following point:

"If employers can sack someone because of their politics, there is nothing in principle to stop them sacking someone of whatever political colour, including red. In fact such action has more often been directed at the left - one only has to recall US McCarthyism or the West German Berufsverbot, both of which caused communists to be hounded out their jobs." (Weekly Worker article posted above.)

Sure, if Ms. Clarke loses her job, it won't be the end of the world. But what happens when SWP members start losing their jobs because of their politics?

There are teachers, for instance, in the SWP. And the political mainstream could well make the argument that "[the SWP] is not a legitimate political organisation and its activities should not be tolerated or normalised [and, therefore their] active membership [in the SWP] is incompatible with [their] role in a publicly funded ... institution".

Such arguments have a historical precedent, as the Weekly Worker article points out -- so the SWP leadership would do well to look at the wider picture on this one.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

AS, once more your naivety here surprises me, in that you equate the SWP with the BNP (or, you do so at least in terms of your supposed analogy -- that the legitimacy of the SWP and the BNP coukd equally become a reason for anyone to compare these two actions).

That you can compare racism and fascism with the lame excuses that someone might possibly dream up to demand action against anyone in the SWP is rather worrying, for it suggests that the sophistication I attributed to your usual posts was somewhat ill-judged on my part, and a might too hasty.

What next, that we never try to cofront the Nazis just in case someone suggests that left parties shoud be confronted?

Pathetic.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Rosa Lichtenstein+--> (Rosa Lichtenstein)AS, once more your naivety here surprises me, in that you equate the SWP with the BNP...[/b]

The term "naivety", Rosa, indicates a lack of experience -- that is, not knowing the full implications of something.

In this instance, the full implications of demanding people lose their jobs because of their political affiliations, are already known. After all, it was the same laws that were used to suppress American Nazi's in the 40's, that were used to suppress American communists in the 50's.

At each point in time, the suppressed political group was viewed as threat to the interests of the American bourgeoisie -- and, therefore, they were suppressed by that same bourgeoisie. Which means, in this sense, they can be "equated".

Does that mean history is going to repeat itself, with the BNP and the SWP cast in the leading roles? I don't know, personally; but I certainly don't think it's wise to start travelling down this path. If anything, it's that that shows real "naivety".

History repeats itself: the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce.


Rosa Lichtenstein
What next, that we never try to cofront the Nazis just in case someone suggests that left parties shoud be confronted?

The "no platform" philosophy is, of course, a fundamental cornerstone of anti-fascist politics. But there is no place in that spectrum for grovelling to the employing class -- in the hope that they'll will start terminating contracts, or get the Police to protect your meetings from fascists, and so on.

Independent, autonomous working class action is what we need -- not favours from the bosses.

[bolshevik butcher]

This debate has become side tracked but I think that as socialists our task is not to work to have individual fascists sacked. Would the same fuss be made if this person was a construction worker or a refuse collection worker rather than a ballerina? To me this is not an effective way to take on fascism. The best way to defeat fascism is to militantly mobolise working class forces in oposition to it.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

AS:


The term "naivety", Rosa, indicates a lack of experience -- that is, not knowing the full implications of something.

I agree, it can mean that, but I was in fact using it to contrast your usual sophistication with the naive piece you posted.


In this instance, the full implications of demanding people lose their jobs because of their political affiliations, are already known. After all, it was the same laws that were used to suppress American Nazi's in the 40's, that were used to suppress American communists in the 50's.

Who is calling for any 'laws'?


The "no platform" philosophy is, of course, a fundamental cornerstone of anti-fascist politics. But there is no place in that spectrum for grovelling to the employing class -- in the hope that they'll will start terminating contracts, or get the Police to protect your meetings from fascists, and so on.

Who is 'grovelling'?


Independent, autonomous working class action is what we need -- not favours from the bosses.

Off you go: organise some then. Can we expect several hundred thousand worker militants that you are busy organising to smash the BNP tomorrow?

Next week?

Well, when then?

And while we wait for that, the BNP gets some nice, free publicity.

Very clever....

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BB:


Would the same fuss be made if this person was a construction worker or a refuse collection worker rather than a ballerina? To me this is not an effective way to take on fascism. The best way to defeat fascism is to militantly mobolise working class forces in oposition to it.

Read the articles I posted again; this woman is a high profile Nazi.

And yes, we regularly do this sort of thing.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by Amusing [email protected] 19, 2007 07:40 pm
No to SWP Berufsverbot

To defeat the BNP, we must fight the system - and not call for ballet dancers to lose their jobs, says Jim Moody

Weyman Bennett and the Socialist Workers Party are fond of organising against fascists. But their opposition to the British National Party is conducted in a way that aims to place the SWP in the respectable mainstream rather than challenge the system that continually spawns reactionaries like the BNP.


-- Weekly Worker 656 Thursday January 18 2007 (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/656/swp.htm)


This post so reminds me of the Monty Python 'peoples front of judea' gag. :rolleyes:

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

US:


This post so reminds me of the Monty Python 'peoples front of judea' gag.

Quite; but you will notice that papers like the Weekly Worker are the secatarians here; Socialist Worker rarely, if ever, makes such attacks on other groups.

And in Monty Python, the groups concerned spent all or most of their time gassing.

Socialist Worker not only set up the most successful anti-fascist organisation in the UK since WW2 (the ANL), it has been central to organising the massive anti-war movement (the most successful ever in this country).

Weekly Worker; what have they ever done for us....?

[That is, apart from being part of the communist movement that helped split the left in Germany, allowing Hitler to laugh all the way into the Third Reich, and apart from being part of a movement that made a pact with Hitler (in 1939).

