the SWP [Archive]

BobKKKindle$

23rd September 2007, 04:02

I'll presume you're referring to the SWP in the UK. As a party member, I obviously disagree with many of your views, although I also grant that some of your criticisms are shared by other leftists, and there are improvements that can be made. There are a few points I want to adress.

It is unfair to suggest that the SWP is lacking in 'organizational ability'. The party has had a major role in creating organizations and movements that were required to challenge a specific threat to the interests of the working class; for example, the Anti Nazi league (ANL) in the 70s, which countered the growing strength of fascist groups such as the National Front in working class communities – no other party was willing to engage with a broad range of different political groups to develop a united front. A contemporary example of the SWP's dynamism is the Stop the War Coalition (STWC).

The SWP has chosen to develop strong links with Muslim leaders because the Muslim community is the most oppressed section of the working class in the UK; Muslims are increasingly subject to racial abuse and discrimination as Islam is perceived as a religion that condones the use of violence to achieve political objectives, and Muslim immigrants are often unable to find steady employment and are forced to work in poor conditions for wages that are insufficient to purchase basic necessities. As socialists we have an obligation to extent support to vulnerable social groups and I fully support the SWP's position. The SWP has not, contrary to what you suggest, given support to leaders that cannot be considered progressive – the Party intervened in inner-city colleges in order to try and prevent the growth of Islamism which denies women political independence and disregards class struggle.

I will advance more points once the debate has progressed. However, I am somewhat confused by what you term 'sub-classes' as I have never encountered this term in SWP publications - could you please explain what you mean? If you mean ethnic minorities, I feel I have addressed this above.

Nothing Human Is Alien

23rd September 2007, 04:03

The SWP in the U.S. isn't related to the SWP in the UK.

The Socialist Workers Party in Peru doesn't have anything to do with either of the previous two mentioned.

Socialist Worker is New Zealand is a section of the IST with the SWP in the UK. The Socialist Workers Parties in Ireland and Greece belong to the same tendency.

The Socialist Workers Party in Spain is social democratic and is currently in power.

I hope that wasn't too confusing.

Zurdito

23rd September 2007, 04:15

A contemporary example of the SWP's dynamism is the Stop the War Coalition (STWC).

All the country's union leaders were anti-war. There were a million people in the streets. Why didn't the SWP let the STWC call for a general strike, as more radical elements proposed? It got to the stage where we had people like the Motherwell Two having to act independently of their leadership if they wanted to oppose the war. What sort of leadership is that, where the rank and file (of the STWC) are more radical than the leaders? It's not leadership at all in my opinion, it's band-wagon jumping. I don't think the SWP contributes much to poltiics, I think they just put their stamp on whatever cause is popular at the time, and then guide it to failure by dumbing down and patronising the people.

BobKKKindle$

23rd September 2007, 04:29

All the country's union leaders were anti-war. There were a million people in the streets. Why didn't the SWP let the STWC call for a general strike, as more radical elements proposed?

The SWP does not 'own' the STWC. The steering committee contains a range of different organizations, including the radical section of the Labour Party, and all members are elected through the democratic process. Therefore, you cannot attribute the failure to take radical action to the SWP - and the SWP never argued against a general strike.

If you feel it is necessary to hold a group within the coalition accountable, then we should consider the trade-union leaders as they were responsible for representing the interests of their members and had the authority to call for industrial action.

Zurdito

25th September 2007, 14:25

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 03:29 am

All the country's union leaders were anti-war. There were a million people in the streets. Why didn't the SWP let the STWC call for a general strike, as more radical elements proposed?

The SWP does not 'own' the STWC. The steering committee contains a range of different organizations, including the radical section of the Labour Party, and all members are elected through the democratic process. Therefore, you cannot attribute the failure to take radical action to the SWP - and the SWP never argued against a general strike.
They didn't support the people who called for one either. I didn't say they owned the STWC, I said they had huge influence within it as the single most prominent group, and they didn't use that. Maybe I should have rather said "why didn't they call for a general strike" rather than "why didn't they let the STWC call for one". So, why?

bolshevik butcher

25th September 2007, 16:58

I have sympathies with Zurdiot on this one. As someone who has done a fair chunk of work around the anti-war "movement" (I have reservations about reffering to it as such), the SWP does have a large degree of influence if not overall control of the stop the war coalition. Most of the fulltimers and senior officials are swp members etc. I don't have a problem with revolutionary organisations having broad fronts, that's not the issue for me.

The SWP has led the STWC not in a militant socialist manner but in a populist and oppertunist one in my view. For instance the presence of the Liberal Democracts on STWC platforms, muslim "community leaders", aka right wing reactionaries, who hold an ufortunate sway with a section of the UK working class. As socialists we should be trying to break this stranglehold not encourage it by lumping muslims as one homogeneous group. On stop the war demos I have been rutinely frustraited by the mildness of speakers who are senior members of revolutionary socialist oragnsiations getting up and condeminng the war not from a class point of view but because its "unwinable", "immoral", and worse of all illegal! No problem with inviting all opposed to the war on a demo but when you have the chance to influence this large amount of people but instead give a mild wishywashy speach I think its entirely the wrong strategy for building a strong working class movement.

The main tactic from the anti-war "movement" aka stwc has been to constantly call demonstrations. Nothing wrong with demonstrations in themselves as long as they are understood in context. Demonstrations will not stop war, mass working class action will. Demos are fine as a show of strength and a rallying cry, but more needs to be done. In 2003 potentailly a mass movement could have been built rather than wheeling people out for demos once in a while. At the time industrail action was taken by two train drivers for instance. They refused to move two trains worth of ammunition and it took literally weeks to find scabs to move them. It's action like this on mass scale that can literally stop the war machine, and I wish at the time STWC had grasped the oppertunity and lobbied for more. I would also cite school stuents against the wars anti-miltiary recruitment campaign as an example of actively confrotning the war machine. Ultiamtley this is what the anti-war "movement" must do to effectively fight imperialism.

Forward Union

25th September 2007, 18:32

They're an Islamic political party, with close links to Hezbollah, and Al Quaeda.

Rosa Lichtenstein

25th September 2007, 19:32

Urban Spirit: naughty, naughty!

You may be able to assert this, but you will not be able to prove it (since it is impossible to prove a falsehood).

And BB, you have made these allegations before -- and they were batted out of the park then.

bolshevik butcher

25th September 2007, 19:34

I disagree, this is an ongoing debate and I have found many other socialists engaged in anti-war activity who feel similarly, I really don't think I am some sort of lone voice in this sentiment.

Rosa Lichtenstein

25th September 2007, 19:36

Is this addressed to me, BB?

bolshevik butcher

25th September 2007, 19:41

No, Urban Spirit, I think he's raised a serious point here. Yes it was..sorry I should have specified.

Zurdito

25th September 2007, 19:44

I don't think the SWP is an Islamic poltical party, though they did pursue some disastrous alliances with the bourgeoisie within muslim communtiies here in Britain, with predictable results. On the international front, I can conceive of some circumstances where you might make a united front with someone like Hezbollah, ie when they're the only ones prepared to stand up and defend Lebanon from Israeli aggression. However this sin't the same as "close links". As for Al Qaeda, well there's no evidence of that, and I don't think even the SWP are that stupid.

Rosa Lichtenstein

25th September 2007, 19:57

Zurdito, you are confusing the SWP with Respect.

The SWP has not liquidated itself into Respect, nor will it. The aims of the SWP are the same as they have always been: the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism. But that is not in the cards right now.

Now, racism in the UK has meant that the muslim population has had to set up small businesses and run shops etc.

Add to that the vacuum that exists on the left outside New Labour (hardly on the left anymore!), and in the face of the islamophobia in the press (and here), engaging with muslims in order to help them fight their own oppression has meant that a united front has had to be formed with left wing muslims (and thus even with small business owners).

This is not an ideal set-up, but in the absence of resistance by the mass of UK workers to New Labour and the invasion of Iraq (etc), it is eminently reasonable in the circumstances.

Had there been another viable option, the SWP would have taken it.

Zurdito

25th September 2007, 20:20

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 25, 2007 06:57 pm
Zurdito, you are confusing the SWP with Respect.

The SWP has not liquidated itself into Respect, nor will it. The aims of the SWP are the same as they have always been: the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism. But that is not in the cards right now.

Now, racism in the UK has meant that the muslim population has had to set up small businesses and run shops etc.

Add to that the vacuum that exists on the left outside New Labour (hardly on the left anymore!), and in the face of the islamophobia in the press (and here), engaging with muslims in order to help them fight their own oppression has meant that a united front has had to be formed with left wing muslims (and thus even with small business owners).

This is not an ideal set-up, but in the absence of resistance by the mass of UK workers to New Labour and the invasion of Iraq (etc), it is eminently reasonable in the circumstances.

Had there been another viable option, the SWP would have taken it.
RESPECT may not be the SWP, but SWP members couldn't publically criticise RESPECT or George galloway for 2 years. Go figure.

The thing about Muslims setting up businesses partly because of being excluded from wider society has some truth, but 1.) not all muslims are business owners, and if you are a Marxist you don't believe that Muslim workers or tenants share a common interest with their emploeyrs or landlords; surely we should aim to split the muslim community down class lines rather than unite it against the British State or the British bourgeoisie for example, who will actually happilly do business with rich muslims, as we well know just by looking at some of the people who our current governemnt and bourgeoisie do very friendly deals with. 2.) an alliance with the bourgeoisie can be possible against an imperialist invasion or occupation, eg the PLO, Iraqi resistance, Northern Irish catholics, and countless examples, but it's not appropriate to bring that kind of politics into say Bethnal Green, because there is not one clear subordinate community with united front to liberate itself from a specific exploitation; rather there are various opressed, intertwined communities in these kinds of constituencies, and muslim businessmen don't share their interests in the same way that a Palestinian shopkeeper does share a pressing common interest with a Palestinian worker. 3.) You can resist Islamophobia and work against British imperialism or racism with certain sections of the bourgeoisie from opressed communities, without making a political union with them. The SWP let itself get used, and now it's finding that out; it gave up its independence.

Also if you are asking why there is no mass movement against Labour from the working class, well we're seeing intensification of class consciousness on issues like protecting the public services, however it's hard for workers to have much faith in the left when prominent groups like the SWP put forward motions saying strikes like the recent RMT strike against Metronet should in fact not mention privatisation as part of their programme! :o

86% of the British public opposes any more privatisation of public services, but the union bureaucracy will do anything to crush grass roots resistance - and yet groups like the SWP and Socialist Party just do not criticise them and do not go to rank and file union members with proposals for action, so workers sentiment gets channeled and betrayed. This is because both the SWP and the SP see themselves as the left alternative to Labour, and to do so they build broad alliances with community and union leaders whilst ignoring any clash of interest these people may have with the rank and file - it's disastrous and opportunist and while it helps build the movements numbers short term, as soon as the SWP stops being of use to these people they get dropped like a hot potato and leave all the Muslims or trade union members who put their faith in the project with a sense of disillusionment which is very hard to reverse next time around.

A better strategy would be to orientate towards rank and file union members and Britain's multi-cultural working class, and harness people's real desire to see change, rather than just courting whichever community or union leader makes you and easy offer for short term electoral success.

Rosa Lichtenstein

25th September 2007, 20:28

Z:

RESPECT may not be the SWP, but SWP members couldn't publically criticise RESPECT or George galloway for 2 years. Go figure.

What has that got to do with anything, even if it were true?

Some of your other comments I largely agree with, others not, but there is nothing in Respect to suggest that muslim workers have not voted for it, or have not joined it.

Zurdito

25th September 2007, 20:33

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 25, 2007 07:28 pm
Z:

RESPECT may not be the SWP, but SWP members couldn't publically criticise RESPECT or George galloway for 2 years. Go figure.

What has that got to do with anything, even if it were true?

Some of your other comments I largely agree with, others not, but there is nothing in Respect to suggest that muslim workers have not voted for it, or have not joined it.
I didn't say they hadn't, I just said it's a dead end for them in the long run, and they will work that out when push comes to shove.

bolshevik butcher

25th September 2007, 22:10

Now, racism in the UK has meant that the muslim population has had to set up small businesses and run shops etc.
There's some turh in this but I think that most muslims in Britain of working age are workers. I think it's also farcical to talk of "muslims" as one group. They're not, there's Pakistanis, Indians, Bangladeshia, Iranians, Iraqis communities of fair proportions in Birtian and I'd imagine some other communities of people who are predomenantly of muslim origin. To lump them all as one lin this way seem ridiculous.

united front has had to be formed with left wing muslims (and thus even with small business owners).
If a united front is a coalition of working class forces fighting for one scpeific goal how can you form a united front with business owners? That is just nonsensical. I don't oppose allying with temproarally with progressive middle class forces as longas working class forces remain independnet and organised, and we should defend muslims against racism. However that doesn't mean we should stop fighting along class lines or trying to win over working class muslims to our own ideas.

This isn't even a factual statement though. Some of the big backers of RESPECT include millionares. Including the particularly rectionary leader of the Islamic Party of Britain who has said he wants to throw homosexuals off the highest building. Hardly a left wing small business owern.

BobKKKindle$

26th September 2007, 07:07

I agree that many members are confusing RESPECT and the SWP and treating these two distinct political organisations as essentially synonymous. The SWP has always tried to maintain political independence as a component of the coalition and prevent RESPECT from becoming a party that represents the interests of one social group. Another member recently posted an internal SWP document which records the current dispute between the SWP and other sections of RESPECT including the party leader, George Galloway, here are some extracts which I hope will make the SWP's position clear.

“What we fear is a withdrawal into the electoral common sense that only particular ‘community leaders’ can win in certain areas. In Tower Hamlets it was important Respect had councillors elected from the Muslim community – representatives of the most oppressed community in Britain – but it would have been good to have returned other candidates too, who reflected the totality of the working class in the East End.”

“That need to extend Respect’s base of support is something SWP members believe is vital. That’s why we encouraged the local meetings on gun crime, which drew a good response from the African-Caribbean community and beyond.”

“A retreat into a party whose elected representatives are overwhelmingly male and Muslim would be to retreat into the caricature of us drawn by our opponents. It would be also unacceptable not just for socialists but for so many who come from the trade unions, from Labour backgrounds and from the anti-war, women’s and so many other movements.”

A Party intent on limiting activism to Muslim communities would not make these politics. I also want to draw attention to the SWP's support for a white female candidate at a RESPECT electoral meeting in February which further demonstrates the working-class orientation of the SWP:

http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=10591

Devrim

26th September 2007, 07:08

Originally posted by Rosa Lichtenstein+September 25, 2007 07:28 pm--> (Rosa Lichtenstein @ September 25, 2007 07:28 pm)but there is nothing in Respect to suggest that muslim workers have not voted for it, or have not joined it.[/b]
There is nothing to say that some haven't. Even leading members of the SWP though recognise that they have alienated radical workers.
Originally posted by John Rees+--> (John Rees)We believe that the constant adaptation to what are referred to as ‘community leaders’ in Tower Hamlets is lowering the level of politics and making us vulnerable to the attacks and pressures brought on us by New Labour. It is alienating us not only from the white working class but also from the more radical sections of the Bengali community, both secular and Muslim, who feel that Respect is becoming the party of a narrow and conservative trend in the area.[/b]

Originally posted by Rosa Lichtenstein
Now, racism in the UK has meant that the muslim population has had to set up small businesses and run shops etc.

This is as absurd a statement as the one that Bobkindles made about Muslims being a section of the working class:
http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=70756&st=0&hl=#

Racism did not force many people from Pakistani, and Indian backgrounds to set up small shops, and businesses. 'Racism' did not come round giving them the money necessary to set up these small shops, and businesses. This statement makes it sound like these people were all 'good, honest, proletarians', and were forced into the vileness of a petty bourgeois existence' by racism.

I would imagine that the reality is somewhat different. In fact, I would go as far as to say that these people even aspired to it. Just as they probably aspire for their daughters to be doctors now.

It comes from completely woolly thinking about class. It see 'Muslims' as a part of the working class, not as a group which is spread across all classes in UK society. Therefore it has to rationalise why some of these 'workers' aren't working class, but are in fact the petty bourgeois. If somebody started talking about Buddhists being part of the working class, they would be rightly mocked.

By the way, our organisation has some supporters in Germany, a place where I am sure we can all agree that there is some anti-Turkish racism. None of them were 'forced' into small businesses by racism. All of them are factory workers.

Originally posted by Rosa Lichtenstein
Add to that the vacuum that exists on the left outside New Labour (hardly on the left anymore!), and in the face of the islamophobia in the press (and here), engaging with muslims in order to help them fight their own oppression has meant that a united front has had to be formed with left wing muslims (and thus even with small business owners).

It is a bit bad when one has to explain to the Trotskyists what a united front is. As the confusion appears to be so deep, we will use something really basic like Wikipedia just in case using the Old Man's own words would confuse them more:

[email protected]
A united front is an alliance of left-wing working-class organizations. Historically, a united front referred to tactical alliances between social-democratic and Communist parties. While each affiliate of this front remains independent, they work together around common issues (most often through work in mass organizations such as labor unions). While working together with social democrats and other reformists on everyday issues, Communists inside a united front would continue to promote a revolutionary platform. A united front differs from a popular front, an alliance that also contains moderate middle-class and upper-class parties.

So how on Earth do you have a 'united front' with small business owners?

If we want to take a look at these 'left-wing working-class organizations' that were involved in this popular front we could do better than this:
http://www.mustaqim.co.uk/ipb-archive/default.htm
A part about whom Wiki writes:
Wiki
The IPB was generally supportive of the Respect coalition with one of their leading members standing for the coalition.

The real question though is not the absurd pseudo-Marxism emanating from the SWP. It is whether they can even survive the implosion of Respect.

Devrim

Rosa Lichtenstein

26th September 2007, 10:42

DEV:

Racism did not force many people from Pakistani, and Indian backgrounds to set up small shops, and businesses. 'Racism' did not come round giving them the money necessary to set up these small shops, and businesses. This statement makes it sound like these people were all 'good, honest, proletarians', and were forced into the vileness of a petty bourgeois existence' by racism.

You obviously have a rather naive view of how racism works.

And you are clearly intent on mischief:

So how on Earth do you have a 'united front' with small business owners?

A united fromt with members of Respect, and no one who supports its aims is barred from joining.

Who mentioned a united front only with with businesspeople?

Sam_b

26th September 2007, 11:50

The SWP has led the STWC not in a militant socialist manner but in a populist and oppertunist one in my view. For instance the presence of the Liberal Democracts on STWC platforms, muslim "community leaders", aka right wing reactionaries, who hold an ufortunate sway with a section of the UK working class.

The whole point of STWC was to be as broad and open as possible. STWC is an anti-war organisation, nothing more, so we're not going to exclude people who are anti-war but don't agree with us on say, the concept of socialism from below. This is why STWC has had many more successes than the small, inward-looking organisations who 'wont let you in unless you support the Iraqi Resistance' et al.

Are we really going to win people to socialism from outside an organisation, by excluding them because their credibilities aren't socialist? That has been the tactic by others in the past and has failed miserably. By playing a part in STWC we can make our arguments on the inside of the group to try and get people round to our way of thinking.

I have been rutinely frustraited by the mildness of speakers who are senior members of revolutionary socialist oragnsiations getting up and condeminng the war not from a class point of view but because its "unwinable", "immoral", and worse of all illegal!

Sounds to me like the CWI's tactic, where they speak that the war is 'costing money which could go to the working class etc etc' sort of schtick, and that has simply not worked or engaged with people on the same level as the arguments (primarily) of Stop The War.

Why should we not go on abou tthe war being 'illegal'? In my opinion it shows that the capitalists cannot even abide by the rules that they set out for themselves, highlighting the absolute hypocracy of the situation.

Zurdito

26th September 2007, 12:04

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 26, 2007 09:42 am
You obviously have a rather naive view of how racism works.
and you obviously have a rather naive view of how class works if you think you can make a united front with Bengali businessmen. Have you heard the fable of the scorpion and the toad? They both need to cross the river, so the scorpion asks the toad to take him him on his back. the toad says "but you'll sting me" and the scorpion says "of course not, we'd both drown." So the toad agrees. Mid-way across, the scorpion stings the toad. As they're both drowning the toad asks him "why did you sting me, now we're both going to die". And the scorpion answers, "I know, but I couldn't help myself, it's in my nature".

