SWP expulsions

[Devrim]

It goes on:


Originally posted by Socialist Unity
News has just broken that long term SWP members Kevin Ovenden and Rob Hoverman, have been expelled from the party, along with Nick Wrack. Nick joined the SWP three years ago and was a former editor of the Militant newspaper, so he is also an experienced, long term socialist.

http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=824

Devrim

[LSD]

Splitters!

Quickly comrades, we must rally to overcome the crisis! Our struggle cannot survive without the glorious leadership of Sherwin-Williams Paint, I mean, the Socialist Workers Party!

"The crisis continues"... :rolleyes:

[Led Zeppelin]

Why were they kicked out?

[Devrim]

Originally posted by Led [email protected] 15, 2007 07:32 am
Why were they kicked out?
Read the link.
Devrim

[Led Zeppelin]

Ok, for the comfort of other members I'll just post it here:


News has just broken that long term SWP members Kevin Ovenden and Rob Hoverman, have been expelled from the party, along with Nick Wrack. Nick joined the SWP three years ago and was a former editor of the Militant newspaper, so he is also an experienced, long term socialist.

The expulsions followed an ultimatum to Nick that he should turn down the position of Respect national organiser or resign from the SWP. A similar ultimatum was given to Rob and Kev that they should stop working in George Galloway’s office, or leave the SWP.

These three comrades have been internally critical of the SWP Central Committee’s handling of Respect, but have been very disciplined by not airing that criticism outside the ranks of the SWP. There still remain critics of the CC’s position within the SWP, including some very well known comrades, but the expulsions are obvioulsy a shot over their bows as well.

[catch]

So the SWP spent a lot of energy getting their 'cadre' into leading positions within Respect, and three got a bit too comfy when the CC changed their mind. hehe.

[A.J.]

You may be a Trot if... you refer to a recent breakup with a girlfriend as a factional split.

You may be a Trot if... every one of your friends heads his own International.

You may be a Trot if... your mom shouting "dinner's ready!" has ever prevented a split in your Party

You might be a Trotskyite if your in an organization with 10 people that broke off from an organization that had 20 people after that orgranization split from another organization that had 40 people which had a schism a week prior with an organization that had 80 people after it turned to Trotskyism.

[Redmau5]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 05:24 pm
You may be a Trot if... you refer to a recent breakup with a girlfriend as a factional split.

You may be a Trot if... every one of your friends heads his own International.

You may be a Trot if... your mom shouting "dinner's ready!" has ever prevented a split in your Party

You might be a Trotskyite if your in an organization with 10 people that broke off from an organization that had 20 people after that orgranization split from another organization that had 40 people which had a schism a week prior with an organization that had 80 people after it turned to Trotskyism.
Any you may be an asshole if you make posts just like the above.

[A.J.]

Originally posted by Makaveli+October 15, 2007 05:39 pm--> (Makaveli @ October 15, 2007 05:39 pm)
[email protected] 15, 2007 05:24 pm
You may be a Trot if... you refer to a recent breakup with a girlfriend as a factional split.

You may be a Trot if... every one of your friends heads his own International.

You may be a Trot if... your mom shouting "dinner's ready!" has ever prevented a split in your Party

You might be a Trotskyite if your in an organization with 10 people that broke off from an organization that had 20 people after that orgranization split from another organization that had 40 people which had a schism a week prior with an organization that had 80 people after it turned to Trotskyism.
Any you may be an asshole if you make posts just like the above. [/b]
Funny, isn't it :)

[bcbm]

Originally posted by Makaveli+October 15, 2007 11:39 am--> (Makaveli @ October 15, 2007 11:39 am)
[email protected] 15, 2007 05:24 pm
You may be a Trot if... you refer to a recent breakup with a girlfriend as a factional split.

You may be a Trot if... every one of your friends heads his own International.

You may be a Trot if... your mom shouting "dinner's ready!" has ever prevented a split in your Party

You might be a Trotskyite if your in an organization with 10 people that broke off from an organization that had 20 people after that orgranization split from another organization that had 40 people which had a schism a week prior with an organization that had 80 people after it turned to Trotskyism.
Any you may be an asshole if you make posts just like the above. [/b]
The truth hurts, eh?