I think we can ignore lectures from these idiots.]

[Severian]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 20, 2007 11:52 am
US:


This post so reminds me of the Monty Python 'peoples front of judea' gag.

Quite; but you will notice that papers like the Weekly Worker are the secatarians here; Socialist Worker rarely, if ever, makes such attacks on other groups.
Yeah, that hardly defines whether someone is a "sectarian". You gotta wonder why the Weekly Worker/CPGB bothers paying so much attention to the British SWP, but apparently their basic error is thinking there's some hope for it.

The Weekly Workers' basic point is clearly correct, in fact part of the ABC of communism.

Communists don't call for the ruling class - state or employers - to ban fascism. One, that'll inevitably be fictitious, half-assed as best. They're not going to meaningfully fight fascism, only the working class can and will.

Two, it sets a precedent they're going to use to go after us, and not just in a fictitious, half-assed way. The Smith Act in the U.S. was first used against Nazi groups, with the approval of the Communist Party USA. Then against the SWP (U.S.), again with the CP's endorsement. It was later used repeatedly against the Communist Party - and they hard time finding anyone to defend them. They suffered worse from it than anyone else.

The British SWP's going down the same reformist road - trying to fit into the ecological niche formerly occupied by the Labour Party.

[Luís Henrique]

Can we still listen to Wagner, or is it bourgeois decadent art?

Luís Henrique

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Severian (jn full sectarian form):


You gotta wonder why the Weekly Worker/CPGB bothers paying so much attention to the British SWP, but apparently their basic error is thinking there's some hope for it.

Possibly because the US-SWP (as was), has virtually vanished.


The Weekly Workers' basic point is clearly correct, in fact part of the ABC of communism.

What's this? A dialectician who holds to fixed and changeless principles?

What next? A glowing reference to the Law of Identity? The use of the 'either-or' of 'common sense'?


Communists don't call for the ruling class - state or employers - to ban fascism.

Looks like you, and the visually-afflicted person who wrote this article, can't read.

Who is calling on the state to do anything?


only the working class can and will.

Formally correct, but not much use if they are quiescent. What do you do until they wake up?

Nothing? Militant and sit on your butt?]




[b]The British SWP's going down the same reformist road - trying to fit into the ecological niche formerly occupied by the Labour Party.

This would be close to remotely correct if the SWP were asking for the state to do something, but they are not (as I pointed out above -- is it really so difficult for you mystics to read plain English?).

Conclusion? What has sectarianism ever done for Severian?

Answer?

Everything he deserves....

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

LH:


Can we still listen to Wagner, or is it bourgeois decadent art?

You can listen to pretentious crap all you like.

[Severian]

Originally posted by Rosa

Communists don't call for the ruling class - state or employers - to ban fascism.

Looks like you, and the visually-afflicted person who wrote this article, can't read.

Who is calling on the state to do anything?

I don't know whether the "English National Ballet" is a public or private employer, which is why I said communists don't call on "the ruling class - state or employers" to ban fascists. It doesn't matter whether it's the state or a private employer - the state's just a representative of those employers after all.

But I don't share your love of endless quibble-fests. If you think the British SWP's positions have been misrepresented, why don't you clearly state where you, and/or the British SWP, stand on ruling-class measures to censor, ban, or fire/sack fascists?

From earlier:

What next, that we never try to cofront the Nazis just in case someone suggests that left parties shoud be confronted?

Well, I'd suggest it's not such a brilliant idea to organize those confrontations under the banner of "no free speech for Nazis" or what have you. Weakens our side of the confrontation, by proclaiming ourselves opponents of free speech, and lets them posture as persecuted for excercising free speech. And, yes, makes it easier for others to justify doing the same to us.

Better to point out the Nazis are not about speech, but violent thug attacks on the workers' organizations and various scapegoats. We're excercising our right to self-defense by confronting them....not necessarily passive, waiting self-defense.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Severian:


I don't know whether the "English National Ballet" is a public or private employer, which is why I said communists don't call on "the ruling class - state or employers" to ban fascists. It doesn't matter whether it's the state or a private employer - the state's just a representative of those employers after all.

So, you ignored Lenin's advice to make an all-round assessment, before you mouthed-off?

Is that it?


But I don't share your love of endless quibble-fests.

Translated, this means you are careless of the facts.


If you think the British SWP's positions have been misrepresented, why don't you clearly state where you, and/or the British SWP, stand on ruling-class measures to censor, ban, or sack fascists?

I think I already have: we/they do not call on the state to do such things for the reasons Amusing Dangly Bits stated.

But, you'd know that if you bothered to find out before you opened your mouth, and inserted your foot in it.


Well, I'd suggest it's not such a brilliant idea to organize those confrontations under the banner of "no free speech for Nazis" or what have you. Weakens our side of the confrontation, by proclaiming ourselves opponents of free speech, and lets them posture as persecuted for excercising free speech. And, yes, makes it easier for others to justify doing the same to us

What is so wonderful about free speech for Nazis?

And, no one could mount such an attack on the SWP that held any credibility -- unless you would like to suggest a basis on which this could be done?


Better to point out the Nazis are not about speech, but violent thug attacks on the workers' organizations and various scapegoats. We're excercising our right to self-defense by confronting them....not necessarily passive, waiting self-defense.

Again, why can't you read?

That was part of the protest.

[Severian]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 20, 2007 06:25 pm

If you think the British SWP's positions have been misrepresented, why don't you clearly state where you, and/or the British SWP, stand on ruling-class measures to censor, ban, or sack fascists?

I think I already have: we/they do not call on the state to do such things for the reasons Amusing Dangly Bits stated.
An evasion: you don't want to state where the British SWP stands on demanding private employers sack people.