Now consider the nature of the relationship of bourgeoisie to proletariat, and the alliances your party makes.

Rosa Lichtenstein

26th September 2007, 12:09

Z:

and you obviously have a rather naive view of how class works if you think you can make a united front with Bengali businessmen.

Well, you have rather poor eyesight, for I denied this.

And if you think you can build a class analysis on the back of a mythical conversation between animals, then there is nothing I can do to help cure you.

Louis Pio

26th September 2007, 12:30

Now cutting aside Rosa's usual arrogant and empty replies, this discussion is quite interesting. I can see that the crisis everybody knew would come seems to have begun.
Of course one can fight together with small business owners, most of the time they share the same interests as the proletariat in this day and age. Only people with a very vulgar analysis would scorn that idea.
Now the problem is of course when you join up with totally alien classforces just because they are muslims, as have happened in RESPECT. Rich muslim backers seems to have become suddenly progressive just because they are... muslims. It seems as some sort of revert racism to me. It's a mockery just to put all muslims in one group, a mockery SWP have been quite guilty of.
Of course rich bengali businessmen doesn't share interests with poor bengali factory workers, it's really an absurd implication. Now what makes this farce even worse is the lenght that SWP has told their members to go to cosy up to this people, voting against socialists principles, workers MP on a workers wage etc.
Now these same people has used SWP for their own ends and have decided to throw them away since they are no use anymore, and Galloway is on their side as everybody knew he would be.
Ohh well when you ditch marxism you sure to end up in some strange situations...

Devrim

26th September 2007, 12:40

Originally posted by Rosa Lichtenstein+September 26, 2007 09:42 am--> (Rosa Lichtenstein @ September 26, 2007 09:42 am)
Racism did not force many people from Pakistani, and Indian backgrounds to set up small shops, and businesses. 'Racism' did not come round giving them the money necessary to set up these small shops, and businesses. This statement makes it sound like these people were all 'good, honest, proletarians', and were forced into the vileness of a petty bourgeois existence' by racism.

You obviously have a rather naive view of how racism works.

[/b]
No, I was just wondering aloud about how the SWP think that it works. I think the problem though is that they have got no idea whatsoever how class works.

When you start from as position that 'Muslims' are a part of the working class, everything else must seem very confusing to you.

Actually though I do have quite a lot of personal experience of one section of the 'Muslim community' in Britain, immigrants from Turkey in London. I know workers who work in sweatshops, and petty bourgeois elements who own restaurants, and other small businesses. I don't think that the petty bourgeoisie were 'forced' into business by racism.

Originally posted by Rosa Lichtenstein+--> (Rosa Lichtenstein)
Originally posted by Devrim
So how on Earth do you have a 'united front' with small business owners?

A united fromt with members of Respect, and no one who supports its aims is barred from joining.

Who mentioned a united front only with with businesspeople?[/b]

Well apparently you didn't mention a united front with business people at all:

Originally posted by Rosa Lichtenstein

Originally posted by Zurdito

and you obviously have a rather naive view of how class works if you think you can make a united front with Bengali businessmen.

Well, you have rather poor eyesight, for I denied this.

If you don't remember advocating a united front with small business owners, it was like this:

Rosa [email protected]
engaging with muslims in order to help them fight their own oppression has meant that a united front has had to be formed with left wing muslims (and thus even with small business owners).

In fact 'Respect' was never a united front at all in the traditional sense of the word.

Today, it certainly isn't even united as the various fractions sharpen their knives.

And as the SWP faces what I believe is probably their biggest crisis ever, the pedlars of this Marxism of the stammerers have nothing better to say than:

Rosa Lichtenstein
And you are clearly intent on mischief

Sad, actually I found it difficult to believe that the SWP cadre were as politically weak as the ones that we see on RevLeft, so I wrote to a friend of mine in London to see if the ones on the ground came across as this clueless. She replied that they did.

Devrim

Rosa Lichtenstein

26th September 2007, 12:44

T:

Now cutting aside Rosa's usual arrogant and empty replies, this discussion is quite interesting. I can see that the crisis everybody knew would come seems to have begun.

I see, no answer to them, eh?

Now the problem is of course when you join up with totally alien classforces just because they are muslims, as have happened in RESPECT. Rich muslim backers seems to have become suddenly progressive just because they are... muslims. It seems as some sort of revert racism to me. It's a mockery just to put all muslims in one group, a mockery SWP have been quite guilty of.

This, of course, ignores what has happened in the 'west' since at least 1991 -- the demonisation of all muslims as part of the 'justificiation' for stealing their wealth, etc. That is why the SWP has tried to engage UK muslims in a fight back.

And they have not become 'suddenly progressive', they have become a target, and need defending, and connecting with Marxism as a way of ending their oppression.

Of course rich bengali businessmen doesn't share interests with poor bengali factory workers, it's really an absurd implication. Now what makes this farce even worse is the lenght that SWP has told their members to go to cosy up to this people, voting against socialists principles, workers MP on a workers wage etc.
Now these same people has used SWP for their own ends and have decided to throw them away since they are no use anymore, and Galloway is on their side as everybody knew he would be.

Who says they do, but they do share some common interests, among which is their desire not to be targetted by the government, the media, and the BNP -- and some here.

Now these same people has used SWP for their own ends and have decided to throw them away since they are no use anymore, and Galloway is on their side as everybody knew he would be.
Ohh well when you ditch marxism you sure to end up in some strange situations...

Not so; new circumstances require new tactics.

2007 in the UK is not the same as 2003 or 2004.

Or do you think Marxism is set in concrete?

Louis Pio

26th September 2007, 12:50

Marxism is'nt set in concrete, but neither is reformism I see. And quite a peculiar form of reformism RESPECT was, what was the point of trying to make the Labour Party mach 2?

Of course muslims are targeted Rosa, but in your eyes that seems to mean that even Dodi Al Fayed is now progressive because of that.

Rosa Lichtenstein

26th September 2007, 12:58

Dev:

No, I was just wondering aloud about how the SWP think that it works. I think the problem though is that they have got no idea whatsoever how class works.

Well, you should read more.

When you start from as position that 'Muslims' are a part of the working class, everything else must seem very confusing to you.

On the contrary, it seems you are confused. Where did I say this?

If you don't remember advocating a united front with small business owners, it was like this:

If you read what I say, and try not to read into what I say what you would like me to have said, you would perhaps be able to see what I actually did say.

A united front with left-leaning muslims (and others) and if that includes some business people, so be it.

Do you see there the words "A united front with business people"?

In fact 'Respect' was never a united front at all in the traditional sense of the word.

I am happy to see you acknowledge you are hide-bound by tradition.

Us radicals are not.

And as the SWP faces what I believe is probably their biggest crisis ever, the pedlars of this Marxism of the stammerers have nothing better to say than:

No crisis, and even if it were, the one it faced in the early 1970's was far worse.

Sad, actually I found it difficult to believe that the SWP cadre were as politically weak as the ones that we see on RevLeft, so I wrote to a friend of mine in London to see if the ones on the ground came across as this clueless. She replied that they did.

Scientific proof -- what more could we ask for?

Rosa Lichtenstein

26th September 2007, 13:05

T:

Marxism is'nt set in concrete, but neither is reformism I see. And quite a peculiar form of reformism RESPECT was, what was the point of trying to make the Labour Party mach 2?

I am glad I helped you out on that one.

But you still seem to think that pushing for reforms (which is not the same as 'reformism') is incompatible with Marxism.

And, by the way, mach 2 is twice the speed of sound. :wacko:

We have no wish to speed the Labour Party up... :rolleyes:

Of course muslims are targeted Rosa, but in your eyes that seems to mean that even Dodi Al Fayed is now progressive because of that.

Why does the fact that all muslims are targets seem to you to imply that all of them are progressive?

Fortunately, I have not swallowed the sort of dialectical logic (which you dote on) that seems to sanction such whacko conclusions.

Zurdito

26th September 2007, 13:15

Louis Pio

26th September 2007, 13:18

Why does the fact that all muslims are targets seem to you to imply that all of them are progressive?

It seems to have been the implication of SWP and certainly RESPECT, hasn't found anything saying otherwise.

Well we can call RESPECT Labour 2 then, version 2 if you like. Or maybe just trying to create a mirrorimage of an earlier Labour, still I don't see the idea in that. Especially when most unions won't touch RESPECT with a 10 foot pole I fail to see the idea behind this "New Labour" :P

Devrim

26th September 2007, 13:24

Originally posted by Rosa Lichtenstein+September 26, 2007 11:58 am--> (Rosa Lichtenstein @ September 26, 2007 11:58 am)
When you start from as position that 'Muslims' are a part of the working class, everything else must seem very confusing to you.

On the contrary, it seems you are confused. Where did I say this?

[/b]
You didn't. A member of your party did though:

Originally posted by Bobkindles+--> (Bobkindles)As Muslims are the most oppressed and abused section of the working class in the UK,...[/b]
http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=70756&st=0&hl=#

Originally posted by Rosa Lichtenstein

Originally posted by Devrim
If you don't remember advocating a united front with small business owners, it was like this:

If you read what I say, and try not to read into what I say what you would like me to have said, you would perhaps be able to see what I actually did say.

A united front with left-leaning muslims (and others) and if that includes some business people, so be it.

Do you see there the words "A united front with business people"?

Ok, let's change it to an united front that includes business people. There is obviously some deep linguistic difference here that I am unaware of, as if your are not in a front with the people that are included in your front.

Originally posted by Rosa Lichtenstein

[email protected]
In fact 'Respect' was never a united front at all in the traditional sense of the word.

I am happy to see you acknowledge you are hide-bound by tradition.

Us radicals are not.

This is the most meaningless comment yet. I tend to use words to mean what they traditionally mean. I could for example redefine the word 'pink' to mean vacuum cleaner. The problem would be that nobody would have a clue what I was talking about. I think the same is true with your concept of a united front. You obviously have no idea what it means, and are using it to mean whatever you want. To attach a pathetic claim to radicalism onto that is more than a little weak.

Rosa Lichtenstein
No crisis, and even if it were, the one it faced in the early 1970's was far worse.

Actually, I think originally thought of early 70s, but decided against it. I think that this one will be much worse, and will probably destroy the SWP as one of the major leftist groups.

Devrim

Rosa Lichtenstein

26th September 2007, 13:36

T:

It seems to have been the implication of SWP and certainly RESPECT, hasn't found anything saying otherwise.

More scientific analysis: "it seems" to Teis, so it must be so.

Well we can call RESPECT Labour 2 then, version 2 if you like. Or maybe just trying to create a mirrorimage of an earlier Labour, still I don't see the idea in that. Especially when most unions won't touch RESPECT with a 10 foot pole I fail to see the idea behind this "New Labour"

And we can call you "idiot 2", too -- what has the trade union bureaucracy got to do with anything?

Rosa Lichtenstein

26th September 2007, 13:42

Dev:

What is the matter with you people, can't you read?

As Muslims are the most oppressed and abused section of the working class in the UK,...

Does this say all muslims are members of the working class?

Or does it not say that, in the working class, the most oppressed section is the muslim section?

As I said, you are more interested in making mischief than in debating the issues.

This is the most meaningless comment yet.

No, I think you have said worse.

I tend to use words to mean what they traditionally mean. I could for example redefine the word 'pink' to mean vacuum cleaner. The problem would be that nobody would have a clue what I was talking about. I think the same is true with your concept of a united front. You obviously have no idea what it means, and are using it to mean whatever you want. To attach a pathetic claim to radicalism onto that is more than a little weak.

And now you glory in your traditionalism.

Actually, I think originally thought of early 70s, but decided against it. I think that this one will be much worse, and will probably destroy the SWP as one of the major leftist groups.

If this prediction is as good as your other points, then the SWP will probably double in size and influence in the next few months.

Rosa Lichtenstein

26th September 2007, 13:44

Z:

STWC coallition failed though. I think this is because it was turned into a thing for Lib Dems to do on weekends rather than a militant workers action group with the power to actually hinder the war effort throught force. Middle England is not a progressive force, it's not them we need or want on our side, because as the STWC showed, they're useless allies.

You have a very strange idea of failure.

But, even if you were right, in the face of some of the lowest levels of class struggle we have seen in the last hundred years or so, what else was there to do?

Sit back and indulge in abstract point-scoring like you?

Louis Pio

26th September 2007, 13:50

Leaving once again you lack of respect (hehe) aside, I know it's a flaw of yours, it can't be helped, I will try answering.

More scientific analysis: "it seems" to Teis, so it must be so.

Nah it's more that SWP or RESPECT has failed to be clear on the issue. I know of course RESPECT isn't in a position to analyse much, but one could have imganied a more througough analysis from the SWP, to clear up mistakes. I dunno if SWP feels people should be able to read between the lines or something.

Well the case with the unions is that since RESPECT is clearly trying to be a new Labour their, union support would be crucial, and it's mostly non-existent.

Anyway it's interesting to see what will happen at the conference or whatever it's called around the end of november. I've put 50 bucks on a split, unfortunately the odds are low on that.

Devrim

26th September 2007, 13:56

Originally posted by Rosa Lichtenstein+September 26, 2007 12:42 pm--> (Rosa Lichtenstein @ September 26, 2007 12:42 pm) Dev:

What is the matter with you people, can't you read?

As Muslims are the most oppressed and abused section of the working class in the UK,...

Does this say all muslims are members of the working class?

Or does it not say that, in the working class, the most oppressed section is the muslim section?
[/b]
Well, I would suggest that it means that 'Muslims' are a section of the working class, not some Muslims are members of the working class, but all Muslims.

That is what it says. I think that you are having problems with your own language.

Anyway when I asked Bob if this was just badly phrased, and that he meant that "working class 'Muslims' were the most oppressed and abused section of the working class in the UK, he didn't seem to accept that it was badly phrased at all.

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected]
As I said, you are more interested in making mischief than in debating the issues.

I am not sure what 'making mischief' here means. I started by discussing the issues. It is you who just aims 'witty' comments at people, understandable when you have nothing of substance to say.

Rosa Lichtenstein
If this prediction is as good as your other points, then the SWP will probably double in size and influence in the next few months.

Again empty words but no substance, if you like I will take any bets you like about the SWP doubling in size over the next few months. I will even give you good odds.

Devrim

blackstone

26th September 2007, 14:11

Originally posted by devrimankara+September 26, 2007 12:56 pm--> (devrimankara @ September 26, 2007 12:56 pm)
Originally posted by Rosa Lichtenstein+September 26, 2007 12:42 pm--> (Rosa Lichtenstein @ September 26, 2007 12:42 pm) Dev:

What is the matter with you people, can't you read?

As Muslims are the most oppressed and abused section of the working class in the UK,...

Does this say all muslims are members of the working class?

Or does it not say that, in the working class, the most oppressed section is the muslim section?
[/b]
Well, I would suggest that it means that 'Muslims' are a section of the working class, not some Muslims are members of the working class, but all Muslims.

That is what it says. I think that you are having problems with your own language.

Anyway when I asked Bob if this was just badly phrased, and that he meant that "working class 'Muslims' were the most oppressed and abused section of the working class in the UK, he didn't seem to accept that it was badly phrased at all.

Rosa [email protected]
As I said, you are more interested in making mischief than in debating the issues.

I am not sure what 'making mischief' here means. I started by discussing the issues. It is you who just aims 'witty' comments at people, understandable when you have nothing of substance to say.

Rosa Lichtenstein
If this prediction is as good as your other points, then the SWP will probably double in size and influence in the next few months.

Again empty words but no substance, if you like I will take any bets you like about the SWP doubling in size over the next few months. I will even give you good odds.

Devrim [/b]
What is going on here.

She doesn't say that all Muslims are members of the working class but in the working class, the most oppressed section is the Muslim section.

As Muslims are the most oppressed and abused section of the working class in the UK

Well, I would suggest that it means that 'Muslims' are a section of the working class, not some Muslims are members of the working class, but all Muslims.

I mean chop up her sentence.

Question:
the most oppressed and abused section of the working class in the UK.

Answer:
Muslims.

Whether this is true or not is to be debated and argued over, not whether she said what she meant.

Carry on. :ph34r:

Zurdito

26th September 2007, 14:12

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 26, 2007 12:44 pm
You have a very strange idea of failure.

But, even if you were right, in the face of some of the lowest levels of class struggle we have seen in the last hundred years or so, what else was there to do?

Sit back and indulge in abstract point-scoring like you?
I have a strange idea of failure? :D that's hilarious, it suggests that to you, as long as the STWC help raised the SWP profile, then it wasn't a failure. I mean, was it even about stopping the war or hindering it in your mind?

I'm not indulging in abstract point scoring I'm arguing for action to stop the fucking war instead of point scoring which gets a million pseudo-leftists on the street for one day in February but can't maintain any momentum or actually harm the war effort in any way. There is no abstraction here: the unions opposed the war - so call on them to strike. Don't complain about low levels of class struggle and then refuse to ignite class struggle, and then call yourself a marxist. If even the SWP doesn't call for strikes then are you surprised there are low levels of class struggle?

Rosa Lichtenstein

26th September 2007, 14:32

In place of the data supporting his earlier subjective claims, Teis now offers this detailed scientific analysis:

Nah it's more that SWP or RESPECT has failed to be clear on the issue. I know of course RESPECT isn't in a position to analyse much, but one could have imganied a more througough analysis from the SWP, to clear up mistakes. I dunno if SWP feels people should be able to read between the lines or something.

Or, in your case, just to be able to read.

Anyway it's interesting to see what will happen at the conference or whatever it's called around the end of november. I've put 50 bucks on a split, unfortunately the odds are low on that.

A bit like every Trotskyist group splits? That's about as safe a bet as betting the sun will rise.

Next numpty please...

Rosa Lichtenstein

26th September 2007, 14:36

Dev:

Well, I would suggest that it means that 'Muslims' are a section of the working class, not some Muslims are members of the working class, but all Muslims.

Only if you mischievously insert an "all" in there.

Well we can all insert words that suite our mischief-making, can't we?

In that case, why did you say this:

Well, I would suggest that it means I, Dev, am an idiot.

Sauce for the goose, eh?

Again empty words but no substance, if you like I will take any bets you like about the SWP doubling in size over the next few months. I will even give you good odds.

Since, you are the master when it comes to empty words, I will take lessons from you.

Rosa Lichtenstein

26th September 2007, 14:37

Z:

I have a strange idea of failure?

Good, now can we move on?

Louis Pio

26th September 2007, 14:39

You ok Rosa? Seems to be loosing your grip.
Just point me in the way of the detailed scientific analysis SWP made on the subject and I will read it, I don't mean general phrases about how muslims are targeted, im well aware of that.
But a detailed analysis of how socialism is advanced by entering into an alliance with rich people who happens to be muslims. Somehow I think their interests is first and foremost money and religion a good tool to use against poorer muslims.

Don't complain about low levels of class struggle and then refuse to ignite class struggle, and then call yourself a marxist.

Spot on! We see the same here in Denmark, not from SWP's danish comrades though.

Devrim

26th September 2007, 15:15

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 26, 2007 01:36 pm
Dev:

Well, I would suggest that it means that 'Muslims' are a section of the working class, not some Muslims are members of the working class, but all Muslims.

Only if you mischievously insert an "all" in there.

Well we can all insert words that suite our mischief-making, can't we?

In that case, why did you say this:

Well, I would suggest that it means I, Dev, am an idiot.

Sauce for the goose, eh?

Kindly explain the difference in meaning between the phrases
Dogs are mammals
and
All dogs are mammals

I would go on, but you have managed to turn this thread into a trade of insults to. I think you find it easier than political discussion.

Bye,

Devrim

bolshevik butcher

26th September 2007, 16:13

Sounds to me like the CWI's tactic, where they speak that the war is 'costing money which could go to the working class etc etc' sort of schtick, and that has simply not worked or engaged with people on the same level as the arguments (primarily) of Stop The War.

Hi sam, abbandon the SSY forums ;).