[Redmau5]

Originally posted by black coffee black metal+October 15, 2007 05:52 pm--> (black coffee black metal @ October 15, 2007 05:52 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 11:39 am

[email protected] 15, 2007 05:24 pm
You may be a Trot if... you refer to a recent breakup with a girlfriend as a factional split.

You may be a Trot if... every one of your friends heads his own International.

You may be a Trot if... your mom shouting "dinner's ready!" has ever prevented a split in your Party

You might be a Trotskyite if your in an organization with 10 people that broke off from an organization that had 20 people after that orgranization split from another organization that had 40 people which had a schism a week prior with an organization that had 80 people after it turned to Trotskyism.
Any you may be an asshole if you make posts just like the above.
The truth hurts, eh? [/b]
No, not really. I'm not an SWP member nor do I generally sympathize with SWP. I was just wondering if our resident Stalin kiddie A.J.'s politics go beyond Trotsky-bashing and Soviet fetishism.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

AJ, that is trolling and is not allowed in the main forum, so keep trolling and sectarianism to Chit chat please.

It was only a matter of time before this sort of thing happened.

Why does the SWP not want their members too close to Galloway?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Devrim, still mischief-making?

You commies shoot one another; us Trots just expel.

We must try harder... :rolleyes:

The rest of you are not privvy to the details, so all you can do, as you do, is speculate -- and a few of you seem to be happy at even the thought there might be a problem.

As if any of this strengthens the left! :wacko:

[Sam_b]

Rosa,

I thought you said you weren't an SWP member? Are you 'privy' to the details? I'm a member and would like to kno how you can chastise others for gossiping if you, for example, are exactly in the same situation.

And I think your defence of the action etc is completely tarnished by your mud-slinging and everyone and anyone. Posts with substance for the win!

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Sam, I am not in the SWP, even though I used to be for years, but I have sources inside the party.


And I think your defence of the action etc is completely tarnished by your mud-slinging and everyone and anyone. Posts with substance for the win!

What 'action'?

But why on earth do you think I want to raise matters of 'substance' with non-party members, in a non-party forum?

And, I sling about as much mud as is slung at the SWP -- sometimes more.

I note too that your defence of the SWP is obvious by its absence.

[Sam_b]

What 'action'?


Well, 'us Trots just expel' was sounding like an awful defence for a minute. The number of times, especially on the SWP designated topic in the Practice forum, is full of petty insults - if you don't realise this then almost everyone else does.


But why on earth do you think I want to raise matters of 'substance' with non-party members, in a non-party forum?


You're a non-party member. Why should you have the right to condescend to people like its your divine right for information, when you're not even in the SWP?


I note too that your defence of the SWP is obvious by its absence.

I don't feel the need to defend this. Partly due to the fact that I don't get head nor tail of the crazy CC down south, and the SWP Scotland is a separate entity.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Sam:


Well, 'us Trots just expel' was sounding like an awful defence for a minute. The number of times, especially on the SWP designated topic in the Practice forum, is full of petty insults - if you don't realise this then almost everyone else does.

It happens to be the truth; the only thing us Trots are good at are spits and expulsions.

That is partly why we are so ineffectual, but it is why all Trot parties are so small.

Now, as bad as that is, commies are just plain murderers. Which is far worse -- but highly effective in maintaining 'loyalty'.

And that is the truth too.


You're a non-party member. Why should you have the right to condescend to people like its your divine right for information, when you're not even in the SWP?

Why are you being do snotty about this?

I claim no 'divine' right , but I am blowed if I'll put up with slanders and distortions.

Apparently, though, you are OK with them.

And I fully intend to re-join the SWP; so I need to keep up with its internal debates.


I don't feel the need to defend this. Partly due to the fact that I don't get head nor tail of the crazy CC down south, and the SWP Scotland is a separate entity.

I do know they are different.

Fine, don't defend them. But kindly piss off while I do. :)

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 15, 2007 08:07 pm
Now, as bad as that is, commies are just plain murderers. Which is far worse -- but highly effective in maintaining 'loyalty'.

And that is the truth too.
Since when did killing in revolution constitute cold-blooded murder? <_<

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Hammer:


Since when did killing in revolution constitute cold-blooded murder?