Enough.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Severian:


An evasion: you don't want to state where the British SWP stands on demanding private employers sack people.

I want to state this (and have) about as much as you do not want to read it.

However, I am amazed you desire such an abstract 'policy statement' from me (even though I have already told you what I think in this concrete case).

Just as I am amazed you think socialists/trade unionists cannot demand things of employers.

Have you never heard of wage demands? Or of demands that sacked/victimised miltants get re-instated?

If we can demand such things, as the concrete circumstances arise, why not the reverse, in this case?


Enough.

Yes, I'd capitualate too if I were you.

[bolshevik butcher]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 20, 2007 02:51 pm

Would the same fuss be made if this person was a construction worker or a refuse collection worker rather than a ballerina? To me this is not an effective way to take on fascism. The best way to defeat fascism is to militantly mobolise working class forces in oposition to it.

And yes, we regularly do this sort of thing.
As an active member of the British left I can say that I've never heard of a similar stunt pulled by the swips but I suppose living in Scotalnd there's less anti-BNP stuff around. So the SWP regularly protests agianst fascists having jobs? Whatever and wherever that may be?

By the way on Unite Against Fascism, it seems to have all the classic traces of an SWP front, ie very low political level, single issue, not brancing onto the wider class issue and the SWP not pushing a socialist program through the organisation. I'm not opposed to socailist organisations having fronts but such fronts should be used to push socialist ideas as well as just the issue at hand.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BB:


By the way on Unite Against Fascism, it seems to have all the classic traces of an SWP front, ie very low political level, single issue, not brancing onto the wider class issue and the SWP not pushing a socialist program through the organisation. I'm not opposed to socailist organisations having fronts but such fronts should be used to push socialist ideas as well as just the issue at hand.

The usual allegations backed up by, ...er anecdote (the only ploy left to the sectarian).

[bolshevik butcher]

Well backed up by my expirience of the SWP in the anti-war movement. I don't know how many times I've seen Lynsey German get up infrton of thousands of people and not mention socialism or class once. "Lets get rid of bush and blair", charles kennedy delivered a more left wing analysis of the war, it was embaressing to watch. The stop the war coalition was a perfect oppertunity for the SWP to press socialist ideas over a mass movement surley?

[The Grey Blur]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 21, 2007 05:20 pm
BB:


By the way on Unite Against Fascism, it seems to have all the classic traces of an SWP front, ie very low political level, single issue, not brancing onto the wider class issue and the SWP not pushing a socialist program through the organisation. I'm not opposed to socailist organisations having fronts but such fronts should be used to push socialist ideas as well as just the issue at hand.

The usual allegations backed up by, ...er anecdote (the only ploy left to the sectarian).
:lol: Haven't you noticed by now how 'SWP' has become an insult amongst the British, Scottish and Irish left?

That isn't sectarianism, that's how you have represented yourselves to others - politically bankrupt sectarians who concentrate on fronts rather than working-class based activism.

This ballerina being sacked would set a worrying and easy to utilise precedent for the ruling class. It happened in America during the McCarthy era, as others have pointed out.

A solution might be to organise the backstage workers (who appear sympathetic) there to refuse to participate in her shows perhaps? Something that utilises and displays the power of the worker rather than the boss anyway.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BB:


I don't know how many times I've seen Lynsey German get up infrton of thousands of people and not mention socialism or class once.

Matched by my opposite experience -- and I know Lindsey personally.

So, it's anecdotes at fifty paces is it?

I am not sure you understand what a united front is, either.

[But, what has all this got to do with the BNP???]

I see from your age that your experience of the SWP must go back all of, ooh, 2 years.

Mine goes back nearly 25.

So, I have plenty more anecdotes than you, chummy.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Perm:


Haven't you noticed by now how 'SWP' has become an insult amongst the British, Scottish and Irish left?

That isn't sectarianism, that's how you have represented yourselves to others - politically bankrupt sectarians who concentrate on fronts rather than working-class based activism.

This ballerina being sacked would set a worrying and easy to utilise precedent for the ruling class. It happened in America during the McCarthy era, as others have pointed out.

Well, this is nice, fine abstract stuff -- I suggest you read this thread more carefully before you join the likes of Severian and Amusing Dangly Bits, and end up with your size elevens in your rather large mouth.

As for the allegedly bad name you refer to, may I refer you to the Monty Python sketch: 'the only thing we hate more than the ruling class is the SWP!'

From sectarians, I think I can live with such back-handed praise....

[Hit The North]

Sorry, but Rosa more or less owns this discussion. Mainly because she's arguing from the point of view of those actually willing to stand up and do something whereas the rest of you 'do nothings' are just sniping from your sectarian bunkers.

PR:

A solution might be to organise the backstage workers (who appear sympathetic) there to refuse to participate in her shows perhaps? Something that utilises and displays the power of the worker rather than the boss anyway.

Absolutely. WTF are you doing about it?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Z, well that just shows how much we agree on, despite the relatively minor disgreements we have over DM!!!

Perahps we can both learn from that!

[bolshevik butcher]

I assure you I am an active soicalist and regularly go out and do things in hte movement. I just find this to be a waste of time and not an effective way of fighting fascism, and alos endemic of SWP populism. I think it shows that rosa refused to reply to my comments about my expirience of the SWP in the anti-war movement.

[bolshevik butcher]

Good for you. You're older than me, that's it then. You're chief authority on the british labour movement :rolleyes:

Seriously I could get people older than you to say the SWP "are shite" in more intelecual ways, I don't see what that proves.