The arguments that the war will lead to millions of deaths and that it is an imperialist war not fought for the working class but for big business owners, on top of Iraq's right to national self determination at in my view the arguments that should be raisied by socialists. As well as solidarity with the Iraqi working class. To argue that the war was illegal and is therefore bad is wrong. If you say the wars illegality proves the ruling class can't even work within it's own system that's another matter. But I have rountinley seen it argued that the war is wrong becuase it is illegal, surely you can see the difference. As socialists we may well advocate illegal actions, this is therefore a contradictory position.

I didn't say anti-war organistaions should only be open to socialists, I am arguing that socialists within them should argue with class conscious socialist arguments, partiuclalrlarly when they have the opperutnity to speak to thousands and potentially millions of people.

Rosa Lichtenstein

26th September 2007, 17:34

T:

You ok Rosa? Seems to be loosing your grip.

I am sorry, did I have you round the throat? Must have been a Freudian non-slip.

Just point me in the way of the detailed scientific analysis SWP made on the subject and I will read it, I don't mean general phrases about how muslims are targeted, im well aware of that.

No need to when we have your detailed, and fact-driven survey.

But a detailed analysis of how socialism is advanced by entering into an alliance with rich people who happens to be muslims. Somehow I think their interests is first and foremost money and religion a good tool to use against poorer muslims.

How scientific this is!

You can't even get the description of the 'alliance' right.

Rosa Lichtenstein

26th September 2007, 17:44

Dev:

Kindly explain the difference in meaning between the phrases

Dogs are mammals

and

All dogs are mammals

But the sentence you quoted wasn't "Muslims are workers', it was:

As Muslims are the most oppressed and abused section of the working class in the UK,...

So, a parallel sentence of your sort would be:

As dogs are the most abused section of the animal population of the UK

Now, this does not say all dogs are animals in the UK.

So, nice try, only it wasn't.

I would go on, but you have managed to turn this thread into a trade of insults to. I think you find it easier than political discussion.,

Perhaps so, perhaps not, but one thing is for certain, you have made a series of baseless assertions, and tried to insert the word "all" into a sentence that clearly does not support such a word.

My replies therefore were a reasonable response to your mischief-making.

Bye

I accept your capitulation.

Louis Pio

26th September 2007, 18:31

I see...
So either this analysis doesn't exist or your just a lazy sod.
It is a fact that RESPECT has rich backers right? People who have other classinterests than workers. Maybe we could discuss this instead of your acting like a child with ADHD? Or is this to much to ask?
On the other hand I guess the sane solution would be not to discuss with a person that seems to fall short of arguments time and time again and just resorts to being a total and utter arsehole. (this is not meant as an insult, just stating obvious facts)

Rosa Lichtenstein

26th September 2007, 18:59

T:

I see...

So either this analysis doesn't exist or your just a lazy sod.

Oh no, don't tell me you have fallen for the 'either-or' of 'commonsense'!!!

It is a fact that RESPECT has rich backers right? People who have other classinterests than workers. Maybe we could discuss this instead of your acting like a child with ADHD? Or is this to much to ask?

Marx had a rich backer -- Engels.

Do I see you getting picky over that?

I do in fact suffer from ADHD: an incapcity to pay attention to wild accusations made about the SWP.

On the other hand I guess the sane solution would be not to discuss with a person that seems to fall short of arguments time and time again and just resorts to being a total and utter arsehole. (this is not meant as an insult, just stating obvious facts)

Ok, I'll reluctantly take your advice and not discuss anything with you.

[But, you are being a little hard on yourself, don't you think?]

bolshevik butcher

26th September 2007, 19:50

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 26, 2007 05:59 pm
Marx had a rich backer -- Engels.

Do I see you getting picky over that?

These are not rich backers who have abbandoned their class privelleges and fight for the intersts of the working class. That is a complete vulgarisation of the point Teis was making. RESPECT as i have arleady mentioned recieves backing from at least one very wealthy reactionary businessman who was the founder of the "Islamic Party of Britain". This party has called for homosexuals to be thrown of the highest building and shown no sign of giving up his class privelleges.

I would also point to an interview with a RESPECT candidate at a recnet bi-election who when asked what he thought about trade unions responded "yes I like trade".

Rosa Lichtenstein

26th September 2007, 19:52

BB:

These are not rich backers who have abbandoned their class privelleges and fight for the intersts of the working class

Engels was a factory owner all his mature life.

And, I'd like to see proof of the other things you allege.

bolshevik butcher

26th September 2007, 20:02

Some party members, along with other groups on the British left, accused the party leadership of backpeddling on gay rights in order to satisfy the demand of one of the political party's major financial backers; Dr Mohammed Naseem. Naseem is the founder of the Islamic Party of Britain, and gay rights activists and socialists accused the Respect Party leadership of pandering to the homophobia of conservative Muslim constituents as opposed to working with progressive Muslims and standing up for the rights of gay Muslims.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism_and_LGBT_rights

Do you really think its good to have a party backed majorly by a rich individual rather than a strong working class movement? Surely this is no way in which to build a mass movmeent. Whoever pays the piper plays the tune...

I'm struggeling to find the other quote but I assure you I didn't make it up.

catch

26th September 2007, 21:42

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 11:40 am
Sad, actually I found it difficult to believe that the SWP cadre were as politically weak as the ones that we see on RevLeft, so I wrote to a friend of mine in London to see if the ones on the ground came across as this clueless. She replied that they did.

Devrim
Devrim,

You missed the bad old days of Urban75 c.2002-2005, it may have been worse than this even.

Rosa Lichtenstein

27th September 2007, 00:03

BB, let's see your proof...

Sam_b

27th September 2007, 00:17

STWC coallition failed though. I think this is because it was turned into a thing for Lib Dems to do on weekends rather than a militant workers action group with the power to actually hinder the war effort throught force. Middle England is not a progressive force, it's not them we need or want on our side, because as the STWC showed, they're useless allies.

I think it suits a lot of people, and especially the whiter-than-white sectarian left to keep gunning and pushing for the STWC to fail, so that they can try and score political points with the 'I told you so' attitude. What exactly did these other groups do to fight against the wars in Iraq that allow them to say this with such pride?

And how exactly did Stop The War fail? Did it fail in mobilising people against the war? No. Did it fail to engage with people, and to recruit many to the left movement? No.

And on the point of Liberals being a part of Stop The War: don't many of your Labour Party members in SA ally themselves with even more reactionary forces that that?

redarmyfaction38

28th September 2007, 00:20

i'm sorry!
i didn't wish for everybody to fall out!
i've read through all the posts after mine, oops, i didn't mean to post twice and i apologise.
a lot of the "criticisms" and "queries" regarding the swp i have regarding the swp are obviously shared by a majority of posters on this board.
this does not mean that any of the "critical" or "questioning" devalue the role of swp members in the fight against capitalism.
as i said in my original post, i am confused at the difference between the activities of obvious class fighters within the swp andthe parties stance regards its parliamentary activities, the alliances it is prepared to make, imo, not on a class basis, in order to gain parliamentary gains.
i do actually feel that the swp and its "cominterm" has become more interested in "political alliances" in order to gain influence and power within a "bourgeoius political system" than actually representing and encouraging working class resistance.
the swp of 2007 is nothing like the swp of 1977. the swp of 1977 enjoyed the support of many thousands of working class blue collar workers, today it seems to enjoy support from "minority groups" within our class and the "intellectual left".
i agree totally with the poster who said "the swp and respect" see themselves as the next "labour party" and have compromised their beliefs totally in order to be so.
thgere was criticism of the cwi and the sp.
i will defend both on the basis that they engage in parliamentary politics only for propaganda reasons and openly admit it. they encourage workers self organisation and action. they don't pretend there is any future for the working class in alliances with "radical bourgeoiusie", "radical muslims", or any other religious or racial group, you may care to mention.
the only honest criticisms of both these organisations, which we all know to be one in the same, is that they have pandered to the "new labour" political correctness and allowed "self organised groups" based on race , religion or sexuality to exist within their party.
that is not the way of socialists or the working class.

Zurdito

28th September 2007, 00:35

I think it suits a lot of people, and especially the whiter-than-white sectarian left to keep gunning and pushing for the STWC to fail, so that they can try and score political points with the 'I told you so' attitude. What exactly did these other groups do to fight against the wars in Iraq that allow them to say this with such pride?

:lol: whiter than white? Is that what you call it when people try to stick to some basic marxist principles like defending the interests of the working class?

I'm a member of the STWC coallition and I organise for demos with my party, which gives it's full support to the project whilst calling for it to be more militant. what did you do that was so much more valuable than what I did?

And how exactly did Stop The War fail?

The clue is in the name. I'm not being trite. You need direct action to stop or hinder wars.

Did it fail in mobilising people against the war? No. Did it fail to engage with people, and to recruit many to the left movement? No.

This suggests you saw it as an exercise in party building and publicity. Pretty opporunistic. Like I said the STWC managed large scale mobilisations of people, but this was based on tailism of the common consensus at the time and it provided no clear ideological leadership and did not develop the class struggle one iota through the anti-war movement. It was a mish mash movement and like RESPECT it lost relevance as soon as the various groups using it found a new bandwagon to jump on. So sad, we'veexperienced this so many times on the British left but the opportunists do not learn.

Pilgrim

28th September 2007, 02:00

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 11:17 pm
I think it suits a lot of people, and especially the whiter-than-white sectarian left to keep gunning and pushing for the STWC to fail, so that they can try and score political points with the 'I told you so' attitude. What exactly did these other groups do to fight against the wars in Iraq that allow them to say this with such pride?

And how exactly did Stop The War fail? Did it fail in mobilising people against the war? No. Did it fail to engage with people, and to recruit many to the left movement? No.

And on the point of Liberals being a part of Stop The War: don't many of your Labour Party members in SA ally themselves with even more reactionary forces that that?

Hmmm, I may be able to cure your apparent ignorance of what direct action crews and others were doing, and still are doing, to try and stop wars.

THEY WERE TAKING DIRECT ACTION.

They were blocking roads, cutting through fences, blockading military bases, refusing to drive munitions trains, Greenpeace blockaded Marchwood military docks, Trident Ploughshares halting nuclear missile convoys, tearing down fences at Fairford, sabotaging B52 bombers and support vehicles and so on. These groups and individuals put their lives on the line and spent time in jail to stop the war and were royally knifed in the back by the SWP who spent their time slagging direct action and its adherents as 'elitist.'

THOSE THINGS ARE DIRECT ACTION, NOT POTTERING AROUND LONDON TIME AND TIME AGAIN IN EVER DECREASING NUMBERS.

I've nothing against protest marches and demonstrations at all, they do serve a purpose, but they aren't going to stop war. Only mass working class action, direct action, can do that.

STWC failed in one simple and total area.

IT DIDN'T STOP THE IRAQ WAR.

And it is highly unlikely to stop the next one without openly encouraging direct action in all its forms.

Rosa Lichtenstein

28th September 2007, 04:06

RedArmyFaction, you are right, the SWP of 2007 is not the same as the SWP of 1977, but in the mid-1970s the working class was in one of its most combative phases of the 20th century. And that is largely the difference.

Rosa Lichtenstein

28th September 2007, 04:11

Z:

This suggests you saw it as an exercise in party building and publicity. Pretty opporunistic.

It would have been had the two been counterposed in the way you say; but they were not.

but this was based on tailism of the common consensus at the time and it provided no clear ideological leadership and did not develop the class struggle one iota through the anti-war movement. It was a mish mash movement and like RESPECT it lost relevance as soon as the various groups using it found a new bandwagon to jump on..

You mean, the SWP did not preach to those new to the movement.

And a good thing too.

So sad, we'veexperienced this so many times on the British left but the opportunists do not learn

Neither do sectarians, it seems.

Rosa Lichtenstein

28th September 2007, 04:17

Pilgrim:

Hmmm, I may be able to cure your apparent ignorance of what direct action crews and others were doing, and still are doing, to try and stop wars.

THEY WERE TAKING DIRECT ACTION.

They were blocking roads, cutting through fences, blockading military bases, refusing to drive munitions trains, Greenpeace blockaded Marchwood military docks, Trident Ploughshares halting nuclear missile convoys, tearing down fences at Fairford, sabotaging B52 bombers and support vehicles and so on. These groups and individuals put their lives on the line and spent time in jail to stop the war and were royally knifed in the back by the SWP who spent their time slagging direct action and its adherents as 'elitist.'

THOSE THINGS ARE DIRECT ACTION, NOT POTTERING AROUND LONDON TIME AND TIME AGAIN IN EVER DECREASING NUMBERS.

I've nothing against protest marches and demonstrations at all, they do serve a purpose, but they aren't going to stop war. Only mass working class action, direct action, can do that.

STWC failed in one simple and total area.

IT DIDN'T STOP THE IRAQ WAR.

Neither did all this 'direct action'.

But, the StWC came within a whisker of stopping UK involvement in that war, and that would have put the skids under Bush.

In addition, as part of the world-wide Stop the War movement, the StWC was successful in helping get rid of Blair, and helping to prevent other imperial 'adventures' in the middle East.

That is, of course, quite apart from the other things mentioned earlier.

But, what exactly did all this fine sounding 'direct action' achieve?

A few pin-pricks?

Pilgrim

28th September 2007, 04:49

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 28, 2007 03:17 am
Pilgrim:

Hmmm, I may be able to cure your apparent ignorance of what direct action crews and others were doing, and still are doing, to try and stop wars.

THEY WERE TAKING DIRECT ACTION.

They were blocking roads, cutting through fences, blockading military bases, refusing to drive munitions trains, Greenpeace blockaded Marchwood military docks, Trident Ploughshares halting nuclear missile convoys, tearing down fences at Fairford, sabotaging B52 bombers and support vehicles and so on. These groups and individuals put their lives on the line and spent time in jail to stop the war and were royally knifed in the back by the SWP who spent their time slagging direct action and its adherents as 'elitist.'

THOSE THINGS ARE DIRECT ACTION, NOT POTTERING AROUND LONDON TIME AND TIME AGAIN IN EVER DECREASING NUMBERS.

I've nothing against protest marches and demonstrations at all, they do serve a purpose, but they aren't going to stop war. Only mass working class action, direct action, can do that.

STWC failed in one simple and total area.

IT DIDN'T STOP THE IRAQ WAR.

Neither did all this 'direct action'.

But, the StWC came within a whisker of stopping UK involvement in that war, and that would have put the skids under Bush.

In addition, as part of the world-wide Stop the War movement, the StWC was successful in helping get rid of Blair, and helping to prevent other imperial 'adventures' in the middle East.

That is, of course, quite apart from the other things mentioned earlier.

But, what exactly did all this fine sounding 'direct action' achieve?

A few pin-pricks?
Direct action, RL, is the only way to stop war. By standing up and actually doing something, rather than simply pottering around London in ever decreasing numbers listening to 'fine sounding' speeches and hoping to sell a few more papers and recruit a few more members, direct action not only has the potential to stop a war but is also infinitely more inspiring than yet another A to B march.

The simple fact is that the State can stand any number of A to B marches with any number of folk on them and did so and, before you suggest that I'm slating marches for the sake of it, I was on a number of them including February 15th in addition to helping plan and carry out numerous direct actions over the last few years.

As to whether the STWC was successful in helping get rid of Blair, I'd say that that is a moot point, seeing as he'd promised Brown he would hand over power anyway. Come to think of it, another 'adventure' is beckoning in Iran and there was the war between Lebanon and Israel, neither of which the STWC's 'strategy' stopped or is likely to stop.

And as for what direct action achieved, it was and is a lot more than a few pinpricks, which is in fact all the SWP/STWC is likely to manage. As an example I'd cite the action of the Fairford Five which caused more than three hundred and fifty thousand pounds of damage to US military vehicles. I'd also cite the 'Seeds Of Hope' action that disabled a Hawk jet before its export to Indonesia, the numerous anti Trident actions like Faslane 365 that almost daily have disrupted the nuclear submarine work at Faslane for almost a year now, the refusal of two Scottish train drivers to drive munitions trains, the successful infiltration of Devonport Dockyard in November 2002 (in which I was personally involved), the blockading of Marchwood military port, the infiltrations and blockades at the military HQ at Northwood and so on. Direct action gets results in a way that 'respectable' protest of the kind advocated by the SWP confines itself to never will.

And, while we're on the subject, what of those people who were arrested and charged with related offences? Many of them did jail time trying to stop the war and would no doubt be prepared to do so again if needed. I don't see the SWP putting their lives and bodies on the line in that way. Instead, they simply write it all off.

Louis Pio

28th September 2007, 16:02

Now it's pretty easy to find out that Dr. Naseem paid quite a large amount, in fact 29% of RESPECT's total election budget of ₤ 53 486.67donations (http://www.electoralcommission.gov.uk/templates/registers/rdpp.cfm?ec=%7Bts%20%272007%2D09%2D28%2015%3A54%3A 44%27%7D)
Choose RESPECT in the list and then noncash payments
If people are interested in his and his party's view on homosexuality they should check this Islamic Party on homosexuality (http://www.mustaqim.co.uk/ipb-archive/question/ans41.htm)
Actually the party believies in a big "gay conspiracy" Islamic party and the "gay conspiracy" (http://www.mustaqim.co.uk/ipb-archive/commonsense/36movement.htm)
And well the leader of the Islamic Party, Dr Naseem, were and are RESPECTS candidate in Birmingham Perry Barr (http://www.respectcoalition.org/elect/cand.php) and member of RESPECT's executive comitee.
Dunno if he has a split personality so he has different views when working for RESPECT, but people can figure for themselves

Rosa Lichtenstein

28th September 2007, 17:04

Pilgrim:

Direct action, RL, is the only way to stop war. By standing up and actually doing something, rather than simply pottering around London in ever decreasing numbers listening to 'fine sounding' speeches and hoping to sell a few more papers and recruit a few more members, direct action not only has the potential to stop a war but is also infinitely more inspiring than yet another A to B march.

Says who? Now, I could say this:

rather than simply pratting around in some airbase somewhere in tiny numbers listening to claxons and hoping to damage 0.000001% of the military might of the US or the UK, direct action hypnotises the small band I belong to into thinking it is doing something to stop a war but is also infinitely more a waste of time than yet another A to B march

And leave it as pure dogma, rather like you.

As to whether the STWC was successful in helping get rid of Blair, I'd say that that is a moot point, seeing as he'd promised Brown he would hand over power anyway. Come to think of it, another 'adventure' is beckoning in Iran and there was the war between Lebanon and Israel, neither of which the STWC's 'strategy' stopped or is likely to stop.

I duspute that, but I would wouldn't I?

But, since you can just assert things, you can't complain when I do the same, can you?

And as for what direct action achieved, it was and is a lot more than a few pinpricks, which is in fact all the SWP/STWC is likely to manage. As an example I'd cite the action of the Fairford Five which caused more than three hundred and fifty thousand pounds of damage to US military vehicles. I'd also cite the 'Seeds Of Hope' action that disabled a Hawk jet before its export to Indonesia, the numerous anti Trident actions like Faslane 365 that almost daily have disrupted the nuclear submarine work at Faslane for almost a year now, the refusal of two Scottish train drivers to drive munitions trains, the successful infiltration of Devonport Dockyard in November 2002 (in which I was personally involved), the blockading of Marchwood military port, the infiltrations and blockades at the military HQ at Northwood and so on. Direct action gets results in a way that 'respectable' protest of the kind advocated by the SWP confines itself to never will.

As I said, pin-pricks.

And, while we're on the subject, what of those people who were arrested and charged with related offences? Many of them did jail time trying to stop the war and would no doubt be prepared to do so again if needed. I don't see the SWP putting their lives and bodies on the line in that way. Instead, they simply write it all off.

If they want to waste their time, well, that is their jail time, and no the SWP does not write them off, but defends all such campaigners against the state.

Rosa Lichtenstein

28th September 2007, 17:07

T:

If people are interested in his and his party's view on homosexuality they should check this Islamic Party on homosexuality

Actually the party believies in a big "gay conspiracy" Islamic party and the "gay conspiracy"

Very clever: if anyone wants to know what some party or other believes about something, ask some other group!

And I'll check your other main allegation out.

Rosa Lichtenstein

28th September 2007, 17:10

OK, here are the 'millions' donated to Respect (non-cash), taken from the page Teis kindly linked to:

Received by

Donor

Address

Date accepted
Donation

Head office
A V L Media Ltd
status: Company
company reg no: SC202190 2b Seaford Street
Kilmarnock
Ayrshire
KA1 2DA
06/04/04
£ 6,000.00
nature: Battle bus.