Well, I am not sure of what you mean, but I am referring to the purges commies (CPSU/CCP etc) regularly have when in power -- you know: re-educate the cadre with a bullet in the head.

[Axel1917]

The SWP is a worthless opportunistic ultra-left sect that panders to Islamic fundamentalism. What were you expecting? There is a price to be paid for opportunism and supporting right-wingers. Let the so-called Trotskyist sects splinter. I could care less. Marxism is a closed book to the ultra-lefts and opportunists. These jokers and their sects are in crisis, splitting and stumbling from one mistake to the next. All they can do is split and not understand things like the Venezuelan revolution, nor the fact that workers always turn to their traditional organizations first, no matter how rotten the leadership is. While the sects splinter those that actually know Trotsky&#39;s method, starting out small, will continue to grow, based on correct theory, methods, ideas, etc.

Trotskyism is really the same thing as genuine Leninism. If it weren&#39;t for the immense damage to the socialist movement done by Stalinism, the label "Trotskyist" would not even exist. The methods of the Bolsheviks are the only ones that have ever been proven to work in history. They are the only methods, ideas, etc. that have enabled the only large scale socialist revolution that established workers&#39; democracy. A lot of people tend to forget this fact. Trotsky just picked up were Lenin left off, fighting the Stalinists and continuing to analyze new developments with the Marxist method.

The Trotskyist movement as a whole has so many problems because it attracts many people that are anti-Stalinist and not anarchist, many of these people being poorly grounded in theory, practice, method, etc. With so many people that seriously have no clue what on Earth they are doing (this is unfortunately true for the bulk of the left.), these splits, junk theory, etc. are to be expected from the bulk of the people calling themselves Trotskyists.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

We can all produce secatarian bilge Axel; everythinhg you say about the SWP could and can be said about your microscopic &#39;party&#39;.

And you can stow your air of superiority too -- your mob was the product of just such a split/expulsion. [And three comrades expelled hardly counts as a split, nor is it the same as booting the leader out, like Militant did.]

You are just confirming my allegations by throwing more of this ordure about the place: that is, that us Trots are only good at falling-out with one another.

[bolshevik butcher]

Sam how exactly is the SWP in Scotland a different entity to that down south? While you may work in different platforms surely you are both part of the same national organisation and in a wider sense part of the same internaitonal? Don&#39;t both groups have the same outlook and at least similar methods of work. How exactly is the Scotitsh SWP seperate and better than the national SWP?

Don&#39;t you consider it quite dangerous on a public internet board to make such accusations, in a democratic centralist organisation surely thats madness....

[RedAnarchist]

I wonder what the general public think of the SWP? I hope they don&#39;t equate them with the rest of the Left, or we&#39;ll never make any progress.

[Sam_b]

Fine, don&#39;t defend them. But kindly piss off while I do

The point is you aren&#39;t. I haven&#39;t seen one political argument from you in this thread. Your line seems to be "you&#39;re not in the SWP, thus you aren&#39;t allowed to pass question or comment".

To me a) this doesn&#39;t cut the mustard and b) does not reflect the nature of the SWP being broad and open to scrutiny.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Red:


I wonder what the general public think of the SWP? I hope they don&#39;t equate them with the rest of the Left, or we&#39;ll never make any progress.

Naughty, naughty&#33; :)

And, what progress is being made?

Is there any outside the SWP, Respect or the StWC (in the UK)?

-----------------------------------------------

Sam we are supposed to be comrades, so why the rancour?


I haven&#39;t seen one political argument from you in this thread. Your line seems to be "you&#39;re not in the SWP, thus you aren&#39;t allowed to pass question or comment".

Where have I even indicated this?

What I have said is &#39;Please stop the sectarian point-scoring and ill-informed smears".

And what is wrong with that?


To me a) this doesn&#39;t cut the mustard and b) does not reflect the nature of the SWP being broad and open to scrutiny.