And I'm sure Lynsey German is a marxist who believes in socialism, that's why it saddens me that when a revolutionary socialist group controls an organisation as big as Stop the War they don't press socialist ideas, and when they speak infront of thousand of people they don't talk about soicalism or class conflict.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BB:


I assure you I am an active soicalist and regularly go out and do things in hte movement. I just find this to be a waste of time and not an effective way of fighting fascism, and alos endemic of SWP populism. I think it shows that rosa refused to reply to my comments about my expirience of the SWP in the anti-war movement.

No one doubts your involvement -- I merely questioned the usefulness of trading anecdotes.

So, I did not ignore what you said, it was just of no use, when my experiece is the exact opposite, and mine goes back nearly 25 years.

I do not wish to 'pull rank', as it were, but that is all one can do with anecdotal 'evidence' like this.

You are too young to recall the ANL and how it successfully fought the fascists in the 1970's and 1980's. The ANL was a creation of the SWP.

Plus, you seem to have forgotten that the SWP is a major force in making the UK anti-war movement the most successul we have ever seen in this country.

You call it 'populism' -- but that shows once more you do not understand the nature of a United Front.

[bolshevik butcher]

Half my response to this post is above but anyway, a united front is an allaince of working class forces agianst or for something, eg agianst the war. That doesn't mean that marxists in a united front abandon socialist ideas or propagandaising socialist ideas though.

As for the ANL, no comment. It sounds far better than Unite Against Fascism.

[The Grey Blur]

As for the allegedly bad name you refer to, may I refer you to the Monty Python sketch: 'the only thing we hate more than the ruling class is the SWP!'
What? You are utterly discredited amongst any serious working-class activists but never mind, Monty Python sketches are there to save you.


From sectarians, I think I can live with such back-handed praise....
How the hell are the CWI/CMI or any other Trot sects "sectarian" towards the SWP? We have to protect ourselves from you for chrissake! To use the example in Belfast that I'm experiencing right now is that a dedicated, long-term campaign against water charges set up by the Socialist Party and trdae unionists has now got to contend with an SWP front spreading disinformation and confusion. Sorry, but you have failed the Socialist movement in so many ways. Myself and BB as younger members of the Socialist movement have first-hand experience of Swips being completely sectarian to us and our movements, my example of the SWP here in Ireland and the utter bollix that your party is in Scotland.


Absolutely. WTF are you doing about it?
Well I don't live in England do I now.


Sorry, but Rosa more or less owns this discussion.
:lol: Grow up.


Mainly because she's arguing from the point of view of those actually willing to stand up and do something whereas the rest of you 'do nothings' are just sniping from your sectarian bunkers.
So now 'activity' is how we decide whether we are theoretically correct or incorrect? As Socialists I'm sure every one of us who have critiscised the SWP are both active and a hell of a lot more effective in our own small ways than the entire SWP chop-and-change leadership combined.

Point is:

Communists don't call for the ruling class - state or employers - to ban fascism

A united, non-sectarian campaign against fascism is both desirable and entirely possible, but it can't be achieved while sectarians are using the wrong tactics and refusing to accept legitimate criticism. That's my thoughts on it.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BB:


Good for you. You're older than me, that's it then. You're chief authority on the british labour movement

Seriously I could get people older than you to say the SWP "are shite" in more intelecual ways, I don't see what that proves.

And I'm sure Lynsey German is a marxist who believes in socialism, that's why it saddens me that when a revolutionary socialist group controls an organisation as big as Stop the War they don't press socialist ideas, and when they speak infront of thousand of people they don't talk about soicalism or class conflict.

As I said, the only reason I mentioned that was that your whole argument is anecdotal.

And, if you can honour that pledge (to get people to slag off fellow comrades with such scatological language), then let's see it.

You final comment once again shows that you don't have the faintest clue about united front tactics.

You have either chosen the wrong name here (and should find out what Bolsheviks actually think about united fronts), or you are an ulra-left, and a confused one at that.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BB:


Half my response to this post is above but anyway, a united front is an allaince of working class forces agianst or for something, eg agianst the war. That doesn't mean that marxists in a united front abandon socialist ideas or propagandaising socialist ideas though.

As I said, this shows you have an idiosyncratic view of what a united front is.

[bolshevik butcher]

It's ironic that I'm part of an organisation that believes in doing work inside tradtional mass working class parties is called ultra left by someone who believes the only answer is to try and break away from them and form small socialist sects surley?

A united front does not ential shutting up about socialism. It's an alliance of revolutionary socialist with reofrmists usually over a bread and butter/minimum issue, it doesn't mean not propogaiting socialist ideas. I don't see whats ultra leftist about that in the slightest.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Perm:


What? You are utterly discredited amongst any serious working-class activists but never mind, Monty Python sketches are there to save you

Says who? You?

You have a hot line to all 'serious activists' eh? And you surveyed them all this afternoon rather quicky, too, I bet? [Can I see the original data?]


How the hell are the CWI/CMI or any other Trot sects "sectarian" towards the SWP?

That is a question only you can answer.

As to your other allegations, I could make a load of similar ones about fellow trots (in the tiny groups you mention), ones that you could not possibly verify; but, not being a sectarian, I won't.


Communists don't call for the ruling class - state or employers - to ban fascism

Why are you fixated on this?

When or where have the SWP ever called for this?

And, are you so bemused that you think that socialist never make demands of employers?

Have you never heard of wage demands, or demands that sacked and victimised miltants be re-instated?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BB:


It's ironic that I'm part of an organisation that believes in doing work inside tradtional mass working class parties is called ultra left by someone who believes the only answer is to try and break away from them and form small socialist sects surley?

Read my post: I posed you a dilemma, I did not accuse you of anything.