Head Office
Dr Mohammed Naseem
status: Individual

12/02/05
£ 200.00
nature: Payment of photographer

Head Office
Dr Mohammed Naseem
status: Individual

12/02/05
£ 200.00
nature: Payment of artist

Head Office
Dr Mohammed Naseem
status: Individual

10/03/05
£ 1,057.50
nature: Payment of artwork lorry

Head Office
Dr Mohammed Naseem
status: Individual

31/03/05
£ 14,000.00
nature: Payment of leaflet distribution

Respect National Office
Socialist Workers Party
status: Registered Party
PO Box 42184
London
SW8 2WD
30/06/06
£ 6,587.32
nature: Payment of wages

Respect National Office
Socialist Workers Party
status: Registered Party
PO Box 42184
London
SW8 2WD
30/09/06
£ 3,293.68
nature: Payment of wages

Section total:£ 31,338.50

As I said earlier, T: nice try, only it ain't.

Rosa Lichtenstein

28th September 2007, 17:13

And here are the cash donations:

Cash
Received by

Donor
Address
Date accepted
Donation

Head office
Mrs J Turner
status: Individual

11/06/04
£ 7,000.00

Head office
Mr George Galloway
status: Individual

30/07/04
£ 5,029.17

Head Office
Mr Graham Turner
status: Individual

05/04/05
£ 10,000.00

Head Office
Mrs Jackie Turner
status: Individual

05/04/05
£ 10,000.00

Head office
Mr Mohammed Zabadne
status: Individual

08/07/05
£ 4,018.00

Head office
Mr Mohammed Zabadne
status: Individual

08/07/05
£ 4,500.00

Respect National Office
Socialist Workers Party
status: Registered Party
PO Box 42184
London
SW8 2WD
30/06/06
£ 2,640.66

Respect National Office
Socialist Workers Party
status: Registered Party
PO Box 42184
London
SW8 2WD
30/09/06
£ 1,320.34

Section total:£ 44,508.17

Total, just over £75,800 (not the made-up figure T gave), of which Dr Naseem donated just under £16,000, or about 21%.

Louis Pio

28th September 2007, 17:33

Yeah yeah Rosa just continue the usual head in the sand. I somehow find it quite interesting that Dr. Naseem obviously has these views, why he supports RESPECT I don't know, i'm not him and unfortunately I can't read minds, still his views on homosexuality are there for all to see, facts are he is on RESPECT's ballot and he is in the executive comitee. It's also a fact he is a raging homophobe. I think it gives alot of weight to the accusations of RESPECT (and SWP) pandering to homophobes. It is of course an abandonement of core principles and it also raises the discussion on how to reach a minority. By pandering to religious prejudices or by a clear classpolitic and fight against oppression of all kinds.

Edit: yes Rosa those are the figures for donations untill now, the numbers I was talking about was electionfund. Can't find when this was totalled, it might have gone up, im not sure if we are talking about the local elections or the national. Your in a better position to find out since you are based in the UK.

Pilgrim

28th September 2007, 17:34

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 28, 2007 04:04 pm
Pilgrim:

Direct action, RL, is the only way to stop war. By standing up and actually doing something, rather than simply pottering around London in ever decreasing numbers listening to 'fine sounding' speeches and hoping to sell a few more papers and recruit a few more members, direct action not only has the potential to stop a war but is also infinitely more inspiring than yet another A to B march.

Says who? Now, I could say this:

rather than simply pratting around in some airbase somewhere in tiny numbers listening to claxons and hoping to damage 0.000001% of the military might of the US or the UK, direct action hypnotises the small band I belong to into thinking it is doing something to stop a war but is also infinitely more a waste of time than yet another A to B march

And leave it as pure dogma, rather like you.

As to whether the STWC was successful in helping get rid of Blair, I'd say that that is a moot point, seeing as he'd promised Brown he would hand over power anyway. Come to think of it, another 'adventure' is beckoning in Iran and there was the war between Lebanon and Israel, neither of which the STWC's 'strategy' stopped or is likely to stop.

I duspute that, but I would wouldn't I?

But, since you can just assert things, you can't complain when I do the same, can you?

And as for what direct action achieved, it was and is a lot more than a few pinpricks, which is in fact all the SWP/STWC is likely to manage. As an example I'd cite the action of the Fairford Five which caused more than three hundred and fifty thousand pounds of damage to US military vehicles. I'd also cite the 'Seeds Of Hope' action that disabled a Hawk jet before its export to Indonesia, the numerous anti Trident actions like Faslane 365 that almost daily have disrupted the nuclear submarine work at Faslane for almost a year now, the refusal of two Scottish train drivers to drive munitions trains, the successful infiltration of Devonport Dockyard in November 2002 (in which I was personally involved), the blockading of Marchwood military port, the infiltrations and blockades at the military HQ at Northwood and so on. Direct action gets results in a way that 'respectable' protest of the kind advocated by the SWP confines itself to never will.

As I said, pin-pricks.

And, while we're on the subject, what of those people who were arrested and charged with related offences? Many of them did jail time trying to stop the war and would no doubt be prepared to do so again if needed. I don't see the SWP putting their lives and bodies on the line in that way. Instead, they simply write it all off.

If they want to waste their time, well, that is their jail time, and no the SWP does not write them off, but defends all such campaigners against the state.
Dogma, RL, is holding to an iron belief in something regardless of objective fact. It is an objective fact, on the other hand, that the powers that be are infinitely more afraid of people actually taking DIRECT ACTION against their plans than they are of yet another A to B march, regardless of how big that A to B march actually is. February 15th, and yes, I was in London that day, proves that beyond all doubt. So, I've satisfactorily torpedoed that particular battleship.

And assert away, but do try and back your assertions up with some facts. And asserting that the sum total of the direct action efforts I listed was, to use your own slur, a selection of 'pin pricks', is entirely spurious and you know it. And, while we're on the subject, exactly what does the SWP/STWC offer as an alternative other than increasingly smaller protest marches, and the smaller they get the easier they are for the State to ignore.

Regarding your frankly patronising, not to say dismissive and insulting attitude towards those who risked and suffered jail time, I'll say this:

1. You refer to the Fairford folk as 'pratting around in some airbase'. They were in fact risking their lives and liberty while the SWP/STWC sat around and slagged them off as 'elitist' and did three hundred and fifty thousand pounds worth of damage in one action alone.

2. You describe the action as 'a waste of time.' More of a waste of time than my getting up at five in the morning to go to London for yet another march and not getting home until midnight or later, and feeling on most London marches that nothing had been achieved? I doubt it somehow.

3. You also claim, bizarrely given established fact, that 'the SWP does not write them off, but defends all such campaigners against the State.' Hogwash on the following counts:

You yourself have called direct action a waste of time.

You've referred to the actions as pinpricks.

You referred to the Fairford folk as 'pratting around in some airbase.'

You also say, in response to my ironclad point about direct activists risking and often suffering prison sentences, 'that is THEIR jail time.'

And one of your leaders, a certain Lindsay German, openly insulted direct activists as 'elitist' and said that they shouldn't try 'to impose their elitism on the rest of us.'

And, come to think of it, how exactly did the SWP 'defend' these campaigners (while ruthlessly insulting them behind their backs)? Did they contribute money to defence funds? Did they turn out at camps and actions to offer support? Did they write to prisoners or send care packages to the ones who went to jail? Did they organise support groups for these prisoners? And so on and so forth. Serious questions these, so feel free to answer them fully.

Your move.

Sam_b

28th September 2007, 17:41

whiter than white? Is that what you call it when people try to stick to some basic marxist principles like defending the interests of the working class?

I'm a member of the STWC coallition and I organise for demos with my party, which gives it's full support to the project whilst calling for it to be more militant. what did you do that was so much more valuable than what I did?

I obviously don't have an issue then if you're in and building Stop The War. If you take so much contension form this, ar eyou saying that you are a part of the 'sectarian left' then?

I'm not saying I did so much more 'valuable work' than nayone else. Just a damn sight more, I imagine, than the people outside the organisation, who refuse to engage and refuse to build it.

This suggests you saw it as an exercise in party building and publicity. Pretty opporunistic

Aye, we shouldn't be trying to win people over to the left at all. Silly me!

Hmmm, I may be able to cure your apparent ignorance of what direct action crews and others were doing, and still are doing, to try and stop wars.

Heehee. Yeah, all that STW do is go on big protests in London :P

Rosa Lichtenstein

28th September 2007, 18:48

T:

Yeah yeah Rosa just continue the usual head in the sand.

Yes, you are right -- copying your ostrich impression was not a good idea.

I somehow find it quite interesting that Dr. Naseem obviously has these views, why he supports RESPECT I don't know, i'm not him and unfortunately I can't read minds, still his views on homosexuality are there for all to see, facts are he is on RESPECT's ballot and he is in the executive comitee. It's also a fact he is a raging homophobe. I think it gives alot of weight to the accusations of RESPECT (and SWP) pandering to homophobes. It is of course an abandonement of core principles and it also raises the discussion on how to reach a minority. By pandering to religious prejudices or by a clear classpolitic and fight against oppression of all kinds.

Respect is a United Front -- apparently you do not understand the concept.

T, now he has been rumbled:

Edit: yes Rosa those are the figures for donations untill now, the numbers I was talking about was electionfund. Can't find when this was totalled, it might have gone up, im not sure if we are talking about the local elections or the national. Your in a better position to find out since you are based in the UK.

So, you admit to making baseless assertions.

Apology accepted...

Rosa Lichtenstein

28th September 2007, 19:01

Pilgrim:

Dogma, RL, is holding to an iron belief in something regardless of objective fact. It is an objective fact, on the other hand, that the powers that be are infinitely more afraid of people actually taking DIRECT ACTION against their plans than they are of yet another A to B march, regardless of how big that A to B march actually is. February 15th, and yes, I was in London that day, proves that beyond all doubt. So, I've satisfactorily torpedoed that particular battleship.

Once more, direct action failed. So, and unfortunately for you, your continued support for it matches your 'definition' of 'dogma', as I said.

Hence, you have no good reason for maintaining that faux superior air of yours.

And assert away, but do try and back your assertions up with some facts. And asserting that the sum total of the direct action efforts I listed was, to use your own slur, a selection of 'pin pricks', is entirely spurious and you know it. And, while we're on the subject, exactly what does the SWP/STWC offer as an alternative other than increasingly smaller protest marches, and the smaller they get the easier they are for the State to ignore.

Clearly, you need to look up the meaning of the phrase 'pin-prick'; you seem to be having a few problems with it.

Regarding your frankly patronising, not to say dismissive and insulting attitude towards those who risked and suffered jail time, I'll say this:

1. You refer to the Fairford folk as 'pratting around in some airbase'. They were in fact risking their lives and liberty while the SWP/STWC sat around and slagged them off as 'elitist' and did three hundred and fifty thousand pounds worth of damage in one action alone.

2. You describe the action as 'a waste of time.' More of a waste of time than my getting up at five in the morning to go to London for yet another march and not getting home until midnight or later, and feeling on most London marches that nothing had been achieved? I doubt it somehow.

3. You also claim, bizarrely given established fact, that 'the SWP does not write them off, but defends all such campaigners against the State.'

Oh dear, the comrade who does not like my allegedly 'patronising' tone, suddenly adopts it.

Thanks for the back-hand compliment.

Hogwash on the following counts:

You yourself have called direct action a waste of time.

You've referred to the actions as pinpricks.

You referred to the Fairford folk as 'pratting around in some airbase.'

You also say, in response to my ironclad point about direct activists risking and often suffering prison sentences, 'that is THEIR jail time.'

And one of your leaders, a certain Lindsay German, openly insulted direct activists as 'elitist' and said that they shouldn't try 'to impose their elitism on the rest of us.'

1) It is a waste of time, but we defend all you wasters against the state.

2) Lyndsey was right: you are elitists, but still we defend stupid time-wasting elists like you against the state.

And, come to think of it, how exactly did the SWP 'defend' these campaigners (while ruthlessly insulting them behind their backs)? Did they contribute money to defence funds? Did they turn out at camps and actions to offer support? Did they write to prisoners or send care packages to the ones who went to jail? Did they organise support groups for these prisoners? And so on and so forth. Serious questions these, so feel free to answer them fully.

No, we have better things to do. [That is as 'full' as I intend to be with wasters.]

Your move.

Queen to a4.

Pilgrim

28th September 2007, 19:08

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 28, 2007 06:01 pm
Pilgrim:

Dogma, RL, is holding to an iron belief in something regardless of objective fact. It is an objective fact, on the other hand, that the powers that be are infinitely more afraid of people actually taking DIRECT ACTION against their plans than they are of yet another A to B march, regardless of how big that A to B march actually is. February 15th, and yes, I was in London that day, proves that beyond all doubt. So, I've satisfactorily torpedoed that particular battleship.

Once more, direct action failed. So, and unfortunately for you, your continued support for it matches your 'definition' of 'dogma', as I said.

Hence, you have no good reason for maintaining that faux superior air of yours.

And assert away, but do try and back your assertions up with some facts. And asserting that the sum total of the direct action efforts I listed was, to use your own slur, a selection of 'pin pricks', is entirely spurious and you know it. And, while we're on the subject, exactly what does the SWP/STWC offer as an alternative other than increasingly smaller protest marches, and the smaller they get the easier they are for the State to ignore.

Clearly, you need to look up the meaning of the phrase 'pin-prick'; you seem to be having a few problems with it.

Regarding your frankly patronising, not to say dismissive and insulting attitude towards those who risked and suffered jail time, I'll say this:

1. You refer to the Fairford folk as 'pratting around in some airbase'. They were in fact risking their lives and liberty while the SWP/STWC sat around and slagged them off as 'elitist' and did three hundred and fifty thousand pounds worth of damage in one action alone.

2. You describe the action as 'a waste of time.' More of a waste of time than my getting up at five in the morning to go to London for yet another march and not getting home until midnight or later, and feeling on most London marches that nothing had been achieved? I doubt it somehow.

3. You also claim, bizarrely given established fact, that 'the SWP does not write them off, but defends all such campaigners against the State.'

Oh dear, the comrade who does not like my allegedly 'patronising' tone, suddenly adopts it.

Thanks for the back-hand compliment.

Hogwash on the following counts:

You yourself have called direct action a waste of time.

You've referred to the actions as pinpricks.

You referred to the Fairford folk as 'pratting around in some airbase.'

You also say, in response to my ironclad point about direct activists risking and often suffering prison sentences, 'that is THEIR jail time.'

And one of your leaders, a certain Lindsay German, openly insulted direct activists as 'elitist' and said that they shouldn't try 'to impose their elitism on the rest of us.'

1) It is a waste of time, but we defend all you wasters against the state.

2) Lyndsey was right: you are elitists, but still we defend stupid time-wasting elists like you against the state.

And, come to think of it, how exactly did the SWP 'defend' these campaigners (while ruthlessly insulting them behind their backs)? Did they contribute money to defence funds? Did they turn out at camps and actions to offer support? Did they write to prisoners or send care packages to the ones who went to jail? Did they organise support groups for these prisoners? And so on and so forth. Serious questions these, so feel free to answer them fully.

No, we have better things to do. [That is as 'full' as I intend to be with wasters.]

Your move.

Queen to a4.
Oh dear, RL.

Oh dear, oh dear.

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.

You really aren't very good at this debating lark, are you?

Not a single point answered.

And not even an attempt to answer one properly at that.

5/10, RL.

Must try harder.

Rosa Lichtenstein

28th September 2007, 20:01

Pilgrim:

You really aren't very good at this debating lark, are you?

No, you are right; if this is anything to go by, I have much to learn from you:

Oh dear, RL.

Oh dear, oh dear.

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.

Devastating stuff; how do you manage it? Where can I get lessons?

Not a single point answered.

And not even an attempt to answer one properly at that.

5/10, RL.

Apparently, on top of the problems you are having with 'pin-prick', your eyes are letting you down, too.

And thanks for that mark --, it puts me five above you...

Must try harder

Ok, but do you have to advertise your limitations in public?

redarmyfaction38

28th September 2007, 23:43

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 28, 2007 03:06 am
RedArmyFaction, you are right, the SWP of 2007 is not the same as the SWP of 1977, but in the mid-1970s the working class was in one of its most combative phases of the 20th century. And that is largely the difference.
i dunno to be honest, back in the '70s, when i was but a young "whippersnapper", the swp was a vibrant political party that rejected "parliamentary politics" and had at least one member, or so it seemed, in every workplace, they played a "leading role" in every strike/struggle i can remember.
they were firmly based in the working class, well, the young working class anyway.

today, despite the best efforts of their best comrades, they are totally a party in decline, imo, they have forgotten the simplest lessons of marxism, they ally themselves with elements of the bourgeouisie, with religious fundamentalists etc., not to create a "common front" against imperialism or capitalism, but as apologists for "individual" and "religious" terrorism!
there is nothing marxist or working class in that policy.
there creation of a "parliamentary party", ie 2respect", reflects, not the interest of the working class as a whole, but the interests of secular minorities within our class that can be attracted to parliamentary "radicalism", in short, they're playing the same game as the bnp, but with a "socialist?" agenda.
their record in germany, australia etc.is appalling, they have sided again and again with 2conservative elements", they have formed or voted for coalitions with social democratic parties that have actually attacked the wiorking class!
for a revolutionary socialist party that is an act of utter betrayal.

it is not just the circumstances that have changed, but bthe attitude of the party itself, where comrades in the sp, the iww and many other radical organisations see opportunities, the swp sees only defeat or being on the defensive or not having the upper hand.
these are the "reasons" given to me by my union branch secretary, for not fighting the employer, my branch secretary is a member of the swp, he is also a class fighter of many years standing, so much so, the union beaurocracy expelled him! on trumped up allegations that they could not find one single person to attest to!
like i said, individual swp members, i have no problem with, the leadership, however is defeatist and tied to the capitalist analysis of the economic situation.

Rosa Lichtenstein

29th September 2007, 00:38

Red Army, you are right, but the balance of class forces is radically different today. The party cannot but take account of that. It cannot substitute itself for the class.

I have absolutely no doubt that if and when the UK working class wake up, the SWP you used to know will return.

I am not too sure you have understood Respect correctly, though.

There is a vacuum on the left outside New Labour, and Respect was an attempt to win over that ground, and was based on the massive successes of the anti-war movement.

That has largely died away now, and the new situation has to be re-assessed.

And I also think you are wrong about the leadership. [But, there is no way I am going to argue about that in public.]

Devrim

29th September 2007, 06:36

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 28, 2007 11:38 pm
Red Army, you are right, but the balance of class forces is radically different today. The party cannot but take account of that. It cannot substitute itself for the class.

I have absolutely no doubt that if and when the UK working class wake up, the SWP you used to know will return.

raf38's comments are interesting. I think that it shows how the SWP have reacted to what Cliff called the 'downturn' well.

I think that Rosa's reply asks three questions;

1) The phrase '...when the UK working class wake up,...' begs the question of when this will happen. We detect that the past few years have began to show a change in the balance of class forces, not only in the UK, but internationally. I would say certainly that the giant is awakening. Of course, that doesn't mean that we will see large scale class conflicts immediately, but the trend is reversing after the harsh years of the 90s. The UK shows this too, it is not only the bourgeois media's talk of a possible winter of discontent that shows this, but events over the last few years.

Has the SWP been so wrapped up, in what for the sake of kindness we will call 'its other projects' to even notice this?

2) What is the role of the organisation in the 'downturn'? In my opinion the vast majority of the left internationally have turned away from the working class over the past decade, and a half. This should be obvious to anyone who has observed the left over that period. I think that one anecdote sums it up nicely. In a discussion with a young Polish Trotskyist, we found a complete lack of understanding as to why were thought workers in car factories were important. The actual thing she said was 'What do workers in car factories have to do with socialism?' Of course this doesn't prove anything, but to those aware of the situation demonstrates it quite well.

3)Is the SWP's cadre up to the job? Of course it is possible that the SWP will rejuvenate itself, but from my limited observations, I would say 'no'. Time will tell.