On the contrary, it seems to have affected your ability to read... :rolleyes:

[McCaine]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 04:46 am
The SWP is a worthless opportunistic ultra-left sect that panders to Islamic fundamentalism. What were you expecting? There is a price to be paid for opportunism and supporting right-wingers. Let the so-called Trotskyist sects splinter. I could care less. Marxism is a closed book to the ultra-lefts and opportunists. These jokers and their sects are in crisis, splitting and stumbling from one mistake to the next. All they can do is split and not understand things like the Venezuelan revolution, nor the fact that workers always turn to their traditional organizations first, no matter how rotten the leadership is. While the sects splinter those that actually know Trotsky&#39;s method, starting out small, will continue to grow, based on correct theory, methods, ideas, etc.

Trotskyism is really the same thing as genuine Leninism. If it weren&#39;t for the immense damage to the socialist movement done by Stalinism, the label "Trotskyist" would not even exist. The methods of the Bolsheviks are the only ones that have ever been proven to work in history. They are the only methods, ideas, etc. that have enabled the only large scale socialist revolution that established workers&#39; democracy. A lot of people tend to forget this fact. Trotsky just picked up were Lenin left off, fighting the Stalinists and continuing to analyze new developments with the Marxist method.

The Trotskyist movement as a whole has so many problems because it attracts many people that are anti-Stalinist and not anarchist, many of these people being poorly grounded in theory, practice, method, etc. With so many people that seriously have no clue what on Earth they are doing (this is unfortunately true for the bulk of the left.), these splits, junk theory, etc. are to be expected from the bulk of the people calling themselves Trotskyists.
If the SWP is so horrible, then why don&#39;t you give them some practical advice on what they should do here and now, instead of telling them to have the "right methods, ideas, etc.", which tells nobody anything useful at all? How does saying "instead of being wrong, you should be right" help anyone in the slightest?

[Louis Pio]

McCaine I don&#39;t really think SWP would want any "advice", after all they are "the smallest massparty" and therefore don&#39;t need advice from socialists who don&#39;t understand the "grand idea" of RESPECT or why joining up with Dr Naseem from the Islamic Party is a step on the road to socialism (or just a step on the road towards respect for all minorities for that matter).
The soap continues and all us "unworthy" of criticising RESPECT and SWP can just look in amazement from the sidelines, which has it&#39;s fun side I might add.

[Sam_b]

Sam we are supposed to be comrades, so why the rancour?

Doesn&#39;t mean I can&#39;t say when I think you&#39;re out of line and not debating the point. And sicne tellnig someone to &#39;piss off&#39; comradely anyway?


What I have said is &#39;Please stop the sectarian point-scoring and ill-informed smears"
I thought the language was offensive to anyone who asked any questions, or merely passed comment.


On the contrary, it seems to have affected your ability to read...
When you seem to answer everything like this, no wonder you don&#39;t get taken seriously&#33;

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Sam:


Doesn&#39;t mean I can&#39;t say when I think you&#39;re out of line and not debating the point. And sicne tellnig someone to &#39;piss off&#39; comradely anyway?

I have to say that your attitude from the start warrented my abrasive response to you.


I thought the language was offensive to anyone who asked any questions, or merely passed comment.

Well, we all know what &#39;thought&#39; did, don&#39;t we...


When you seem to answer everything like this, no wonder you don&#39;t get taken seriously&#33;

And what makes you think I want to be taken seriously by comrades who can&#39;t read?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

And Teis, the SWP certainly does not need advice from someone like you who posted lies about Respect on another thread.

[Sam_b]

And what makes you think I want to be taken seriously by comrades who can&#39;t read?

Ahem.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Sam:


Ahem.

An example of &#39;substance&#39;...?

[Sam_b]

Sorry Rosa, I just found that funny.

:)

[Devrim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 04:46 am
The SWP is a worthless opportunistic ultra-left sect...
I hate to point this out, but this line sounded much more convincing when the Militant were in the Labour Party. Now you are about the same size as them, and both involved in trying to build new parliamentary parties.

[bolshevik butcher]

IMT still works in the Labour Party, and still argues as Militant did that it is absurd to try and build a mass working class party outside it in the current level of consciousness in Britain.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by bolshevik [email protected] 17, 2007 12:29 pm
IMT still works in the Labour Party, and still argues as Militant did that it is absurd to try and build a mass working class party outside it in the current level of consciousness in Britain.
Ah, I got them confused with the CWI.
Thanks,
Devrim

[redarmyfaction38]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 16, 2007 07:39 pm
Red:


I wonder what the general public think of the SWP? I hope they don&#39;t equate them with the rest of the Left, or we&#39;ll never make any progress.