A united front does not ential shutting up about socialism.

Absolutely right, but it does not mean you use it in a way that splits that front; ramming dogma down people's throats will do just that.

[Hit The North]

Well I don't live in England do I now.

Then you not exactly in a position to know what's happening on the ground are you? Still, I understand that the rules of sectarianism force you to blab about what you know nought about.


So now 'activity' is how we decide whether we are theoretically correct or incorrect?

It's one way. Sure beats sitting on your arse and making assumptions.


A united, non-sectarian campaign against fascism is both desirable and entirely possible, but it can't be achieved while sectarians are using the wrong tactics and refusing to accept legitimate criticism.

So, activists become sectarian when they initiate campaigns and use tactics you don't agree with? And the fact that the tactic you don't agree with is about confronting the BNP, then that makes your position even more risible.

[The Grey Blur]

Well first off I'm certainly willing to combat any possible rise of fascism here in Ireland and secondly I'm criticising the tactics of the SWP because I'm an internationalist.

Yes the BNP should be combatted but do you really think asking favours of the ruling class is the way to go about it? Especially since it sets a damaging precedent. Think of the long-term effects of this ballerina being fired for her political views. Now do you see my point?



So now 'activity' is how we decide whether we are theoretically correct or incorrect?


It's one way. Sure beats sitting on your arse and making assumptions.
No no no no no. You debate theoretically then carry out activity or vice versa, what you are saying is that this action, even if it is misguided, is correct simply because it is something. This campaign looks like a waste of time or perhaps dangerous to working class movements in the future. I'm sure the SWP will be engaged in debate on this campaign in real life as well, don't worry about that.


So, activists become sectarian when they initiate campaigns and use tactics you don't agree with?
No, if you knew anything about the history of the SWP you would realise that their leadership is incredibly sectarian. Get active yourself and you'll learn this very very very quickly.


Says who? You?
Says the majority of Socialist activists today, of whatever hue. Come on, you aren't a serious socialist organisation any more, just accept it.


As to your other allegations, I could make a load of similar ones about fellow trots (in the tiny groups you mention), ones that you could not possibly verify; but, not being a sectarian, I won't
Go ahead. The SWP swing between being ultra-sectarian frontists to 'united social justice' campaigners whenever their glorious leadership decide they should, this has been proven by the experiences of Galloway, of RESPECT, of the SSP, of the thousands of front groups you have set up and promptly dissolved, the Islamophobia agenda, the unconditional support for reactionary groups in the Middle East, your refusal to engage with working-class people and loads of other things. Okay fine, I've proven that the SWP are either sectarian or on a glorious path of enlightenment that none but Tony Cliff could ever fathom.


And, are you so bemused that you think that socialist never make demands of employers?
There's a quantative difference between calling for concessions on behalf of workers and combatting fascism.

I didn't mean to turn this into an anti-SWP rant but the incorrect tactics of the UAF can directly be attributed to the controlling influence of the SWP. And you refuse to engage in debate with us, instead dodging the issue. Has this ballerina lost her job for her political beliefs yet? And is it a victory for the working class if she does? Clearly not.

[Hit The North]

I'm criticising the tactics of the SWP because I'm an internationalist.

Say again?


Yes the BNP should be combatted but do you really think asking favours of the ruling class is the way to go about it? Especially since it sets a damaging precedent. Think of the long-term effects of this ballerina being fired for her political views. Now do you see my point?

Well either your point is that (a) you want to argue from a point of purity when the ruling class seek to repress us: "we never called for the banning of our opponents," etc. or (b) you fear giving an excuse to our enemies by creating a precedent. Well, when our enemies find it necessary to suppress us, they won't need any excuses.

As Rosa has already stated, no one is asking for favours from the State - we'd be doing 'em more of a favour if kept our traps shut in fact. The fact that you slander the campaign in those terms demonstrates your sectarianism.


No, if you knew anything about the history of the SWP you would realise that their leadership is incredibly sectarian. Get active yourself and you'll learn this very very very quickly.

Eggs, teach, granny, suck - just don't.


Has this ballerina lost her job for her political beliefs yet? And is it a victory for the working class if she does? Clearly not.

Wow, one more racist ballerina on the dole queue - what a catastrophe for the working class! :lol:

[bolshevik butcher]

Yeh Rosa some dilema you provided me with. I'm aware what the bolsheviks thought a untiedfront was, and i don't see how what i've suggested varies from this in the slightest. You accused me of one of two things, either being misinformed or ultra leftist, I consider myself neither.

I don't think that mentioning the class dynamic of the Iraq war or talking about socialism is nescesserally going to drive people away. The antiwar movement should have been a time of great growth for the swp...

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Perm:


Says the majority of Socialist activists today, of whatever hue.

Once more, as semi-divine as I am sure to are, I am still going to need to see the results of that survey I am convinced you must have carried out to arrive at these convenient conclusions.

Otherwise, I might start to think you tell porkies.


Go ahead.

Unlike you, I do not indulge in sectarian smears.


There's a quantative difference between calling for concessions on behalf of workers and combatting fascism.

Aaannd.....


And you refuse to engage in debate with us

Translated, this means: Rosa refuses to copy Perm's sectarianism and produce a load of baseless, and brainless assertions, as he keeps doing.


Has this ballerina lost her job for her political beliefs yet? And is it a victory for the working class if she does?

Not that I am aware. And if she does it will be a (small) victory for anti-fascism.

The rest, I think even you can work out.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BB:


Yeh Rosa some dilema you provided me with. I'm aware what the bolsheviks thought a untiedfront was, and i don't see how what i've suggested varies from this in the slightest. You accused me of one of two things, either being misinformed or ultra leftist, I consider myself neither.