Devrim

Die Neue Zeit

29th September 2007, 08:09

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 10:36 pm
1) The phrase '...when the UK working class wake up,...' begs the question of when this will happen. We detect that the past few years have began to show a change in the balance of class forces, not only in the UK, but internationally. I would say certainly that the giant is awakening. Of course, that doesn't mean that we will see large scale class conflicts immediately, but the trend is reversing after the harsh years of the 90s. The UK shows this too, it is not only the bourgeois media's talk of a possible winter of discontent that shows this, but events over the last few years.

Has the SWP been so wrapped up, in what for the sake of kindness we will call 'its other projects' to even notice this?

2) What is the role of the organisation in the 'downturn'? In my opinion the vast majority of the left internationally have turned away from the working class over the past decade, and a half. This should be obvious to anyone who has observed the left over that period. I think that one anecdote sums it up nicely. In a discussion with a young Polish Trotskyist, we found a complete lack of understanding as to why were thought workers in car factories were important. The actual thing she said was 'What do workers in car factories have to do with socialism?' Of course this doesn't prove anything, but to those aware of the situation demonstrates it quite well.
Wasn't the classical social democracy in fact the merger of revolutionary socialism and the workers' movement (paraphrasing Kautsky and Lenin)?

Zurdito

29th September 2007, 08:23

RL:

But, the StWC came within a whisker of stopping UK involvement in that war, and that would have put the skids under Bush.

How did we come within a whisker of stopping the war? How do you back up this claim? As far as I'm concerned the government made it clear all along that they were going to ignore the protests. Logically then only direct action could have made a difference.

In addition, as part of the world-wide Stop the War movement, the StWC was successful in helping get rid of Blair, and helping to prevent other imperial 'adventures' in the middle East.

This is pure assertion. Getting rid of Blair didn't stop imperialism. Getting rid of Bush won't stop it. Put Barrack Obama in the White House and one of our current reformist Labour Lib Dem MP's in No.10, and you'd still have two imperialist states. I don't know exactly what kind of outlook you have in this question but it seems to be highly motivated by short-term personality politics, as your constant references to "Bush and blair" suggest. This is a Guardian level of argument.

But, what exactly did all this fine sounding 'direct action' achieve?

It acheived the blocking of weapons from being delivered, and if there had been more of it, then more weapons wouldn't have been delivered, but the SWP didn't call for this. So all they really acheived was to put the SWP stamp on the already existing, inadecuate level of consciousness of British liberals. Great "leadership".

And why is it that SWPers call people sectarian for criticising them? Aren't we just trying to convince you of a better strategy to acheive our common aim of stopping the war?

Rosa Lichtenstein

29th September 2007, 10:51

Dev:

1) The phrase '...when the UK working class wake up,...' begs the question of when this will happen. We detect that the past few years have began to show a change in the balance of class forces, not only in the UK, but internationally. I would say certainly that the giant is awakening. Of course, that doesn't mean that we will see large scale class conflicts immediately, but the trend is reversing after the harsh years of the 90s. The UK shows this too, it is not only the bourgeois media's talk of a possible winter of discontent that shows this, but events over the last few years.

Has the SWP been so wrapped up, in what for the sake of kindness we will call 'its other projects' to even notice this?

It does not beg any questions -- since none of us (and that, amazingly enough includes you) can predict the future.

And no, this has been discussed in SWP literature and meetings (but you are so "wrapped up" in mischief-making that you would not know this).

2) What is the role of the organisation in the 'downturn'? In my opinion the vast majority of the left internationally have turned away from the working class over the past decade, and a half. This should be obvious to anyone who has observed the left over that period. I think that one anecdote sums it up nicely. In a discussion with a young Polish Trotskyist, we found a complete lack of understanding as to why were thought workers in car factories were important. The actual thing she said was 'What do workers in car factories have to do with socialism?' Of course this doesn't prove anything, but to those aware of the situation demonstrates it quite well.

Yet more opinion substitued for scientific fact.

Is it any wonder I do not take you seriously?

3)Is the SWP's cadre up to the job? Of course it is possible that the SWP will rejuvenate itself, but from my limited observations, I would say 'no'. Time will tell.

More 'scientific' opinion...

Rosa Lichtenstein

29th September 2007, 11:06

Z:

How did we come within a whisker of stopping the war? How do you back up this claim? As far as I'm concerned the government made it clear all along that they were going to ignore the protests. Logically then only direct action could have made a difference.

The UK and US war machine has ignored the far more effective Iraqi Resistance's 'direct action', which has cost them in excess of half a trillion dollars by now.

What on earth makes you think that a few million, or billion dollars of 'damage' done by local 'direct action' would succeed where that has failed?

And, as to your question, Blair came close to defeat on the war vote, and it was that close because of the massive popular outcry. Had Claire Short resigned as she said she would, there is good reason to believe the vote might have been lost.

The Turkish anti-war movement certainly halted Turkish involvement.

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

This is pure assertion. Getting rid of Blair didn't stop imperialism. Getting rid of Bush won't stop it. Put Barrack Obama in the White House and one of our current reformist Labour Lib Dem MP's in No.10, and you'd still have two imperialist states. I don't know exactly what kind of outlook you have in this question but it seems to be highly motivated by short-term personality politics, as your constant references to "Bush and blair" suggest. This is a Guardian level of argument.

No one said it 'stopped imperialism'. You need to learn to read.

And, I mention these two jokers since it is far easier to do so than to copy your pedantry, and keep referring to impersonal 'imperialism'.

It acheived the blocking of weapons from being delivered, and if there had been more of it, then more weapons wouldn't have been delivered, but the SWP didn't call for this. So all they really acheived was to put the SWP stamp on the already existing, inadecuate level of consciousness of British liberals. Great "leadership".

Gosh, what an achievement! It stopped a few missiles and bombs. Ten or twenty million in costs. What a body blow!

That should "stop imperialism", don't you think...?

And why is it that SWPers call people sectarian for criticising them? Aren't we just trying to convince you of a better strategy to acheive our common aim of stopping the war?

Becasue you are more concerened with (erroneous) point scoring than helping stop the war.

Next numpty please...

Zurdito

29th September 2007, 12:33

Gosh, what an achievement! It stopped a few missiles and bombs. Ten or twenty million in costs. What a body blow!

That should "stop imperialism", don't you think...?

Is this a joke? Obviously the level of direct action didn't make much of a difference because it was so small scale, but as the biggest party on the British left and the dominant force in the STWC the SWP could have encouraged more direct action which would have hindered the war effort.

And yes, the americans and British are taking notice of the Iraq resistance's direct action, which is the only thing that has hindered their war effort. A few people going to Trafalgar Square once a month or sitting in Hyde Park listening to Tony Benn on a one off day in February is worthwile but is not going to stop or even hinder a war in itself. Popular opposition to a war is meaningless unless the people tie it into the kind of class struggle which will lead them to identify it with their own interests and want to put their words into action.

and maybe you should stop referring to Tony Blair as he is now gone, yet nothing has changed. So even if the STWC did play any part in getting him to go - dubous considering he waited around for 4 more years and then left on his own terms to be succeeded by his closest ally - even then, it was something acheived long after it could possibly have been relevant.

Pilgrim

29th September 2007, 15:15

Originally posted by catch+September 26, 2007 08:42 pm--> (catch @ September 26, 2007 08:42 pm)
[email protected] 26, 2007 11:40 am
Sad, actually I found it difficult to believe that the SWP cadre were as politically weak as the ones that we see on RevLeft, so I wrote to a friend of mine in London to see if the ones on the ground came across as this clueless. She replied that they did.

Devrim
Devrim,

You missed the bad old days of Urban75 c.2002-2005, it may have been worse than this even. [/b]
Does anyone remember the great times we had with Rebel Warrior, Udo Erasmus, and so on?

Great days they were, great days...

Rosa Lichtenstein

29th September 2007, 16:27

Z:

Is this a joke?

It fear you are.

Obviously the level of direct action didn't make much of a difference because it was so small scale, but as the biggest party on the British left and the dominant force in the STWC the SWP could have encouraged more direct action which would have hindered the war effort.

Not so; the SWP and the StWC had the influence they had because they did not go in for such stunts.

And yes, the americans and British are taking notice of the Iraq resistance's direct action, which is the only thing that has hindered their war effort. A few people going to Trafalgar Square once a month or sitting in Hyde Park listening to Tony Benn on a one off day in February is worthwile but is not going to stop or even hinder a war in itself. Popular opposition to a war is meaningless unless the people tie it into the kind of class struggle which will lead them to identify it with their own interests and want to put their words into action.

What makes you think that anyone would have listened to the StWC had they adopted your crazy strategy?

and maybe you should stop referring to Tony Blair as he is now gone, yet nothing has changed. So even if the STWC did play any part in getting him to go - dubous considering he waited around for 4 more years and then left on his own terms to be succeeded by his closest ally - even then, it was something acheived long after it could possibly have been relevant.

I'll refer to him as long as I like.

Pilgrim

29th September 2007, 18:00

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 29, 2007 03:27 pm
Z:

Is this a joke?

It fear you are.

Obviously the level of direct action didn't make much of a difference because it was so small scale, but as the biggest party on the British left and the dominant force in the STWC the SWP could have encouraged more direct action which would have hindered the war effort.

Not so; the SWP and the StWC had the influence they had because they did not go in for such stunts.

And yes, the americans and British are taking notice of the Iraq resistance's direct action, which is the only thing that has hindered their war effort. A few people going to Trafalgar Square once a month or sitting in Hyde Park listening to Tony Benn on a one off day in February is worthwile but is not going to stop or even hinder a war in itself. Popular opposition to a war is meaningless unless the people tie it into the kind of class struggle which will lead them to identify it with their own interests and want to put their words into action.

What makes you think that anyone would have listened to the StWC had they adopted your crazy strategy?

and maybe you should stop referring to Tony Blair as he is now gone, yet nothing has changed. So even if the STWC did play any part in getting him to go - dubous considering he waited around for 4 more years and then left on his own terms to be succeeded by his closest ally - even then, it was something acheived long after it could possibly have been relevant.

I'll refer to him as long as I like.
Come on, RL, surely as 'the brain and memory of the class' you can do better than this.

Aren't you even going to try and defend your party's failure to stop the war, and it's deliberate strategy of knifing in the back or at best treating with utter disdain those actually took steps to actually halt the war?

Devrim

29th September 2007, 18:10

Superb Rosa, no political discussion whatsoever, but this 'mischief making does put you a bit in the school Ma'am role. You are doing vert well at it though. You probably learnt about looking down on the working class at your university.

I don't feel any need to discuss it with you.

Enjoy pretending to be a socialist.

Devrim

Rosa Lichtenstein

29th September 2007, 18:34

Pilgrim:

Come on, RL, surely as 'the brain and memory of the class' you can do better than this.

Insulting me in this way will of course get you nowhere.

Aren't you even going to try and defend your party's failure to stop the war, and it's deliberate strategy of knifing in the back or at best treating with utter disdain those actually took steps to actually halt the war?

Aren't you going to defend your antics from stopping the war?

Rosa Lichtenstein

29th September 2007, 18:36

Dev:

Superb Rosa, no political discussion whatsoever, but this 'mischief making does put you a bit in the school Ma'am role. You are doing vert well at it though. You probably learnt about looking down on the working class at your university.

I don't feel any need to discuss it with you.

I am working class -- and a trade union rep (unpaid).

Enjoy pretending to be a socialist.

Yes, I am sure you do.

Zurdito

29th September 2007, 18:39

What makes you think that anyone would have listened to the StWC had they adopted your crazy strategy?

A crazy strategy is to notice that 100% of trade unions are in a coallition, so to then ask them to call for strikes to acheieve the stated aim of the coallition?

That's the point of providing leadership isn't it - you take the risk of breaking with some people in order to try to lead people to do things they wouldn't do without you.

If you just rubber stamp the existing majority consciousness of the time, then obviously you will build a large organisation, but it will have no worth and make no difference to what people would have done anyway.

Instead of the Stop The War Coallition, maybe you should have argued it change it's name to the Dislike The War Coalition.

Rosa Lichtenstein

29th September 2007, 18:39

Z:

A crazy strategy is to notice that 100% of trade unions are in a coallition, so to then ask them to call for strikes to acheieve the stated aim of the coallition?

That's the point of providing leadership isn't it - you take the risk of breaking with some people in order to try to lead people to do things they wouldn't do without you.

If you just rubber stamp the existing majority consciousness of the time, then obviously you will build a large organisation, but it will have no worth and make no difference to what people would have done anyway.

Instead of the Stop The War Coallition, maybe you should have argued it change it's name to the Dislike The War Coalition.

Off the wall, as I said.

Pilgrim

29th September 2007, 18:45

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 29, 2007 05:39 pm
Z:

A crazy strategy is to notice that 100% of trade unions are in a coallition, so to then ask them to call for strikes to acheieve the stated aim of the coallition?

That's the point of providing leadership isn't it - you take the risk of breaking with some people in order to try to lead people to do things they wouldn't do without you.

If you just rubber stamp the existing majority consciousness of the time, then obviously you will build a large organisation, but it will have no worth and make no difference to what people would have done anyway.

Instead of the Stop The War Coallition, maybe you should have argued it change it's name to the Dislike The War Coalition.

Off the wall, as I said.
Hmmmm.

You aren't quite as embarassing as the former Urban75 poster named Rebel Warrior, but you're getting there.

Keep digging that hole for yourself.

Rosa Lichtenstein

29th September 2007, 18:48

Pilgrim:

Hmmmm.

Good point.

You aren't quite as embarassing as the former Urban75 poster named Rebel Warrior, but you're getting there.

Yes, my copying of you is helping greatly in that direction.

Keep digging that hole for yourself

I'd rather have a march.

You can keep antics like hole digging for you and your elitist friends.

Devrim

29th September 2007, 18:53

I have no idea what she is talking about now, but it is certainly not politics. Anyway, it must keep her happy.
Devrim

Rosa Lichtenstein

29th September 2007, 18:55

Dev, going into his usual sulk:

I don't feel any need to discuss it with you.

Dev, confirming he is still sulking:

I have no idea what she is talking about now, but it is certainly not politics. Anyway, it must keep her happy.

Zurdito

29th September 2007, 19:03

This thread is hilarious, the serious SWP members on this site must be dying of embarrassment. Rosa, are you some impressionable young SOAS liberal who fell under the spell of the charming Lenin impersonator in your sig? I suggest instead of the impersonator, you read some of the real thing. Then you might develop the ability to write something other than trite one-liners.

bolshevik butcher

29th September 2007, 19:10

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 26, 2007 11:03 pm
BB, let's see your proof...
Talking about Respect’s politics, ‘socialism’ and ‘trade unionism’ are part of its name. These are definitely associated with the left. What is your view on those two elements?

I do favour trade unionism. We need all the trade we can get, so we have to help them.

Weekly Worker 684

Rosa Lichtenstein

29th September 2007, 19:15

Z:

This thread is hilarious, the serious SWP members on this site must be dying of embarrassment. Rosa, are you some impressionable young SOAS liberal who fell under the spell of the charming Lenin impersonator in your sig? I suggest instead of the impersonator, you read some of the real thing. Then you might develop the ability to write something other than trite one-liners.

I write trite one-liners to wind-up sectarians like you (I do not debate with them) -- and I was reading Lenin before you were born, sonny.

And I am not in the SWP.

Rosa Lichtenstein

29th September 2007, 19:17

BB:

What is your view on those two elements?

Same as the SWP.

But, is that your proof?

Vanguard1917

29th September 2007, 19:33

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 29, 2007 06:15 pm

This thread is hilarious, the serious SWP members on this site must be dying of embarrassment. Rosa, are you some impressionable young SOAS liberal who fell under the spell of the charming Lenin impersonator in your sig? I suggest instead of the impersonator, you read some of the real thing. Then you might develop the ability to write something other than trite one-liners.

I write trite one-liners to wind-up sectarians like you (I do not debate with them) -- and I was reading Lenin before you were born, sonny.
Maybe you should do your winding up elsewhere. Because this is a discussion board for political debate - something which you have no respect for.

bolshevik butcher

29th September 2007, 19:40

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 29, 2007 06:17 pm
BB:

What is your view on those two elements?

Same as the SWP.

But, is that your proof?
A quote from a newspaper interview seems quite reasnoble to me. I've sourced it. It's on the weekly worker website, I'll find the link later I'm going out now.

Rosa Lichtenstein

29th September 2007, 19:42

BB:

A quote from a newspaper interview seems quite reasnoble to me. I've sourced it. It's on the weekly worker website, I'll find the link later I'm going out now.

Right I have read that interview, and I cannot really see anything that supports what you have alleged.

Rosa Lichtenstein

29th September 2007, 19:43

And from our very own mouthpiece of Big Capital:

Maybe you should do your winding up elsewhere. Because this is a discussion board for political debate - something which you have no respect for.

And it's for the enemies of Big Capital -- so what are you doing here?

Pilgrim

29th September 2007, 23:22

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 29, 2007 06:43 pm
And from our very own mouthpiece of Big Capital:

Maybe you should do your winding up elsewhere. Because this is a discussion board for political debate - something which you have no respect for.

And it's for the enemies of Big Capital -- so what are you doing here?
You know RL, your repeated attempts to derail the thread, coupled with your apparent attitude problem when challenged and your open admission that you aren't even trying to debate, leads me to suspect that you simply lack any meaningful answers at all.

I don't see the point in trying to debate with you at all when you refuse to offer anything meanigful to the discussion at hand.

redarmyfaction38

29th September 2007, 23:44

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 28, 2007 11:38 pm
Red Army, you are right, but the balance of class forces is radically different today. The party cannot but take account of that. It cannot substitute itself for the class.

I have absolutely no doubt that if and when the UK working class wake up, the SWP you used to know will return.

I am not too sure you have understood Respect correctly, though.

There is a vacuum on the left outside New Labour, and Respect was an attempt to win over that ground, and was based on the massive successes of the anti-war movement.

That has largely died away now, and the new situation has to be re-assessed.

And I also think you are wrong about the leadership. [But, there is no way I am going to argue about that in public.]
so explain!
the role of "respect" may have been well intentioned, but its absolute lack of any kind of class based policies has left it totally alienated from the majority of he working class!
this is the important bit! WORKERS, see respect, not as a party representing the interests of the working class as a whole, but as apologists for capitalist immigration policy, the voice of muslim "fundamentalism" and totally devoid from the struggles of ordinary working class people.
the media can jump and shout, they can run campaigns of lies and distortion against the "left" with impunity; doesn't matter a fig, however, when our class, our people don't believe us, we need to look at ourselves, the alliances we have and look in the mirror, and ask ourselves where WE got it wrong.
start with george galloway and his fat salary, progress to his open support for "muslim values" over the concensus of the british working class and you might begin to understand nwhy respect and the swp are regardeed with suspicion and distrust. imo.

bolshevik butcher

29th September 2007, 23:46

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 29, 2007 06:42 pm
BB:

A quote from a newspaper interview seems quite reasnoble to me. I've sourced it. It's on the weekly worker website, I'll find the link later I'm going out now.

Right I have read that interview, and I cannot really see anything that supports what you have alleged.
He seems rather mixed up on what a trade union is if he thinks its to promote trade.

Rosa Lichtenstein

29th September 2007, 23:48

Pilgrim:

You know RL, your repeated attempts to derail the thread, coupled with your apparent attitude problem when challenged and your open admission that you aren't even trying to debate, leads me to suspect that you simply lack any meaningful answers at all.

I don't see the point in trying to debate with you at all when you refuse to offer anything meanigful to the discussion at hand.

I accept your capitulation.

Rosa Lichtenstein

29th September 2007, 23:52

RAF:

the role of "respect" may have been well intentioned, but its absolute lack of any kind of class based policies has left it totally alienated from the majority of he working class!

I am not sure that is correct, but Respect is a united front, not a revolutionary party.

this is the important bit! WORKERS, see respect, not as a party representing the interests of the working class as a whole, but as apologists for capitalist immigration policy, the voice of muslim "fundamentalism" and totally devoid from the struggles of ordinary working class people.

Have you asked all workers about this then?

start with george galloway and his fat salary, progress to his open support for "muslim values" over the concensus of the british working class and you might begin to understand nwhy respect and the swp are regardeed with suspicion and distrust. imo.

Workers vote Labour, and Brown and Blair have pretty big salaries. So, that cannot put them off.

Rosa Lichtenstein

29th September 2007, 23:52

BB:

He seems rather mixed up on what a trade union is if he thinks its to promote trade.