Naughty, naughty&#33; :)

And, what progress is being made?

Is there any outside the SWP, Respect or the StWC (in the UK)?

-----------------------------------------------

Sam we are supposed to be comrades, so why the rancour?


I haven&#39;t seen one political argument from you in this thread. Your line seems to be "you&#39;re not in the SWP, thus you aren&#39;t allowed to pass question or comment".

Where have I even indicated this?

What I have said is &#39;Please stop the sectarian point-scoring and ill-informed smears".

And what is wrong with that?


To me a) this doesn&#39;t cut the mustard and b) does not reflect the nature of the SWP being broad and open to scrutiny.

On the contrary, it seems to have affected your ability to read... :rolleyes:
iu have to stick my oar in here, i tried to resist but just couldn&#39;t.

somebody asked "how do the general public view the swp"?

i&#39;ll tell you, they view them as a bunch of middle class students stuck up their own arseholes allied with muslim terrorists and immigrants.

this is DESPITE their support for individual swp members in the trade unions etc.

how the rest of the left view them seems to vary from frustration to outright beligerence.

me, i&#39;m one of the frustrated, i&#39;m fed up of being accused of "sectarianism" when questioning swp leadership actions and analysis, i&#39;m perturbed by their top down approach, it smacks of "stalinism" to me, so much for them being "trotskyists".

the fact that they have "expeled" a former member of mitant for daring to question their policies and political alliances, reinforces all the above.

i personally, am sick of all this "factionalism", despite my screen name :blush:

every single one of us has something to offer.

it&#39;s called experience, and on that basis alone presnts a valid argument or political analysis.

expelling people because thet disagree with you on methods, rather than ideology isn&#39;t socialist or anarchist, its stalinist at best and "fascist" at worst.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Ah, Red Army Sectarian has had his cage rattled:


i&#39;ll tell you, they view them as a bunch of middle class students stuck up their own arseholes allied with muslim terrorists and immigrants.

You have the results of the nation-wide survey to hand, I assume?

And, what is wrong with being allied to immigrants? Are you a fascist?

[Sam_b]

Truly plunging to the depths of patheticness.

[redarmyfaction38]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 18, 2007 07:01 pm
Ah, Red Army Sectarian has had his cage rattled:


i&#39;ll tell you, they view them as a bunch of middle class students stuck up their own arseholes allied with muslim terrorists and immigrants.

You have the results of the nation-wide survey to hand, I assume?

And, what is wrong with being allied to immigrants? Are you a fascist?
oh dear, the sectarian jibe isn&#39;t working anymore so i&#39;ll call you a fasc ist&#33; better if you&#39;d accused me of racism.
believe it or not, you can actually be a fascist without having a racist bone in your body&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;
believe it or not, you can be a socialist and accept that "immigration" is seen as a problem by many of your working class workmates.
believe it or not, many working class people blame "immigrants" for the situation they find themselves in without being "racist" as defined by the politically correct servants of the bourgeouisie and their apologists on the left and would find any kind of attack on the "immigrants" in their community an offense.
for anybody that actually lives in a working class community, this will come as no suprise.
yeh, my cage is rattled, the words that spew forward from the weekly edition of socialist worker and its "leading comrades" do nothing for the concerns of ordinary working class people, the appearance to the populace of "respect", the swps pet parliamentary party is that of an "immigrant/muslim" party. that&#39;s fact.
it aint sectarianism, it aint fascism or racism, its the way the swp and respect come across to the working class it wishes to represent.
time you stopped thinking of yourselves as the "vanguard of the proletariat" perhaps and started dealing with the concerns of the proles as they are rather than how you want them to be.
just a thought.

[Random Precision]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 05:24 pm
You may be a Trot if... you refer to a recent breakup with a girlfriend as a factional split.

You may be a Trot if... every one of your friends heads his own International.

You may be a Trot if... your mom shouting "dinner&#39;s ready&#33;" has ever prevented a split in your Party

You might be a Trotskyite if your in an organization with 10 people that broke off from an organization that had 20 people after that orgranization split from another organization that had 40 people which had a schism a week prior with an organization that had 80 people after it turned to Trotskyism.
Well, it&#39;s a lot better than the Stalinist organizations who have five members in which one is the General Secretary, 3 are the Central Committee and they vote to expel the other member...