You clearly do not know what a dilemma is -- it's not an accusation.

You are supposed to try to work out the alternatives, and decide what you are for yourself.

I am sorry if that was too difficult for you to follow.


I don't think that mentioning the class dynamic of the Iraq war or talking about socialism is nescesserally going to drive people away. The antiwar movement should have been a time of great growth for the swp...

I absolutely agree, and I have heard Lindsey and others push these things at meetings and rallies.

And I agree that this should have been a time of growth, but which left group is growing at present?

And I think I know why they aren't....

[bolshevik butcher]

What rallies? Seriously I've seen her speak, mainly at big protests and at a couple of rally/meeting things and never heard her mentioning it. I know the SWP are soicalists so why don't they talk about socialism and class politics at big events like anti-war demos?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BB:


What rallies?

Well, you mght not know of them if you have not been active around Respect (in the election, or otherwise).


I know the SWP are soicalists so why don't they talk about socialism and class politics at big events like anti-war demos?

It's not appropriate to mention such things all the time; if you want to take the movement forward, you do not erect ideological barriers.

Lenin called it 'bending the stick'.

And do you honestly think that making an abstract speech about such things will gel with those who are not socialists in the crowd?

[It would have to be abstract, or it would tread on the toes of other socialist tendencies on the march (who are part of the movement), who took a different line -- then they would need to address the crowd with their line, and so on, and the whole thing would descend into chaos.]

And, any socialists in the crowd would already know such things.

What you do is approach people in ones and two's and engage them in conversation.

Which is what we do.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Rosa Lichtenstein+--> (Rosa Lichtenstein)Who is calling for any 'laws'?[/b]

"She has chosen to join the BNP – and so her involvement in the English National Ballet has to be terminated." (Socialist Worker, 20th January 2007.)

What do you call this then Rosa?

If someone's involvement in a particular political organisation means that their contract "has" to be terminated, then surely that means there needs to be some kind of legislation? Whether that comes in the form of a nation wide law, or just a company policy, doesn't really matter.

Legislation is legislation is legislation.

Unless you're arguing that employers should be afforded the right to sack people for no stated reason? Which seems like a huge step backward, to me anyway. After all, if someone can be sacked for no stated reason, that would shit upon all kinds of rights.


Originally posted by Rosa Lichtenstein+--> (Rosa Lichtenstein)Who is 'grovelling'?[/b]

Well, you are asking the English National Ballet to terminate her contract, aren't you? Whether that constitutes grovelling, depends on the manner in which you ask, I suppose.

But it's who you're asking that's important. As Severian commented, "Communists don't call for the ruling class - state or employers - to ban fascism."

Heck, even most ordinary workers wouldn't ask their employers to sort out a problem with a fellow worker -- at least not to begin with. Their basic class instinct would come into play, and they'd try and sort it between themselves before they'd ask the bosses to step in.


Originally posted by Severian
You gotta wonder why the Weekly Worker/CPGB bothers paying so much attention to the British SWP...

Why do comedians tell a load of jokes about the Catholic Clergy? Sometimes material just presents itself...


Originally posted by Severian
I don't know whether the "English National Ballet" is a public or private employer...

The Socialist Worker says it's "a publicly funded arts institution" -- but I don't think it's "publicly funded" in the way, say, the NHS is. It probably operates more like your average charity.


Rosa [email protected]

Severian
If you think the British SWP's positions have been misrepresented, why don't you clearly state where you, and/or the British SWP, stand on ruling-class measures to censor, ban, or sack fascists?
I think I already have: we/they do not call on the state to do such things for the reasons Amusing Dangly Bits stated.

"She has chosen to join the BNP – and so her involvement in the English National Ballet has to be terminated." (Socialist Worker, 20th January 2007.)

"If we can demand such things, as the concrete circumstances arise, why not the reverse, in this case? (You.)

If you "demand" that the bosses terminated someone's contract, in what sense are you not "[calling] on the state to do such things"?

[bolshevik butcher]

Rosa at these demos I spend lots of times talking to people and distributing material for both Hands off Venezuela and Socioalist appeal, I only reach a few people though. It's frustraiting to watch a socialist get up and not mention her politics once. There is clearly a way to make socialism revlevant to the war. There is a clear class dynamic in an imperialist war! Who fights these war? In who'se interst is the war? It's a classic sign of stalinist popular frontism not to mention socialism when you have the opperutnity infront of thousands of people.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BB:


It's frustraiting to watch a socialist get up and not mention her politics once.

Well, one can indulge in abstract propaganda, and piss-off loads of people -- or you can just reach out the the one's and the two's.

In non-revolutionary periods, socialist ideas are not going to gel with the vast majority (for all kinds of reasons), so Lindsey and others quite rightly do not attempt to do the impossible.

In short, you will either have to get over this frustration (if you will forgive me, this is a common sympton of youth), or learn to live with it.

[Us 'old hands' have had to this for years, so if you will need to do likewise.]

I am aware of the dynamic you mention, but if you preach at people they will switch off, and your next demo will be 1/10th the size.

You mustn't think that people are just waiting for our winsome words; you do what it takes to keep the pressure up on Blair etc., and recruit at the margins where you can.

[bolshevik butcher]

The pressure on "bush and blair", you'd really think this war was some kind of personal crusade and not an imperialist war waged for the advance of primerally American capitalism. Seriously, why couldnt Lynsey German get up and say that this war was fought by working class people for the benefit of the ruling/capitalist class. If someones not willing to do that and yet sit on the exec of the biggest socialist organisation in Britain it's a disgrace.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

AS:


"She has chosen to join the BNP – and so her involvement in the English National Ballet has to be terminated."