Many, unfortunately are, but this may have been a language problem.

Here is his answer:

I do favour trade unionism. We need all the trade we can get, so we have to help them. In my nomination speech I did say that if I become a councillor then I’ll support them wholeheartedly. So there won’t be any hindrance on my part. Trade unionism is a good thing. There are a lot of trade unions in this country and we need to help them - that’s clear to me. Obviously different councillors may have different ideas about this, but all those I’ve spoken to have similar views.

As for socialism, it does provide some sort of justice, some sort of equality. I agree with that. As long as it doesn’t breach the rights of others. Of course, Respect has socialism as an element, but it’s not the only element, is it? There are other concerns. But I don’t mind.

Now that answer carries many interpretations -- not all of them similar to the one you have put upon it.

For example, he does not say that trade unions are there to promote trade, but that he favours trade unionism, and in order to do that, we need more trade (i.e., a sound economy, and hence more jobs, and thus more members).

Now, I am not saying that that is what he meant, but it is just as plausible as the option you thought up.

Nor am I saying it is an answer I'd give, or one I'd wish to endorse as a revolutionary.

But, and once again, Respect is a united front party, and with that comes the fact that one has to accept some things one does not like.

It is not a party that operates democratic centralism, so its propsective MPs can and do express their own views.

Pilgrim

29th September 2007, 23:57

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 29, 2007 10:48 pm
Pilgrim:

You know RL, your repeated attempts to derail the thread, coupled with your apparent attitude problem when challenged and your open admission that you aren't even trying to debate, leads me to suspect that you simply lack any meaningful answers at all.

I don't see the point in trying to debate with you at all when you refuse to offer anything meanigful to the discussion at hand.

I accept your capitulation.
Are you really the best the SWP can come up with?

Come on, debate properly and we might have a decent argument going here.

Rosa Lichtenstein

30th September 2007, 00:03

Pilgrim:

Are you really the best the SWP can come up with?

Come on, debate properly and we might have a decent argument going here.

I am not in the SWP. and you can see from the way I address others that I pick and choose who I debate with.

I do not debate with point-scoring sectarians.

Anyway, I thought I had already accepted your capitulation.

Pilgrim

30th September 2007, 00:10

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 29, 2007 11:03 pm
Pilgrim:

Are you really the best the SWP can come up with?

Come on, debate properly and we might have a decent argument going here.

I am not in the SWP. and you can see from the way I address others that I pick and choose who I debate with.

I do not debate with point-scoring sectarians.

Anyway, I thought I had already accepted your capitulation.
You don't seem to be debating with anyone at all unless you think they're easy pickings, from what I can see.

I do want to have this debate with you, but if you simply avoid the issues raised unless they suit you then that, I am afraid, says more about the apparent paucity of your arguments, such as they are, than it does about anything else.

I want to have the debate, you want to avoid the issues.

Rosa Lichtenstein

30th September 2007, 03:22

Pilgrim:

You don't seem to be debating with anyone at all unless you think they're easy pickings, from what I can see.

I do want to have this debate with you, but if you simply avoid the issues raised unless they suit you then that, I am afraid, says more about the apparent paucity of your arguments, such as they are, than it does about anything else.

I want to have the debate, you want to avoid the issues.

You just want to score points. I just want to wind you up (for the reason I stated).

Looks like I am succeeding.

Pilgrim

30th September 2007, 03:25

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 30, 2007 02:22 am
Pilgrim:

You don't seem to be debating with anyone at all unless you think they're easy pickings, from what I can see.

I do want to have this debate with you, but if you simply avoid the issues raised unless they suit you then that, I am afraid, says more about the apparent paucity of your arguments, such as they are, than it does about anything else.

I want to have the debate, you want to avoid the issues.

You just want to score points. I just want to wind you up (for the reason I stated).

Looks like I am succeeding.
No, RL, I want to debate with you in a serious and informed manner. And you'll have to do far more than that to wind me up, I'm afraid.

One question for you, if you aren't here to debate then why are you here at all?

Rosa Lichtenstein

30th September 2007, 03:30

Pilgrim:

No, RL, I want to debate with you in a serious and informed manner. And you'll have to do far more than that to wind me up, I'm afraid.

One question for you, if you aren't here to debate then why are you here at all?

Your seeming contrition is not fooling anyone. Based on what you have so far said, you just want to score points.

I came here primarily (in the first place) to publicise my essays; while I am here I will however debate with serious comrades who are not into point scoring -- which leaves you out.

How many more ways do you need telling this?

Pilgrim

30th September 2007, 03:40

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 30, 2007 02:30 am
Pilgrim:

No, RL, I want to debate with you in a serious and informed manner. And you'll have to do far more than that to wind me up, I'm afraid.

One question for you, if you aren't here to debate then why are you here at all?

Your seeming contrition is not fooling anyone. Based on what you have so far said, you just want to score points.

I came here primarily (in the first place) to publicise my essays; while I am here I will however debate with serious comrades who are not into point scoring -- which leaves you out.

How many more ways do you need telling this?
I have nothing to be contrite about, RL.

I'm here to debate the issues. You, on the other hand, seem to be here to promote yourself and avoid debate when the argument desn't run in your favour, which looks like most of the time from what I can see.

You aren't as bad as many Swappies or fellow travellers that I've argued with before, and there have been a few of those on various sites, but you do yourself and the party you support no favours by simply running away from arguments that don't suit you and sniping and sneering at folk who are happy to debate those same issues properly in an effort to divert attention when you're losing an argument. And, looking at the posts of others on this thread, I don't seem to be the only one that thinks so either.

Rosa Lichtenstein

30th September 2007, 03:48

Pilgrim:

I have nothing to be contrite about, RL.

Your earlier words suggest otherwise.

I'm here to debate the issues. You, on the other hand, seem to be here to promote yourself and avoid debate when the argument desn't run in your favour, which looks like most of the time from what I can see.

You aren't as bad as many Swappies or fellow travellers that I've argued with before, and there have been a few of those on various sites, but you do yourself and the party you support no favours by simply running away from arguments that don't suit you and sniping and sneering at folk who are happy to debate those same issues properly in an effort to divert attention when you're losing an argument. And, looking at the posts of others on this thread, I don't seem to be the only one that thinks so either

Fine, pick on some other schmuck who wants to waste several hours point-scoring with you.

All you will get from me are wind-ups.

And if you do not like it -- I should care.

Pilgrim

30th September 2007, 03:51

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 30, 2007 02:48 am
Pilgrim:

I have nothing to be contrite about, RL.

Your earlier words suggest otherwise.

I'm here to debate the issues. You, on the other hand, seem to be here to promote yourself and avoid debate when the argument desn't run in your favour, which looks like most of the time from what I can see.

You aren't as bad as many Swappies or fellow travellers that I've argued with before, and there have been a few of those on various sites, but you do yourself and the party you support no favours by simply running away from arguments that don't suit you and sniping and sneering at folk who are happy to debate those same issues properly in an effort to divert attention when you're losing an argument. And, looking at the posts of others on this thread, I don't seem to be the only one that thinks so either

Fine, pick on some other schmuck who wants to waste several hours point-scoring with you.

All you will get from me are wind-ups.

And if you do not like it -- I should care.
Stop being such a coward.

You're embarassing yourself.

Rosa Lichtenstein

30th September 2007, 03:54

Pilgrim:

Stop being such a coward.

You're embarassing yourself.

I agree, conversing with you is a major embarassment.

I normally only talk to intelligent human beings.

Pilgrim

30th September 2007, 04:06

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 30, 2007 02:54 am
Pilgrim:

Stop being such a coward.

You're embarassing yourself.

I agree, conversing with you is a major embarassment.

I normally only talk to intelligent human beings.
You're not going to derail the thread any further with your wriggling, sneering and wilful ignorance, you know.

All you're doing is digging an ever deeper hole for yourself here.

The reason you're resorting to such pathetic tactics, redolent of your Swappie brethren I've encountered elsewhere, is that you simply can't win this one and you know it.

You obviously lack the general knowledge of direct action, its theory and practice that you'd need to argue effectively and, having already lost the argument, you're trying to cover yourself by distracting anyone reading this with sneering and sniping. That won't work, by the way.

So, to try and drag this thread back on track, I'll say this.

Conventional protest has a purpose. I know, I do it in addition to my direct action work, but never as a substitute for direct action. But direct action, based on my first hand personal experience over several years of doing it, gets results in a way that conventional A to B marches have never will and never will in the future either.

The SWP could have supported direct action to stop the Iraq war. But instead of supporting it they simply sat back and did nothing unless it was to actively hinder direct action and its adherents. Not only did they not support the only kind of action that would have stopped the war, they deliberately stabbed in the back those who risked their lives and liberty to take that action.

Devrim

30th September 2007, 07:30

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 03:06 am
The SWP could have supported direct action to stop the Iraq war. But instead of supporting it they simply sat back and did nothing unless it was to actively hinder direct action and its adherents. Not only did they not support the only kind of action that would have stopped the war, they deliberately stabbed in the back those who risked their lives and liberty to take that action.
I think the first question that you have to ask here is was the working class in the UK strong enough to force the government to pull out of the Iraq war, and could direct action have achieved that.

Devrim

Rosa Lichtenstein

30th September 2007, 19:34

Pilgrim:

You're not going to derail the thread any further with your wriggling, sneering and wilful ignorance, you know.

All you're doing is digging an ever deeper hole for yourself here.

No, I'll let you derail it.

You obviously lack the general knowledge of direct action, its theory and practice that you'd need to argue effectively and, having already lost the argument, you're trying to cover yourself by distracting anyone reading this with sneering and sniping. That won't work, by the way.

So, to try and drag this thread back on track, I'll say this.

Conventional protest has a purpose. I know, I do it in addition to my direct action work, but never as a substitute for direct action. But direct action, based on my first hand personal experience over several years of doing it, gets results in a way that conventional A to B marches have never will and never will in the future either.

The SWP could have supported direct action to stop the Iraq war. But instead of supporting it they simply sat back and did nothing unless it was to actively hinder direct action and its adherents. Not only did they not support the only kind of action that would have stopped the war, they deliberately stabbed in the back those who risked their lives and liberty to take that action.

But, direct action failed.

Too bad...

Rosa Lichtenstein

30th September 2007, 19:36

Devrim:

I think the first question that you have to ask here is was the working class in the UK strong enough to force the government to pull out of the Iraq war, and could direct action have achieved that.

Spot on!!

But I think our 'stunt artist' here will fail to see this.

Triumph of the will, and all that! :rolleyes:

Pilgrim

1st October 2007, 00:43

Originally posted by devrimankara+September 30, 2007 06:30 am--> (devrimankara @ September 30, 2007 06:30 am)
[email protected] 30, 2007 03:06 am
The SWP could have supported direct action to stop the Iraq war. But instead of supporting it they simply sat back and did nothing unless it was to actively hinder direct action and its adherents. Not only did they not support the only kind of action that would have stopped the war, they deliberately stabbed in the back those who risked their lives and liberty to take that action.
I think the first question that you have to ask here is was the working class in the UK strong enough to force the government to pull out of the Iraq war, and could direct action have achieved that.

Devrim [/b]
As to whether the working class were strong enough to force the UK out of the war, then that is always a question that will be a fair subject for debate. Personally, I don't know if the working class were strong enough, but I do know that the so-called 'leadership' from the SWP/STWC was sorely lacking at every turn and that, had they thrown their weight behind direct action instead of stabbing it in the back, then forcing the UK out of the war may well have come much closer to happening.

Instead, they did everything they could to cause problems for direct action and its adherents and made life far more difficult for us than it needed to be. I don't doubt for a minute that direct action, properly planned and executed and with sufficient numbers to carry it out, could have stopped the war or at least taken the UK out of it, but the old left in the form of the SWP did their best to make sure this didn't happen.

Rosa Lichtenstein

1st October 2007, 02:36

Pilgrim:

As to whether the working class were strong enough to force the UK out of the war, then that is always a question that will be a fair subject for debate. Personally, I don't know if the working class were strong enough, but I do know that the so-called 'leadership' from the SWP/STWC was sorely lacking at every turn and that, had they thrown their weight behind direct action instead of stabbing it in the back, then forcing the UK out of the war may well have come much closer to happening.

Instead, they did everything they could to cause problems for direct action and its adherents and made life far more difficult for us than it needed to be. I don't doubt for a minute that direct action, properly planned and executed and with sufficient numbers to carry it out, could have stopped the war or at least taken the UK out of it, but the old left in the form of the SWP did their best to make sure this didn't happen.

As I said -- triumph of the will.

Pilgrim

1st October 2007, 02:39

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 01, 2007 01:36 am
Pilgrim:

As to whether the working class were strong enough to force the UK out of the war, then that is always a question that will be a fair subject for debate. Personally, I don't know if the working class were strong enough, but I do know that the so-called 'leadership' from the SWP/STWC was sorely lacking at every turn and that, had they thrown their weight behind direct action instead of stabbing it in the back, then forcing the UK out of the war may well have come much closer to happening.

Instead, they did everything they could to cause problems for direct action and its adherents and made life far more difficult for us than it needed to be. I don't doubt for a minute that direct action, properly planned and executed and with sufficient numbers to carry it out, could have stopped the war or at least taken the UK out of it, but the old left in the form of the SWP did their best to make sure this didn't happen.

As I said -- triumph of the will.
Is that the sounds of a barrel being scraped?

Oh no, RL broke through the barrel and is now industriously tunnelling under it...

Rosa Lichtenstein

1st October 2007, 04:17

Pilgrim:

Is that the sounds of a barrel being scraped?

Stop doing it then.

Oh no, RL broke through the barrel and is now industriously tunnelling under it...

You are only miffed becasue I copied you --, and rather badly.

Do you give lessons? After all, you are the expert and I clearly need help in barrel-scraping.

Devrim

1st October 2007, 09:06

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 11:43 pm
As to whether the working class were strong enough to force the UK out of the war, then that is always a question that will be a fair subject for debate.
Yes, of course it is something that we can debate, but for me the answer is very clear. It wasn't strong enough.

... I do know that the so-called 'leadership' from the SWP/STWC was sorely lacking at every turn and that, had they thrown their weight behind direct action instead of stabbing it in the back, then forcing the UK out of the war may well have come much closer to happening.

Instead, they did everything they could to cause problems for direct action and its adherents and made life far more difficult for us than it needed to be. I don't doubt for a minute that direct action, properly planned and executed and with sufficient numbers to carry it out, could have stopped the war or at least taken the UK out of it, but the old left in the form of the SWP did their best to make sure this didn't happen.

I am not sure what this debate is exactly about. What do you mean by 'direct action'?

Devrim

Rosa Lichtenstein

1st October 2007, 19:26

Devrim, your assessment of the mood of the UK working class in 2003 is correct.

Union leaders made all kinds of noises (and not just in the UK) about stopping this war, and disrupting the war effort. But, as usual they failed to deliver (in fact they did sod all).

By-passing the union bureaucracy is not an option in the UK either; there is no well-organised or extensive shop-floor organisation, as there was in the 1970's.

So, despite the call from the StWC in March 2003 for people to try to disrupt the war effort, it largely fell on deaf ears among workers.

And in the intervening years not much has changed.

redarmyfaction38

2nd October 2007, 00:02

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 01, 2007 06:26 pm
Devrim, your assessment of the mood of the UK working class in 2003 is correct.

Union leaders made all kinds of noises (and not just in the UK) about stopping this war, and disrupting the war effort. But, as usual they failed to deliver (in fact they did sod all).

By-passing the union bureaucracy is not an option in the UK either; there is no well-organised or extensive shop-floor organisation, as there was in the 1970's.

So, despite the call from the StWC in March 2003 for people to try to disrupt the war effort, it largely fell on deaf ears among workers.

And in the intervening years not much has changed.
on the not much has changed front, i would beg to differ!
unions have disaffiliated from labour, a new "shop stewards" movement has arisen.
the amount of industrial action taken, the number of disputes has risen and workers in general seem more prepared to fight the govt.
you have to seperate the actions of apologists for new labour in the trade union leadership from the actions and desires of the membership.
in the north west region of unison, for example, less than 20% of its membership subscribe to the affiliated fund, that is down from over 60%.
again, we are confronted by the defeatism of the swp, its refusal to accept that workers have all ready seen through the bullshit machinations of union leaders and new labour politicians and have taken "direct action" for themselves!
once again, despite all the teachings of marx, lenin and trotsky, the "revolutionary parties", look set to find themselves lagging behind when our class moves into action.
i dunno where you work, who you talk to or how much you earn, but down here in the doldrums, people are angry, people are fed up with politicians and bullshit union leaders, people are looking for a fight, people are looking for some kind of leadership that represents and believes in them and if we on the left don't stop whineing and provide that lead, then the likes of the bnp will take full adantage.

Rosa Lichtenstein

2nd October 2007, 01:51

RAF:

on the not much has changed front, i would beg to differ!
unions have disaffiliated from labour, a new "shop stewards" movement has arisen.

I think the term here should be 'is emerging', but with regard to what I was saying, not much has changed. I stick to that.

Workers as yet in general lack the confidence to go against their leaders (except in a few noteable exceptions -- but then that was the case in 2002/3, too).

True, some (small) unions have disaffiliated, but have they affiliated with anything else? Not yet, as far as I am aware.

the amount of industrial action taken, the number of disputes has risen and workers in general seem more prepared to fight the govt.
you have to seperate the actions of apologists for new labour in the trade union leadership from the actions and desires of the membership.

There has been a small rise in militancy, but still, shabby compromises with employers are rammed down workers' throats, which they in general have accepted (no doubt angrily).

As I said, not much has changed. But things are changing -- and that is promising. Naturally, we will have to see how far it develops. But don't get carried away.

again, we are confronted by the defeatism of the swp, its refusal to accept that workers have all ready seen through the bullshit machinations of union leaders and new labour politicians and have taken "direct action" for themselves!
once again, despite all the teachings of marx, lenin and trotsky, the "revolutionary parties", look set to find themselves lagging behind when our class moves into action

Ah, the sweet point-scoring voice of sectarianism sings out -- how we miss this on the left. We just do not have enough of it.

What defeatism ffs?

i dunno where you work, who you talk to or how much you earn, but down here in the doldrums, people are angry, people are fed up with politicians and bullshit union leaders, people are looking for a fight, people are looking for some kind of leadership that represents and believes in them and if we on the left don't stop whineing and provide that lead, then the likes of the bnp will take full adantage.

People have in fact been angry for nigh on 25 years, ever since Thatcher began her attacks.

But, you need to be able to distinguish anger from a capacity to fight back.

Now I hope that this will emerge soon, but there is no general sign that it is, unlike the situation between 1971-75, for example.

Pilgrim

2nd October 2007, 23:35

Originally posted by devrimankara+October 01, 2007 08:06 am--> (devrimankara @ October 01, 2007 08:06 am)
[email protected] 30, 2007 11:43 pm
As to whether the working class were strong enough to force the UK out of the war, then that is always a question that will be a fair subject for debate.
Yes, of course it is something that we can debate, but for me the answer is very clear. It wasn't strong enough.

... I do know that the so-called 'leadership' from the SWP/STWC was sorely lacking at every turn and that, had they thrown their weight behind direct action instead of stabbing it in the back, then forcing the UK out of the war may well have come much closer to happening.

Instead, they did everything they could to cause problems for direct action and its adherents and made life far more difficult for us than it needed to be. I don't doubt for a minute that direct action, properly planned and executed and with sufficient numbers to carry it out, could have stopped the war or at least taken the UK out of it, but the old left in the form of the SWP did their best to make sure this didn't happen.

I am not sure what this debate is exactly about. What do you mean by 'direct action'?

Devrim [/b]
By 'direct action', Devrim, I mean blockades, property destruction, lock ons, pickets, a general strike (or co-ordinated strikes at least), sabotage and so on.

In short, the sort of thing that actually might have made the UK government sit up and take notice at the very least, to complement or possibly supersede a series of A to B marches in ever decreasing numbers.

By all means let the marchers march, but we should accept the clear fact, as proved by the February 15th march, that mere marching and supposedly 'respectable' forms of protest alone didn't stop the war and were never going to.

redarmyfaction38

2nd October 2007, 23:45

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 02, 2007 12:51 am
RAF:

on the not much has changed front, i would beg to differ!
unions have disaffiliated from labour, a new "shop stewards" movement has arisen.