[Hit The North]

Brownshirtfaction38 writes:

oh dear, the sectarian jibe isn&#39;t working anymore so i&#39;ll call you a fasc ist&#33; better if you&#39;d accused me of racism.
Fair enough. You&#39;re a racist.


believe it or not, you can actually be a fascist without having a racist bone in your body&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;
Yes, but most are racists, like you.


the appearance to the populace of "respect", the swps pet parliamentary party is that of an "immigrant/muslim" party. that&#39;s fact.

So we should avoid organising with Muslim workers and tail-end the most reactionary elements of the working class?

That&#39;d suit your mates in the BNP, wouldn&#39;t it&#33;

[McCaine]

How about, instead of calling each other racists, fascists and sectarianists and the lord knows what other insults, we figure out why there is so much tension inside these parties, and so much disagreement (apparently) about tactics and party democracy? If there is so much internal disagreement, why not talk about it among each other, so the issue can be resolved, like civilized people do? How does expelling people and hurling insults from one miniature party to another help socialism or anyone at all?

Really, if people stopped thinking their club was the embodiment of the spirit of the revolution, and instead realized they are just human beings with flaws trying to get a grip on difficult decisions, everything would be much improved.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by McCaine+October 22, 2007 11:27 am--> (McCaine @ October 22, 2007 11:27 am) How about, instead of calling each other racists, fascists and sectarianists and the lord knows what other insults,... [/b]
The SWP members don&#39;t have much else to say. Basically, they ended up basically playing communal politics with Respect. Some of their leadership even went as far as to nearly admit it:


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.

What can the members do, admit they were wrong, or call anybody who criticses them a racist? It seems the easy way out.

Devrim

[peaccenicked]

It is hard to begin with RESPECT and the SWP, what I think is that the SWP control most of what moves on the left. For years, many years I have seen them in action. They act like a cult, predetermine agenda of front organisations. There as efficent as the old CPGB at organising fronts and stiffling dissent. They have given the left a bad name by hounding activists with recruitment tatics. Every Anarchist I know aged below 40 is ex swp and tells me horror stories about that organisations monolithic tendencies. Meetings called by SWP are rubber stamps for the leadership. Do they think that interested public do not notice, the serious lack of any debate. It is so obvious that eveything is decided behind closed doors. Every dissident point from the floor is shuffled aside. In my experience it is not what is said but WHO says it that holds sway at such meetings. It is a sham democracy that reflects our sham parliamentary democracy.

THE SWP acts as layer of the State muscles in on independent working class activity wih the antics of the moonies. Only few seem to think away from the party line apart from its academic &#39;superstars&#39; who stay usually within the safety of their remit.

This country is fast becoming a Stalinist State. The Left serve the purposes of the ruling class very well. There is a few old Labour leaders I even much time for one is Tony Benn, he might have the wrong solutions but he seems to be target the enemy better than most, much the same feelings about Arthur Scargill.

George Galloway and Sheridan are PR assets of a sort but their iconism is ultimately a reflection of the weakness of the UK left. I dont want to say much more about our political tragedy. I find no cause to celebrate. The debate in the SWP is about PR and power shifts at the top. The new CPGB&#39;s Weekly worker reported from recently resigned member Nick Bird it was about choosing sides in a factional dispute.

The left in the UK is an almighty mess, I would not be surprised if MI5 has done a hatchet job on us. That would be their job. Paranoia nothing.

We can only do as Chomsky advises "be honest,tell the truth ,expose lies" perhaps more than that we need to make an independent study of our history and not blindly follow some guru or another. What is needed is a politicisation of the Left, its political death awaits us or moreso is apon us. There is no healthy political culture and the dialogue of the deaf is prevalent. It seems to me that the job of the British left is to side track activists towards becoming paper selling automatons.

Partyism is fine but surely requires the highest level of debate at all levels of the Party and at public meetings. No more &#39;appropiate&#39; soundbites please.