So, which laws are being called for here?

Never mind your rhetorical questions: can you see a single call on the state here, or for any laws to be enacted?


If someone's involvement in a particular political organisation means that their contract "has" to be terminated, then surely that means there needs to be some kind of legislation? Whether that comes in the form of a nation wide law, or just a company policy, doesn't really matter.

So, it needs a law to terminate a job does it?

You might say that if she is sacked she will have recourse in law to win her job back, but then she will be using the law, not us.

But, a success here will give other 'immigrant' workers in her company the confidence to refuse to work with her -- and make it impossible for her to return.

Doing nothing (as you would have it) certainly won't achieve that.

AS before:


"grovelling"

AS under pressure:


"asking"

Some progress, then.

In reality, we are:


"demanding"

So, you are half-way there.

Oh dear, the needle is well and truly stuck, isn't it AS:


"Communists don't call for the ruling class - state or employers - to ban fascism."

Once more who is calling for the state or the employer to ban anything?


Their basic class instinct would come into play, and they'd try and sort it between themselves before they'd ask the bosses to step in.

You assume an even level of class-confidence; the demonstration was aimed at giving them that confidence to sort this out anyway they see fit.

Your 'strategy' -- to leave field -- would achieve zippo.

As I said earlier: very clever!


If you "demand" that the bosses terminated someone's contract, in what sense are you not "[calling] on the state to do such things"?

So, if you demand a pay rise (from a state employer, or an ordinary one), this would be class treachery I suppose?


Why do comedians tell a load of jokes about the Catholic Clergy? Sometimes material just presents itself...

Well, this just shows how seriously you take fascism....

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BB:


The pressure on "bush and blair", you'd really think this war was some kind of personal crusade and not an imperialist war waged for the advance of primerally American capitalism.

I suppose you think the ruling class has no figurehaeds, that the state has no titular leaders?

The entire ruling-class is under intense pressure because we personalised this.

Your way, with a tiny demonstration of hardened bolsheviks, would merely retail pure socialist ideas to an empty square.

If you think your strategy is better than the one we have adopted, and you can put 2 million on the street, and regularly mount huge demonstrations -- off you go, and try.


Seriously, why couldnt Lynsey German get up and say that this war was fought by working class people for the benefit of the ruling/capitalist class. If someones not willing to do that and yet sit on the exec of the biggest socialist organisation in Britain it's a disgrace.

You are really not getting the message are you?

Now, I could post my earlier response to you, and you could post this one (or one like it), and I could then re-post my earlier one....

At some point you are going to have to address what I say, and stop clinging to such abstract and useless ideals.

You are dealing with hundreds of thousands who are a million miles away from you ideologically.

If you think you can bridge that gap with pure-bread bolshevik slogans, speeches and rants, you will be no use to the movement.

And you will fall by the wayside like so many other abstract propagandists I have seen over the years, who argued just like you.

We certainly won't change to allay that itch of yours.

Get over it.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Rosa Lichtenstein+--> (Rosa Lichtenstein)You might say that if she is sacked she will have recourse in law to win her job back, but then she will be using the law, not us.[/b]

Me, in my last post: Unless you're arguing that employers should be afforded the right to sack people for no stated reason? Which seems like a huge step backward, to me anyway. After all, if someone can be sacked for no stated reason, that would shit upon all kinds of rights.

So when I asked if your position was the above, I was right?

Basically, your position is not that you want new legislation that would enable employers to sack people because of their political affiliations -- your position is that you want employers to be able to ignore employment laws when they see fit. Not all the time, of course, just in special situations.

I don't think it needs to be pointed out how problematic this position is. What can be described as "just cause" these days is a bit of a joke -- but it's much better to have that paper thin protection, than nothing at all.

And yet, in this case, we have self proclaimed socialists arguing that, in special cases, this protection should be overlooked! :blink:

Principle obviously doesn't factor into your thinking, so maybe basic common sense will. That is, if "the left", as small and fractured as it is, can apply the kind of pressure that makes an employer very publicly ignore employment law, what will "the right" be able to achieve?

And how much public support do you think you will get when SWP members are the ones fired for no stated reason?

You may think this won't ever happen to an SWP member; and maybe you're right, the continuous drift of the SWP towards the political mainstream does limit the possibility of state repression. But that doesn't mean non-SWP militants won't be targeted -- all it'll mean, is that you've managed to shit on your neighbours doorstep and not your own.


Originally posted by Rosa [email protected]
...the demonstration was aimed at giving them that confidence to sort this out anyway they see fit.

Giving who the "confidence to sort this out anyway they see fit"?

Unless the English National Ballet is a real anomaly, I doubt the people working there have the power to terminate contracts -- the demand levelled by the demonstrators. So it's not exactly Joe the lighting guy you were filling with confidence...


Rosa Lichtenstein
So, if you demand a pay rise (from a state employer, or an ordinary one), this would be class treachery I suppose?

Sophistry, of the most vulgar kind. Actually, calling it sophistry is a bit too much -- that would indicate a certain level of acumen.

[Hit The North]

There seems to be two arguments going on here. One, questioning the tactics of the anti racist demonstration against the dog-faced ubbermensch ballerina and a second one, waged by a Bolshevik butcher, who attacks the general opportunism of the SWP.

I'll take them one at a time.

Firstly, here's a quote from a recent Guardian story on the protest.

Earlier around 50 demonstrators had staged a protest outside the theatre calling for Clarke to be sacked. Several senior members of the BNP staged a counter-protest. Richard Barnbrook, BNP councillor for Barking and Dagenham, where the far-right party is the official opposition, said: "I don't normally go to the ballet but I'm going to support Simone Clarke. I'm supporting her freedom of expression."