I think the term here should be 'is emerging', but with regard to what I was saying, not much has changed. I stick to that.

Workers as yet in general lack the confidence to go against their leaders (except in a few noteable exceptions -- but then that was the case in 2002/3, too).

True, some (small) unions have disaffiliated, but have they affiliated with anything else? Not yet, as far as I am aware.

the amount of industrial action taken, the number of disputes has risen and workers in general seem more prepared to fight the govt.
you have to seperate the actions of apologists for new labour in the trade union leadership from the actions and desires of the membership.

There has been a small rise in militancy, but still, shabby compromises with employers are rammed down workers' throats, which they in general have accepted (no doubt angrily).

As I said, not much has changed. But things are changing -- and that is promising. Naturally, we will have to see how far it develops. But don't get carried away.

again, we are confronted by the defeatism of the swp, its refusal to accept that workers have all ready seen through the bullshit machinations of union leaders and new labour politicians and have taken "direct action" for themselves!
once again, despite all the teachings of marx, lenin and trotsky, the "revolutionary parties", look set to find themselves lagging behind when our class moves into action

Ah, the sweet point-scoring voice of sectarianism sings out -- how we miss this on the left. We just do not have enough of it.

What defeatism ffs?

i dunno where you work, who you talk to or how much you earn, but down here in the doldrums, people are angry, people are fed up with politicians and bullshit union leaders, people are looking for a fight, people are looking for some kind of leadership that represents and believes in them and if we on the left don't stop whineing and provide that lead, then the likes of the bnp will take full adantage.

People have in fact been angry for nigh on 25 years, ever since Thatcher began her attacks.

But, you need to be able to distinguish anger from a capacity to fight back.

Now I hope that this will emerge soon, but there is no general sign that it is, unlike the situation between 1971-75, for example.
i apologise immediately for any "sectarian pointscoring", that is not my intention, though, having re read my post, it could be seen that way.
frustration with what i percieve as the "obvious" being ignored and a seeming lack of confidence amongst the "revolutionary left", most apparent in the swp, but not confined to it, i might add, are my main bug bears.
here we are in a political situation where a large minority of the working class have lost all faith, not just in parliamentary politics and new labour but in the trade union leadership in general.
they no longer believe that any established party or political movement represents their interest.
this of course is true.
so what does the swp do about it? it creates "respect", which in itself, the creation of an "alternative" party was absolutely spot on. then what happens, rather than come out with clear "class" based policies, it allies itself with the likes of "gorgeous george" and finds itself mired in the kind of parliamentary, apologise for everything except your fat salary kind of politics that we expect from the established parties and the basically "stalinist" "old" labour party.
it adopts a policy of adapting its policies to whichever minority it wishes to appeal to in a particular area. how cynical and so like the bourgeious politicians is that?
now, understand, i am not anti swp, my local branch secretary is an swp member, he has just been expelled from the union on trumped up charges engineered by the new labour establishment within my former union, to prevent him standing against that establishment and probably winning. i felt that strongly about how he had been treated, i resigned.
this is not a sectarian rant, it's just a wish you'd get your act together, look in the mirror and finally realise that your enemies enemy is not necassirly your friend and us "sectarians" aren't actually "sectarians" but comrades looking for a common way forward without any form of political dictatorship from any element of the revolutionary or anarchist left, not cos we envy them, but, because it would be politically counter productive and stifle the very discussion that produces revolutionary ideas.

Rosa Lichtenstein

3rd October 2007, 00:11

RAF:

frustration with what i percieve as the "obvious" being ignored and a seeming lack of confidence amongst the "revolutionary left", most apparent in the swp, but not confined to it, i might add, are my main bug bears.

This side of a major upswing in the class struggle, we are all 'frustrated' on the left -- but I do not see it affecting the SWP in the way you seem to say.

Left phrase-mongering may lift the spirits (but that cannot work for long, unless one is a complete moron -- or a Spart); so if that is what you are looking for the SWP is not ideal territory.

I can only suggest that you form, or join, your own 'pure' ultra-left party. I hope you do well.

so what does the swp do about it? it creates "respect", which in itself, the creation of an "alternative" party was absolutely spot on. then what happens, rather than come out with clear "class" based policies, it allies itself with the likes of "gorgeous george" and finds itself mired in the kind of parliamentary, apologise for everything except your fat salary kind of politics that we expect from the established parties and the basically "stalinist" "old" labour party.
it adopts a policy of adapting its policies to whichever minority it wishes to appeal to in a particular area. how cynical and so like the bourgeious politicians is that?

In the circumstances we faced three or four years ago, this was the right thing to do -- I suspect that it would not have been done today, if we had to start again from scratch.

And I have heard all these nasty sectarian point-scoring jibes before -- and answered them.

So, spare us.

[I thought you were going to cut them out??]

Devrim

3rd October 2007, 07:09

Originally posted by Pilgrim+October 02, 2007 10:35 pm--> (Pilgrim @ October 02, 2007 10:35 pm) By 'direct action', Devrim, I mean blockades, property destruction, lock ons, pickets, a general strike (or co-ordinated strikes at least), sabotage and so on.

[/b]
The thing that I find quite bizarre here is the call for 'a general strike (or co-ordinated strikes at least)'. There was absolutely no possibility of a general strike being organised against the war. To believe that there was is to live in a fantasy land.

Actually, I can only recall one strike action by workers against the wars in Iraq. There was an strike in Adana against the first war. To talk about coordinating strikes that are not happening is wishful thinking.

The other actions that you talk about are all actions that can be carried out by minorities, but strike action is mass action of the class. It is very important to recognise the difference between the two.

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected]
Left phrase-mongering may lift the spirits (but that cannot work for long, unless one is a complete moron -- or a Spart)

To me the comment on a general strike sounds exactly like that. I remember when I worked in London, the Trotskyists were constantly calling for a general strike. It didn't work then in the middle of the Miners' strike when the idea of a general strike found resonance amongst the working class. What makes you think that today is different.

Rosa Lichtenstein
I can only suggest that you form, or join, your own 'pure' ultra-left party. I hope you do well.

Actually, the so-called 'ultra-left' doesn't indulge in these practices at all. They call for what is possible in the current situation.

Devrim

Rosa Lichtenstein

3rd October 2007, 07:14

Devrim:

To me the comment on a general strike sounds exactly like that. I remember when I worked in London, the Trotskyists were constantly calling for a general strike. It didn't work then in the middle of the Miners' strike when the idea of a general strike found resonance amongst the working class. What makes you think that today is different.

Not, though, the SWP. You are thinking of Militant, I reckon.

Actually, the so-called 'ultra-left' doesn't indulge in these practices at all. They call for what is possible in the current situation.

I am not sure about that!

Devrim

3rd October 2007, 07:27

Originally posted by Rosa Lichtenstein+October 03, 2007 06:14 am--> (Rosa Lichtenstein @ October 03, 2007 06:14 am) Devrim:

To me the comment on a general strike sounds exactly like that. I remember when I worked in London, the Trotskyists were constantly calling for a general strike. It didn't work then in the middle of the Miners' strike when the idea of a general strike found resonance amongst the working class. What makes you think that today is different.

Not, though, the SWP. You are thinking of Militant, I reckon.

[/b]
Actually, I was thinking of WRPs.

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected]

Devrim
Actually, the so-called 'ultra-left' doesn't indulge in these practices at all. They call for what is possible in the current situation.

I am not sure about that!

It is partly because 'ultra-left' is when it comes down to it a very meaningless term. I think that we can give it two distinct meanings.

One is in its historical sense where it refers to the left current in the Third International, and their political descendants. That is how I was using it. It is generally used as an insult though.

The other is just an insult used to mean anybody more 'left' than your own organisation. This use is totally devoid of any real meaning. I have even heard it used in this context to describe the SWP. I feel that this is how Rosa is using it when she says she is not so sure.

Devrim

Rosa Lichtenstein

3rd October 2007, 08:07

Devrim, I think it was clear from my use of this word that I was referring to phrase-mongered lefty slogans that look radical but do not relate to any real perspectives on the state of the working class, or the balance of class forces.

Devrim

3rd October 2007, 09:41

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 03, 2007 07:07 am
Devrim, I think it was clear from my use of this word that I was referring to phrase-mongered lefty slogans that look radical but do not relate to any real perspectives on the state of the working class, or the balance of class forces.
Which would make you right by definition.

I don't think that it is at all a useful term though.

Devrim

Rosa Lichtenstein

3rd October 2007, 16:55

Devrim, there is nothing wrong with being right by definition (even if that were what I was doing).

Since when have we complained about, say, a particular capitalist (or capitalist enterprise) being branded 'capitalist' because it satifies the definition of a capitalist concern?

And it is no more nor no less useful than many of the other things us Marxists use.

Devrim

3rd October 2007, 18:23

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 03, 2007 03:55 pm
Since when have we complained about, say, a particular capitalist (or capitalist enterprise) being branded 'capitalist' because it satifies the definition of a capitalist concern?

And it is no more nor no less useful than many of the other things us Marxists use.
The problem with it is that it has two meanings. One of them is just an insult, the other has some historical context, as explained above.

Of course, I object more as it is associated with our current, but I am surprised to hear the SWP use it, knowing it must have been used against them at times.

It is off the point anyway.

Devrim

Rosa Lichtenstein

3rd October 2007, 20:50

I meant it in the second sense.

redarmyfaction38

3rd October 2007, 23:43

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 02, 2007 11:11 pm
RAF:

frustration with what i percieve as the "obvious" being ignored and a seeming lack of confidence amongst the "revolutionary left", most apparent in the swp, but not confined to it, i might add, are my main bug bears.

This side of a major upswing in the class struggle, we are all 'frustrated' on the left -- but I do not see it affecting the SWP in the way you seem to say.

Left phrase-mongering may lift the spirits (but that cannot work for long, unless one is a complete moron -- or a Spart); so if that is what you are looking for the SWP is not ideal territory.

I can only suggest that you form, or join, your own 'pure' ultra-left party. I hope you do well.

so what does the swp do about it? it creates "respect", which in itself, the creation of an "alternative" party was absolutely spot on. then what happens, rather than come out with clear "class" based policies, it allies itself with the likes of "gorgeous george" and finds itself mired in the kind of parliamentary, apologise for everything except your fat salary kind of politics that we expect from the established parties and the basically "stalinist" "old" labour party.
it adopts a policy of adapting its policies to whichever minority it wishes to appeal to in a particular area. how cynical and so like the bourgeious politicians is that?

In the circumstances we faced three or four years ago, this was the right thing to do -- I suspect that it would not have been done today, if we had to start again from scratch.

And I have heard all these nasty sectarian point-scoring jibes before -- and answered them.

So, spare us.

[I thought you were going to cut them out??]
oh dear, unfortunately for you, i've just read a post by an ex swp member decrying the lack of "democratic debate" within the swp, the lack of "internal information" handed down to its me3mbers, its "well recorded swings from left to right and back".
soz, but if thats what your own members think of you, accusing me of "sectarianism" sounds just like old "uncle joe stalin" decrying trotsky as "an agent of capital".
bullshit.
now, i know for a fact, that the "sectarians" in the sp, looking to aid the creation of a "new workers party" opened discussions with the swp leadership on support for respect and playing their part in furthering the interests of that party. the swp leadership rejected these overtures on the basis that the sp could not operate independantly within that party (criticise the policies of the swp leadership) or maintain any kind of "democratic debate" within that party.
now, lets have a little think about that.
lets have a look at new labour and how it was created from the deathbed of the old reformist labour party, lets have a lok at the political machinations of new labour adherents within the trade union movement.
lets look at how both swp members and sp members are being witch hunted from their positions within the trade union movement.
lets look at who sounds and acts more like the witch hunters.
it aint the sp. the swp decries the "organisational methods" ofr new labour to deny its members their rightful opportunity to stand against a butt licking new labour leadership, but at the sae time refuses to alow democratic debate within its own party or enter in to any kind of alliance with fellow socialists where it may have to justify its policies!
now take your "leaders" are always right head off and start thinking about what "socialism" is suppossed to be about and, maybe, you'll begin to understand why most workers, view the swp and its orphaned baby respect with the utmost suspicion.

Rosa Lichtenstein

4th October 2007, 01:09

RAF:

oh dear, unfortunately for you, i've just read a post by an ex swp member decrying the lack of "democratic debate" within the swp, the lack of "internal information" handed down to its me3mbers, its "well recorded swings from left to right and back".
soz, but if thats what your own members think of you, accusing me of "sectarianism" sounds just like old "uncle joe stalin" decrying trotsky as "an agent of capital".

Yes, well you'd expect that, wouldn't you?

And it looks like you are only here in this thread to make sectarian points.

So I see no reason to continue debating with you.

Die Neue Zeit

4th October 2007, 02:53

^^^ Rosa, I think you're overestimating the impact of dialectics on sectarianism. I think other posters may have noted this before (and I have read your back-and-forth "discussions" with them), but the real problem with sectarianism is the lack of a "Leninist" approach to organization. You yourself are a self-proclaimed non-dialectical Trotskyist, and I have many times outlined the fundamental organizational problems associated with Trotskyism.

You yourself said that Trotskyists are the "best" sectarians (ie, being more sectarian than their Stalinist and Maoist brethren). Coincidence? [I'll toss in the notion of "totality" just to irk you before you go to bed. :D ;) ]

Devrim

4th October 2007, 06:55

I will leave you to argue about what type of parliamentary party the working class needs. Maybe the real question you should be asking is whether it needs one at all.
Devrim

Rosa Lichtenstein

4th October 2007, 12:30

Hammer:

Rosa, I think you're overestimating the impact of dialectics on sectarianism. I think other posters may have noted this before (and I have read your back-and-forth "discussions" with them), but the real problem with sectarianism is the lack of a "Leninist" approach to organization. You yourself are a self-proclaimed non-dialectical Trotskyist, and I have many times outlined the fundamental organizational problems associated with Trotskyism.

Since I passed no developed opinion on this here, how can I have 'over-estimated' it?

And not all problems as organisational. Some are ideological.

Human beings (including Marxists) have ideas in their heads, and these are a product of their social being.

Given that most Marxists these days are non-workers, and enter the movement as individuals, and carry that petty-bourgeois individualism with them into the party, it is no surprise they like this ruling class 'theory', since it makes them feel important as individuals (they become the individual carrier and protector of this sacred theory, and it places them at an important juncture in world history so their actions become central to human progress) -- so no wonder they defend it with all the bile at their command, and use it to control others. Since it is easier to control a small party than a large one, fragmentation becomes paramount.

In that case, dialectics cannot but have a part to play.

It is not the cause of sectarianism, but it certainly helps make it worse -- this is becasue it sanctions any conclusion you like. Anything whatsoever can be justified (and has been justified) using this contradictory theory --, and if you complain, well you just do not "understand dialectics".

So, it is a very useful device in that it allows comrades to turn personal issues and personality disorders (which Marxists have in abundance) into politcal differences.

Check out the Communist League thread for the latest example.

More details here:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2009_02.htm

Zurdito

4th October 2007, 18:45

Devrim, your assessment of the mood of the UK working class in 2003 is correct.

Right, the job of a vanguard party is to change people's mood and to make the working class stronger, not to rubber stamp the existing consensus. Would a call for a general strike have been successful - maybe not - but IF union leaders want to express condemnation of a war, then you have to test that commitment and push it as far as you can, make them publically explain why they won't take action against the war, change the terms of the debate to get the call out there.

You probably think this would have been suicidal for the SWP or something, but this is a static view of the working class. Surely a vanguard party has to be ahead of the consciousness of the time and provide a framework and leadership for advanced workers, and win the respect of the working class through honesty and principled politics rather than demagoguery - I mean just getting a million people for one nice anti-war picnic in the park acheives fuck all.

This isn't ultraleftism either. Ultra-leftism ignores the conditions of the time. you don't call for a strike against an action which the majority of workers and union leaders support. However once the majority of workers and all union leaders say they want to acheive an end, the job of a vanguard is to objectively tell them how they can acheive that end. And if you don't convince the unions, so what - the worst that happened was that you alienated a corrupt bureaucracy, and drove a wedge between them and their advanced members.

Devrim - the ones who called for a general strike every day were the Workers Revolutionary Party. They were an ultra-left sect - Healyites. However calling for a strike when the workers have expressed their desire to achieve an ends only, and fully, acheivable through those means, is justified. That would be a case of real leadership rather than patronising people by telling them they aren't strong and then refusing to help them become strong.

Rosa Lichtenstein

4th October 2007, 20:14

Z:

Right, the job of a vanguard party is to change people's mood and to make the working class stronger, not to rubber stamp the existing consensus. Would a call for a general strike have been successful - maybe not - but IF union leaders want to express condemnation of a war, then you have to test that commitment and push it as far as you can, make them publically explain why they won't take action against the war, change the terms of the debate to get the call out there.

1) No 'vanguard party' can change the mood of the class, unless it is a mass party -- but that will only happen after the 'mood' of the class has already changed.

2) Struggle, not preaching to workers, changes their mood. That is, it does so unless you are an idealist.

Social being, not the 'vanguard' determines the consciousness of workers. If you think ideas change workers, you are no Marxist -- you are an Idealist.

Sure, advanced sections of the working class can always be won over, but the vast bulk will only shift when their social being (decided in struggle) alters.

So, you are an ultra-leftist, and Idealist, who seems to think workers need to be 'taught' socialism.

Classic substitutionism, and 'triumph of the will'.

Zurdito

5th October 2007, 00:28

the workers who took direct action against the war didn't need to be taught socialism, they needed a party which would back them up. If the self-proclaimed Socialist Workers Party won't even do that when these workers are acting on a cause supported by the majority of workers and 100% of trade unions, then no wonder direct actions was never considered a serious option. I think it's you who's no Marxist if you lower yourself to the lowest level of working class consciousness in any given situation. how do you hope to inflame the class struggle in order to provide the material conditions needed for mass class consciousness this way?

Rosa Lichtenstein

5th October 2007, 01:09

Z:

the workers who took direct action against the war didn't need to be taught socialism, they needed a party which would back them up. If the self-proclaimed Socialist Workers Party won't even do that when these workers are acting on a cause supported by the majority of workers and 100% of trade unions, then no wonder direct actions was never considered a serious option. I think it's you who's no Marxist if you lower yourself to the lowest level of working class consciousness in any given situation. how do you hope to inflame the class struggle in order to provide the material conditions needed for mass class consciousness this way?

Sure, but there weren't enough of these -- even though we might wish this were otherwise.

And, you may want the SWP to copy your elitist stunts, and preach to workers, but we are going to need something a little more convincing than your committment to idealism to sway us.

And the class struggle has a dynmanic of its own; we can neither speed it up nor slow it down -- even if we waned to (which we do not).

catch

5th October 2007, 01:17

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 06:09 am

The thing that I find quite bizarre here is the call for 'a general strike (or co-ordinated strikes at least)'. There was absolutely no possibility of a general strike being organised against the war. To believe that there was is to live in a fantasy land.

Yeah, it's usually groups like Workers Power that do the "call a general strike" chant all day. Of course this means calling on the union leadership to call a general strike, from the middle of demo on a megaphone or outside tube stations selling papers. It's really pointless.

Actually, I can only recall one strike action by workers against the wars in Iraq.

The other actions that you talk about are all actions that can be carried out by minorities, but strike action is mass action of the class. It is very important to recognise the difference between the two.
There were mass walkouts by school students around the time the war broke out, that was about the only thing encouraging that happened (although the massive numbers on the two big demos, useless though they were, were unusual). The students would walk out, sit in the road for a bit, small scale and didn't last long but worth noting they occurred.

I got involved in one direct action demo (of Old Street roundabout outside the foundry) - had nothing to do with the organising groups, went to one open meeting (never again, worst meeting ever) - it's never going to have a practical effect without anything wider happening, and has become extremely ritualised now even on its own terms.

Zurdito

5th October 2007, 01:17

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 05, 2007 12:09 am
And the class struggle has a dynmanic of its own; we can neither speed it up nor slow it down -- even if we waned to (which we do not).
so what exactly is the point of you then?

Rosa Lichtenstein

5th October 2007, 01:33

Z:

so what exactly is the point of you then?