[Zurdito]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 04:46 am
the fact that workers always turn to their traditional organizations first, no matter how rotten the leadership is. While the sects splinter those that actually know Trotsky&#39;s method, starting out small, will continue to grow, based on correct theory, methods, ideas, etc.
ok, if we&#39;re talking about Britain, workers are NOT turning to traditional organisation and trying to acheive change through them; they&#39;re simply walking away from politics in disgust at Labour and the pandering union bureaucrats.

Is Labour Party membership amongst the working class growing? No. Are numbers of workers voting for Labour growing? No - last election, smallest ever number of votes for a winning party since universal suffrage was introduced, I believe.

Is Labour moving left? No, it&#39;s moving right, taking away more and more union influence, and effectively on a march,speeded up since the last conference, to become a British version of the Democrats, an out and out bourgeoise party.

So how do you expect the left to grow by uniting itself to a shrinking and rightwards bound movement? Is the left within the Labour Party growing? I think actually it&#39;s dying. Ask Cruddas or McDonnell. These people are abysmal failures.

I was at a so-called "protest" organsied by UNITE outside the Lab conference in Bournemouth last month, they had Tony Woodley and John Cruddas on the platform, nice traditional union leaders and a Labour MP. What did they do? They told people to vote for Gordon Brown because John Cruddas had made the manifesto shift "left", and by protesting and marching (no-one even knew what for) we could really make gordon Brown listen. Yeah, that&#39;s the way to make him listen, not wildcat strikes like the posties - much bettet to listen to Billy Hayes and instead thank Gordon Brown for not privatising Royal Mail. That&#39;s what you want to hear if you just got a pay-cut and lost your pension and terms/conditions. Because workers just love Labour and their union leaders. Well they must do - you don&#39;t see them supporting anyone else...well maybe that&#39;s because every one who might be able to propose half-decent policies to them has lost them by putting a red rose on or waving the latest corporate-union logo in their face.

[Louis Pio]

McDonnels campaign can only be called a failure in that he didn&#39;t get to stand, in terms of raising activity it was quite succesfull.
People are as you say not turning to anybody at this point, this can of course change. I think a good discussion would also be on what purpose there is in just building some sort of softleft Labour, minus any of the unions. RESPECT clearly shows that you can&#39;t archive any sort of unity by just pretending the class differences doesn&#39;t exist in such a type of adventure. (and of course alot else could be discussed in relation to RESPECT).

[redarmyfaction38]

Originally posted by Citizen [email protected] 19, 2007 12:29 am
Brownshirtfaction38 writes:

oh dear, the sectarian jibe isn&#39;t working anymore so i&#39;ll call you a fasc ist&#33; better if you&#39;d accused me of racism.
Fair enough. You&#39;re a racist.


believe it or not, you can actually be a fascist without having a racist bone in your body&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;
Yes, but most are racists, like you.


the appearance to the populace of "respect", the swps pet parliamentary party is that of an "immigrant/muslim" party. that&#39;s fact.

So we should avoid organising with Muslim workers and tail-end the most reactionary elements of the working class?

That&#39;d suit your mates in the BNP, wouldn&#39;t it&#33;
you missed the point of my post entirely&#33;

i&#39;m not racist, nor am i sectarian, but the likes of the swp have a tendancy to use these terms against anyone who questions them.

now, i actually live and work in a "working class community", i am "working class" and the people i work with, look upon respect and the swp, exactly as i described, that does not make them racists or fascists, it does not make them "politically backward", it just reflects the failure of the swp/respect to address issues on a "class basis" rather than an idoelogical or opportunist basis, imo.
all my workmates understand without question, that privatisation, the eu, the lack of democracy and fat salaries of union leaders tied to new labour are holding them in poverty and inaction.
some are ukip supporters, some are ex revolutionaries or anarchists, some are just joe public, all of them are pissed off with trade union leaders, new labour and the govt.
the swp/respect does not in any way address their concerns,

now, if i, a political activist, seek to question the policies of a "revolutionary party", does that make me a "recidivist"?, a "revisionist"?, a "trotskyist"? or even an "apologist for capital"?, i think not.
unless of course you&#39;re a "stalinist" or "control freak", not confident enough in your own ideas or the "working class" to accept that "criticism" and "debate" are more important than political posturing.