When he started to answer questions about the Holocaust one of his minders hissed in his ear: "Don't talk about the Holocaust, stick to the ballet."

The last paragraph really illustrates why this is important. Simone Clark isn't just some quaint misguided anti-immigration dilettantes, she's a fascist and a holocaust denier like the rest of her party.

From the same article:


"Anybody should be allowed to join a legitimate political party without this kind of harassment. I for one will give the girl all my support. These people have no appreciation or understanding of politics or ballet."

Now that's actually someone called Delphine Grey-Fisk who describes herself as "a longtime ballet supporter" (a popular euphemism for national socialist - probably). But it nicely sums up Amusing Scrotum's position - it's practically the same - minus the "Ooh, if we do it to them, they'll do it to us," whining.

Meanwhile AS you've not said what you would do in its place - except pretend that there's no situation.

FFS, it's rule number one: when the master race rear their ugly heads we have a go - we do not let these people appear normal or acceptable.


The second point. Rosa writes as a response to Bolshevik Butcher's accusation that Lindsey German and other socialist leaders of the Anti-War Movement are soft-pedaling and not pushing socialist politics:


You are dealing with hundreds of thousands who are a million miles away from you ideologically.

Well that's depressing. If I thought that less that 50% of the people on those big demos weren't at least in the general ball-park of socialist ideas, I'd top myself tonight.

If fucking Rob Newman can make a hall full of people laugh and ponder on the connection between Iraq, oil and global capitalism as part of his stand-up routine then Lindsey fucking German should be able to do it on an anti-war demonstration in front of thousands of people looking for answers. If she isn't then it's a fucking waste.

Link to Guardian article (http://arts.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,,1989520,00.html)

Link to Rob Newman's history of oil (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7374585792978336967&q=Rob+newmans+history+of+oil) - funny and brilliant if you've never seen it!

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

AS:


Unless you're arguing that employers should be afforded the right to sack people for no stated reason?

I am not bothered about their problems; no public platform for Nazis.

End of story.


Which seems like a huge step backward, to me anyway. After all, if someone can be sacked for no stated reason, that would shit upon all kinds of rights

Er, not if it is in response to pressure from our side.

For someone who did not want the law involved, you suddenly seem to have rather too much faith in it.

[Why do the words "grasping", "at", and "staws" come to mind here??]


So when I asked if your position was the above, I was right?

Only if (1) I am as confused as you; (2) and you are allowed to write my lines for me.

Read what I posted, and stop trying to read into what I have said, what you think the SWP believes.

Oh my non-existent deity!!!!

Have you gone totally blind; WTF is this about:


Basically, your position is not that you want new legislation that would enable employers to sack people because of their political affiliations -- your position is that you want employers to be able to ignore employment laws when they see fit. Not all the time, of course, just in special situations.

For the love of Engels, why is it so difficult for you to read my words:

WHO IS ASKING FOR NEW LAWS????? OR ANY AT ALL???

Is that clear enough???


And how much public support do you think you will get when SWP members are the ones fired for no stated reason?

This is an irrelevance; we can defend ourselves -- we're in unions.

That's our defence, not your craven appeal to bourgeios 'rights', etc.


Giving who the "confidence to sort this out anyway they see fit"?

Read your own question; my comment was in answer to that -- then you will see 'who'.


Unless the English National Ballet is a real anomaly, I doubt the people working there have the power to terminate contracts -- the demand levelled by the demonstrators. So it's not exactly Joe the lighting guy you were filling with confidence...

Well, not that you are helping much -- even if we fail badly, at least we are doing something.

You would just roll over.


Sophistry, of the most vulgar kind. Actually, calling it sophistry is a bit too much -- that would indicate a certain level of acumen.

Translated, this means: AS has no answer, just more sub-Leninist jargon on offer.

So, you would never put a wage demand in, because it's 'sophistry'?

And that is the extent of your 'acumen' is it?

Glad I have none, in that case.

[bolshevik butcher]

Rosa seriosuly what you're writing about not mentioning socailism and being ideologically miles away is both very patronising of working class people and very similar to the traditional tactics of stalinism. Stalinism always advocated popular fronts, by the way the stop the war coalition is a perfect example of one, and then not talking about socailism at all and just trying to further the aims of this paticular front. Just labeling the stop the war coalition a united front doesn't make it one. It's a popular front, it's an alliance of just about anyone against the war, and includes highly reactionary isalmo-fascist elements.

I have addressed your point about these people being "millions of miles away" a lot of people on these marches are moderatley conscious working class people, they are against the war for some reason or another, a sort of crude class consciousness or at least anger at US impeiralism is often behind it. Surley relating the class dynamics of an imperialist war is the only thing a socialist can do in this situation?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BB:


Rosa seriosuly what you're writing about not mentioning socailism and being ideologically miles away is both very patronising of working class people and very similar to the traditional tactics of stalinism.

Not so.

As I said, if you think differently, you can lecture the non-massed ranks that you and your hard-core Bolshevik mates can summon up with as much abstract propaganda as you can spout, and to your heart's content -- we won't.

As I said:

Get over it.

[bolshevik butcher]

"Get over it", that's your only real response so far, you have not answered the popular front question at all just told me that my view of a united front is wrong. I don't want the SWP to spout 'irrelevant propagdanda" I want them to talk about very relevant issues surrounding the war to working class people from a working class perspective, why is that so difficult?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BB:


"Get over it", that's your only real response so far,

No, it's a piece of advice.

My response? Well, you just ignore it.

Just as I am ignoring your question....

Get over it squared.