The role of a Leninist party is to move the class struggle in such a way that workers can change society permanently in their own interest and of their own actions.

In the intervening period, Leninist parties seek to gain the trust of workers, and recruit the most advanced sections to their ranks.

But they do not preach to workers, nor get them to indulge in stunts (that would destroy their trust).

Die Neue Zeit

5th October 2007, 05:09

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 04, 2007 04:30 am
Since I passed no developed opinion on this here, how can I have 'over-estimated' it?

And not all problems as organisational. Some are ideological.

Human beings (including Marxists) have ideas in their heads, and these are a product of their social being.

Given that most Marxists these days are non-workers, and enter the movement as individuals, and carry that petty-bourgeois individualism with them into the party, it is no surprise they like this ruling class 'theory', since it makes them feel important as individuals (they become the individual carrier and protector of this sacred theory, and it places them at an important juncture in world history so their actions become central to human progress) -- so no wonder they defend it with all the bile at their command, and use it to control others. Since it is easier to control a small party than a large one, fragmentation becomes paramount.

In that case, dialectics cannot but have a part to play.

It is not the cause of sectarianism, but it certainly helps make it worse -- this is because it sanctions any conclusion you like. Anything whatsoever can be justified (and has been justified) using this contradictory theory --, and if you complain, well you just do not "understand dialectics".

So, it is a very useful device in that it allows comrades to turn personal issues and personality disorders (which Marxists have in abundance) into political differences.

Check out the Communist League thread for the latest example.
Hmmm, I see your point (the ideology of "individualism" still being present). :)

As much as I hate to admit it, but I think that Marxists should be more open to some social-utilitarian approaches in order to eliminate "individualism," even while keeping in mind Marx's critique of Bentham's specific views of utility. [Remember my thread awhile back on utilitarianism when I was a newbie here? ;) ]

Rosa Lichtenstein

5th October 2007, 06:45

The problem with utilitarianism, in all its forms, is that it is a consequentialist theory.

And as such it is a hostage to fortune -- it thus suffers from all the weaknesses of inductive logic, and largely for the same reasons.

Marxists should not, therefore, touch it even with someone else's barge pole.

redarmyfaction38

6th October 2007, 23:48

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 04, 2007 11:30 am
Hammer:

Rosa, I think you're overestimating the impact of dialectics on sectarianism. I think other posters may have noted this before (and I have read your back-and-forth "discussions" with them), but the real problem with sectarianism is the lack of a "Leninist" approach to organization. You yourself are a self-proclaimed non-dialectical Trotskyist, and I have many times outlined the fundamental organizational problems associated with Trotskyism.

Since I passed no developed opinion on this here, how can I have 'over-estimated' it?

And not all problems as organisational. Some are ideological.

Human beings (including Marxists) have ideas in their heads, and these are a product of their social being.

Given that most Marxists these days are non-workers, and enter the movement as individuals, and carry that petty-bpourgeois individualism with them into the party, it is no surprise they like this ruling class 'theory', since it makes them feel important as individuals (they become the individual carrier and protector of this sacred theory, and it places them at an important juncture in world history so their actions become central to human progress) -- so no wonder they defend it with all the bile at their command, and use it to control others. Since it is easier to control a small party than a large one, fragmentation becomes paramount.

In that case, dialectics cannot but have a part to play.

It is not the cause of sectarianism, but it certainly helps make it worse -- this is becasue it sanctions any conclusion you like. Anything whatsoever can be justified (and has been justified) using this contradictory theory --, and if you complain, well you just do not "understand dialectics".

So, it is a very useful device in that it allows comrades to turn personal issues and personality disorders (which Marxists have in abundance) into politcal differences.

Check out the Communist League thread for the latest example.

More details here:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2009_02.htm
now you really have delved into the depths of popular misconception!!!!!
"marxism" is only taught to the "middle classes", the working class live and breath it ffs!
what the beejesus do you think all these strikes against privatisation of the postal service are about?
what do you think the hatred of govt and the accepted political regime are about?
they are a simple recognition by the working class that their interests cannot be served by the agents of capital or their servants within the "labour" movement.
just cos they don't shout about "workers revolution" or the coming "workers state" or argue about trotskies definition of socialism against that of joe stalin or chairman mao, don't mean we are in retreat, it just means, as a class as a whole, wec are not politically educated enough, but that will change, not from lectures from the middle clas socialists, but from the butt kicking experience of challenging the vstate.
for an swp apologist, you have a politically short memory, i fought side by side with swp members during the miners strike, not one of them would have sunk to the depths you have.

Rosa Lichtenstein

7th October 2007, 01:51

RAF:

"marxism" is only taught to the "middle classes", the working class live and breath it ffs!

what the beejesus do you think all these strikes against privatisation of the postal service are about?

That is about as stupid as saying a falling apple is obeying Newton, or that planets "live and breathe" Newtonism.

I am not sure if you know any workers, but few of them have heard of Marx, let alone of Marxism.

And few in the 'middle classes' have learnt Marxism, either -- or have been 'taught' it, even though many will have heard of it (and only bad things, at that).

You are confusing the class struggle with Marxist theory. The former would happen even if there had been no Marx, and no Marxists. And it will continue even if Marxism dies away.

The latter on the other hand is ignored by workers.

just cos they don't shout about "workers revolution" or the coming "workers state" or argue about trotskies definition of socialism against that of joe stalin or chairman mao, don't mean we are in retreat, it just means, as a class as a whole, wec are not politically educated enough, but that will change, not from lectures from the middle clas socialists, but from the butt kicking experience of challenging the vstate.

for an swp apologist, you have a politically short memory, i fought side by side with swp members during the miners strike, not one of them would have sunk to the depths you have.

Fine sounding rhetoric, but none of it amounts to much more than hot air.

You seem to think that noisy chest beating is an argument. :lol:

redarmyfaction38

7th October 2007, 23:35

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 07, 2007 12:51 am

"marxism" is only taught to the "middle classes", the working class live and breath it ffs!

what the beejesus do you think all these strikes against privatisation of the postal service are about?

That is about as stupid as saying a falling apple is obeying Newton, or that planets "live and breathe" Newtonism.

I am not sure if you know any workers, but few of them have heard of Marx, let alone of Marxism.

And few in the 'middle classes' have learnt Marxism, either -- or have been 'taught' it, even though many will have heard of it (and only bad things, at that).

You are confusing the class struggle with Marxist theory. The former would happen even if there had been no Marx, and no Marxists. And it will continue even if Marxism dies away.

The latter on the other hand is ignored by workers.

just cos they don't shout about "workers revolution" or the coming "workers state" or argue about trotskies definition of socialism against that of joe stalin or chairman mao, don't mean we are in retreat, it just means, as a class as a whole, wec are not politically educated enough, but that will change, not from lectures from the middle clas socialists, but from the butt kicking experience of challenging the vstate.

for an swp apologist, you have a politically short memory, i fought side by side with swp members during the miners strike, not one of them would have sunk to the depths you have.

Fine sounding rhetoric, but none of it amounts to much more than hot air.

You seem to think that noisy chest beating is an argument. :lol:
bollox!
your argument is just bollox.
rather than accept a fully paid up member of the working class might have an opinion that differs from yours, might just have bothered to educate himself politically, not just through reading a few books, but through the experience of "class struggle" (strikes to the likes of you).
you deride your "opponent" with unsubstantiated accussations and the actual rejection of marxist theory!
marx never stated that the workers would read his theory and follow its conclusions, he said they would reach those conclusions through experience and vtheir battles with the "bourgeouisie".
it might help you to understand if you nremember that marx wrote his theoretical analysis at a time whem workers were moving into struggle for democracy without even having othered to read a book let alone a political diatribe by a little known philosopher.
how fucking dare you deride my class!
you can talk a fuckin revolution as much as you like, we have to deal with the reality of day to day living under the capitalisrt system as it feels at the bottom of society.
you and the apologist for capital and stalinism swp live in a fucking dream world, where you are the only "bearers of the truth and revolutionary socialism", you don't tolerate dissent within your own party and accuse all other socialist or anarchist parties of "sectarianism" when they disagree with you, yet those self same parties are working on alliances, not in their own political interest, butb in the interests of the class they come from abnd generally represent.

the word "HYPOCRITES" springs readily to mind.
to misquote "boys from the blackstuff".
"the only proplemm with the socialist workers party mate, is your probably the only worker in it".
the original reference was to the "workers" revolutionary party.
having actually lived through the late 60s and 70s, i can see how the swp has failed to move on, i can see how, like the "radical trade union leaders" of that time, the swp is stuck in a time warp, i can see, how like some of the "radical" trade union leaders of that time, its "leaders" will turn out to be long term agents of the bourgeouisie, especially after reading the crap you come out with.

Rosa Lichtenstein

8th October 2007, 00:30

RAF:

bollox!
your argument is just bollox.

Profound stuff!

Now why did I not think of that before?It would have saved me 10 years' work!

rather than accept a fully paid up member of the working class might have an opinion that differs from yours, might just have bothered to educate himself politically, not just through reading a few books, but through the experience of "class struggle" (strikes to the likes of you).

Look, I have been in and around the working class now since the late 1960s -- indeed I took part in the great postal worker's strike of 1971, as a postal worker -- and even then, there was precious little mention of Marx.

Not only am I now a trade union rep (unpaid), I have been involved in support of other workers now for well over 35 years.

So you can stick those slanders.

you deride your "opponent" with unsubstantiated accussations and the actual rejection of marxist theory!

marx never stated that the workers would read his theory and follow its conclusions, he said they would reach those conclusions through experience and vtheir battles with the "bourgeouisie".

it might help you to understand if you nremember that marx wrote his theoretical analysis at a time whem workers were moving into struggle for democracy without even having othered to read a book let alone a political diatribe by a little known philosopher.

Where do I say workers reject Marx's theory?

What I do say is they know next to nothing, or nothing of it.

But, perhaps you can point us to the many hundreds of millions of workers who are avid readers of Das Kapital?

What I do say is that they reject Dialectical Marxism, which is quite apparent from the fact that no one single Dialectical Marxist party can boast membership levels that rise much above the risible.

So, get your facts right before you mouth-off in future.

how fucking dare you deride my class!

And what class is this? The class of those who cannot read plain English?

you and the apologist for capital and stalinism swp live in a fucking dream world, where you are the only "bearers of the truth and revolutionary socialism", you don't tolerate dissent within your own party and accuse all other socialist or anarchist parties of "sectarianism" when they disagree with you, yet those self same parties are working on alliances, not in their own political interest, butb in the interests of the class they come from abnd generally represent

You really are a sad twat aren't you?

The SWP apologists for Stalin?

WTF are you on about?

And, may I remind you, that it is you who is the sectarian here.

I accused you of nothing until you began to lose it, and throw accusations all about the place.

the word "HYPOCRITES" springs readily to mind.

And in your case, the word 'plonker' forces itself upon us.

having actually lived through the late 60s and 70s, i can see how the swp has failed to move on, i can see how, like the "radical trade union leaders" of that time, the swp is stuck in a time warp, i can see, how like some of the "radical" trade union leaders of that time, its "leaders" will turn out to be long term agents of the bourgeouisie, especially after reading the crap you come out with.

Yes, and we can all see how 'successful' you have been since then, can't we?

Remind us: where is this workers' state you and the rest of your lot have established?

redarmyfaction38

11th October 2007, 00:52

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 07, 2007 11:30 pm
RAF:

bollox!
your argument is just bollox.

Profound stuff!

Now why did I not think of that before?It would have saved me 10 years' work!

rather than accept a fully paid up member of the working class might have an opinion that differs from yours, might just have bothered to educate himself politically, not just through reading a few books, but through the experience of "class struggle" (strikes to the likes of you).

Look, I have been in and around the working class now since the late 1960s -- indeed I took part in the great postal worker's strike of 1971, as a postal worker -- and even then, there was precious little mention of Marx.

Not only am I now a trade union rep (unpaid), I have been involved in support of other workers now for well over 35 years.

So you can stick those slanders.

you deride your "opponent" with unsubstantiated accussations and the actual rejection of marxist theory!

marx never stated that the workers would read his theory and follow its conclusions, he said they would reach those conclusions through experience and vtheir battles with the "bourgeouisie".

it might help you to understand if you nremember that marx wrote his theoretical analysis at a time whem workers were moving into struggle for democracy without even having othered to read a book let alone a political diatribe by a little known philosopher.

Where do I say workers reject Marx's theory?

What I do say is they know next to nothing, or nothing of it.

But, perhaps you can point us to the many hundreds of millions of workers who are avid readers of Das Kapital?

What I do say is that they reject Dialectical Marxism, which is quite apparent from the fact that no one single Dialectical Marxist party can boast membership levels that rise much above the risible.

So, get your facts right before you mouth-off in future.

how fucking dare you deride my class!

And what class is this? The class of those who cannot read plain English?

you and the apologist for capital and stalinism swp live in a fucking dream world, where you are the only "bearers of the truth and revolutionary socialism", you don't tolerate dissent within your own party and accuse all other socialist or anarchist parties of "sectarianism" when they disagree with you, yet those self same parties are working on alliances, not in their own political interest, butb in the interests of the class they come from abnd generally represent

You really are a sad twat aren't you?

The SWP apologists for Stalin?

WTF are you on about?

And, may I remind you, that it is you who is the sectarian here.

I accused you of nothing until you began to lose it, and throw accusations all about the place.

the word "HYPOCRITES" springs readily to mind.

And in your case, the word 'plonker' forces itself upon us.

having actually lived through the late 60s and 70s, i can see how the swp has failed to move on, i can see how, like the "radical trade union leaders" of that time, the swp is stuck in a time warp, i can see, how like some of the "radical" trade union leaders of that time, its "leaders" will turn out to be long term agents of the bourgeouisie, especially after reading the crap you come out with.

Yes, and we can all see how 'successful' you have been since then, can't we?

Remind us: where is this workers' state you and the rest of your lot have established?
and that really is the point innit?

"where is the workers state" that me and mine, supposedly promised.

soz luv, i never promised anybody anything, apart from my wife that is, and i've kept that promise.

like most marxists and anarchists, i've never pretended that i could change the world for people, i've always insisted they had to do it for themselves.
it starts on a personal level, you start to question the "values" handed down to you, you start to question the "solutions" presented to you by "those "in the know"" and then you start thinking about common interest as opposed to personal interest and which, as a worker, serves you better.
after that luv, it all becomes obvious.
you can talk about "the vanguard of the proletariat", lenins thesis on "state and revolution and the roke of the proletariat" until you're blue in the face.
it means fuch all.
the average worker, engaged in the daily struggle to pay his mortgage, council tax and feed his family, aint intersted in theory, all he wants, is a means to kick back.
what we as "socialists" and "anarchists" have to do, is convince him he can, give him advice, based on the experience of previous attempts by our class to free themselves.
we are not goda, neither were marx, rngels nietzcghe or any otgher philospher you might care to mention.
the whole point of our existence is that we are workera, politicaly aware and CONSCIOUSLY engaged in the struggle for emancipation, our role, is to turn the POLITICALLY UNCONSCIOUS struggle of our fwelows into a CONSCIOUS struggle against capitalism.
this is where you and your POLITICAL party fall down, you se yourselves as a "leading cadre", part of but better than the working class, superior in knowledge ad organisational ability.
as i said before, the only intelligent answer to such arrogance is bollox.
marx basedc his theories not on the ability of "revolutionary parties" but oN THE ACTIONS of the working class.
his wAS a logical assumption, that, having beent6he foot soldiers for bourgeouis revolutions, the working class, would, eventually, create a classless society based on its values, i.e. common interest rather than a superior class.
that is the future ALL revolutionary parties should have in mind.
rather than the petty political ambitions ofg the swp and its compromises with stalinist careerists like gallowaY and compromisees with anti working class organisations based on religion rather than class interest.

Rosa Lichtenstein

11th October 2007, 17:37

RAF thanks for that low grade and semi-coherent rant -- I bet you write letters in green ink too.

But, the bottom line is you dialectical mystics are the non-existent deity's gift to failure.

Truth tested in practice?

Result: history has refuted dialectics.

And no wonder, given its mystical provenance.

No surprise then that workers ignore you lot in their billions.

Have a nice fume... :)

redarmyfaction38

23rd October 2007, 21:44

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 11, 2007 04:37 pm
RAF thanks for that low grade and semi-coherent rant -- I bet you write letters in green ink too.

But, the bottom line is you dialectical mystics are the non-existent deity's gift to failure.

Truth tested in practice?

Result: history has refuted dialectics.

And no wonder, given its mystical provenance.

No surprise then that workers ignore you lot in their billions.

Have a nice fume... :)
so on the one hand you dismiss dialectical materialism and on the other you declare your support for a supposedly "marxist" party.

which all goes to prove my point, in fact, it takes it even further than i had dared to step!

in your opinion, as a member of the swp, marxism has no place in your party and has no part to play in the future, i'm led vto conclude, therefore, you are neithe socialist or a workers party.
sound familiar to you, or is the degeneration of the soviet workers state something swp members aren't encouraged to study?
its quite ironic really, the right always denounce the swp as "trotskyists".

now i begin to understand why the "frankfurt school of marxism" is always quoted at me by right wingers, you lot follow its programme, denying the role of the working class and putting yourselves forward as the holders of all revolutionary knowledge.
and i begin to understand why you won't join the campaign for a new workers party, unlike many other socialist parties, militant trade unionists, trotskists etc. you don't believe in the self emancipation of the working class! you just wanna be the new boss.....just like the old boss.

Hit The North

23rd October 2007, 22:20

RAF are you okay? You seem to be raving.

redarmyfaction38

2nd November 2007, 01:30

Originally posted by Citizen [email protected] 23, 2007 09:20 pm
RAF are you okay? You seem to be raving.
yes i am ok. i wasn't "raving", i just get pissed off when "comrades" who should know better, put the cart before the horse!
if you're a marxist/ socialist revolutionary/ anarchist, you should, by now, understand, that the working class are the "revolutionary class", all bourgeouis avenues of progress have been explored and failed to provide our class with the political supremacy it has earnt.
you should also understand, given the nature of capitalist society, that this struglle for political supremacy is largely unconscious.
the role of us politically conscious workers, is to turn the unconscious into the conscious.
that isn't a rant. thats marxism/leninism/trotskyism or just plain common sense imo.

redarmyfaction38

2nd November 2007, 01:41

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 10:50 am

The SWP has led the STWC not in a militant socialist manner but in a populist and oppertunist one in my view. For instance the presence of the Liberal Democracts on STWC platforms, muslim "community leaders", aka right wing reactionaries, who hold an ufortunate sway with a section of the UK working class.

The whole point of STWC was to be as broad and open as possible. STWC is an anti-war organisation, nothing more, so we're not going to exclude people who are anti-war but don't agree with us on say, the concept of socialism from below. This is why STWC has had many more successes than the small, inward-looking organisations who 'wont let you in unless you support the Iraqi Resistance' et al.

Are we really going to win people to socialism from outside an organisation, by excluding them because their credibilities aren't socialist? That has been the tactic by others in the past and has failed miserably. By playing a part in STWC we can make our arguments on the inside of the group to try and get people round to our way of thinking.

I have been rutinely frustraited by the mildness of speakers who are senior members of revolutionary socialist oragnsiations getting up and condeminng the war not from a class point of view but because its "unwinable", "immoral", and worse of all illegal!

Sounds to me like the CWI's tactic, where they speak that the war is 'costing money which could go to the working class etc etc' sort of schtick, and that has simply not worked or engaged with people on the same level as the arguments (primarily) of Stop The War.

Why should we not go on abou tthe war being 'illegal'? In my opinion it shows that the capitalists cannot even abide by the rules that they set out for themselves, highlighting the absolute hypocracy of the situation.
the cwi tactic, whilst not engaging the "moral high ground" is probably the most effective.
i say this from experience, back in the 80s, during the miners strike, as a shop steward for nupe, i argued support for the miners and industrial action by the healthy service unions as a united front against the tory govt.
i got kicked out of court, so to speak, those that wanted industrial action, turned to me and said, "why didn't you just say " the govt. is locked in a battle with the miners, if we vote to strike, they'll pay us off so they don't have to fight on two fronts".
morality doesn't come into it, tactics are everything.