as for my "mates" in the bnp, well, lets look at the bnp, its membership tends to be ex labour party supoorters disillusioned by "new labour", they should, by all rights, be joining the "revolutionary left", they aren&#39;t&#33; why not we should be asking, not deciding out of hand that their concerns and questions have no relevance and instantly dismissing them as fascists and racisists.
the bnp leadership is entirely a different matter, and, exposing that leadership, its anti working class agenda etc. will, eventually win over those workers who now support it.

i have no problem with organising with muslim, jew, christian or hindu members of the working class, but, i will not but their secular religious views above that of our common class interest, and that, is what, the general public, has decided respect and the swp have done.

before you go off on another sectarian/racist rant at me have a look at where respect have gained support and where they don&#39;t get any, have a look at their policies and the apologies for religious fundamentalism gorgeous george made, and then come back with a well presented political argument, rather than the usual bnp, oops, swp party line.

[Hit The North]

Comrade redarmyfaction

First you need to disentangle the SWP from RESPECT instead of collapsing them together as you keep doing.

Has RESPECT failed to win broad working class support? The answer is an obvious yes. Does it retain the identity in many workers heads as a party of immigrants and Muslims? Perhaps.

Whether that reflects the reality of RESPECT can easily be dispelled by looking at the concerns it voices - reflected HERE (http://www.respectcoalition.org/) on their website.

The commitment to class struggle you&#39;ll find there will be found ten-fold on the Socialist Worker (http://www.socialistworker.org.uk/) website - as you well know.


I have no problem with organising with muslim, jew, christian or hindu members of the working class, but, i will not but (sic) their secular (sic) religious views above that of our common class interest, and that, is what, the general public, has decided respect and the swp have done.

I challenge you to show me where the SWP has done this.

Meanwhile, I&#39;d be very interested in your response to your work-mates who deride RESPECT as being just an "immigrant/muslim" party with no interest in them (presumably, not immigrant non-Muslim workers). Do you agree like an opportunist or do you defend the organization - whatever disagreements you may have with it - from what is an obvious slander?

[Devrim]

Galloway lays out his position on the SWP:

Originally posted by G.Galloway
off you go - fuck off, fuck off the lot of you.
Devrim

[Zurdito]

Originally posted by Citizen [email protected] 23, 2007 01:39 am
Comrade redarmyfaction

First you need to disentangle the SWP from RESPECT instead of collapsing them together as you keep doing.

Has RESPECT failed to win broad working class support? The answer is an obvious yes. Does it retain the identity in many workers heads as a party of immigrants and Muslims? Perhaps.

Whether that reflects the reality of RESPECT can easily be dispelled by looking at the concerns it voices - reflected HERE (http://www.respectcoalition.org/) on their website.

The commitment to class struggle you&#39;ll find there will be found ten-fold on the Socialist Worker (http://www.socialistworker.org.uk/) website - as you well know.


I have no problem with organising with muslim, jew, christian or hindu members of the working class, but, i will not but (sic) their secular (sic) religious views above that of our common class interest, and that, is what, the general public, has decided respect and the swp have done.

I challenge you to show me where the SWP has done this.

Meanwhile, I&#39;d be very interested in your response to your work-mates who deride RESPECT as being just an "immigrant/muslim" party with no interest in them (presumably, not immigrant non-Muslim workers). Do you agree like an opportunist or do you defend the organization - whatever disagreements you may have with it - from what is an obvious slander?
A lot of people use the line "you need to differentiate the SWP from RESPECT". I&#39;m sorry, but if you are part of a coalition, then you have collective responsibility for everything it does, even if you disagree. Otherwise it&#39;s like a comrade joining a party, and then refusing to be held accountable for party actions just because he may have internally disagreed. It doesn&#39;t work like that.

Now I disagree with what redarmyfaction said about RESPECT being "for immigrants", or at least the way he worded it, because actually, I think immigrants are one of the groups who need the support of socialists more than anyone, and heavily exploited migrant workers are a sector we have a duty to get involved with and support. Historically in every society the native working class has been hostile to new arrivals, and in turn they&#39;ve played a complex role - they can be very conservative in fact if they see the bosses as their allies against the workers who want them kicked out to protect their own jobs - so I think it&#39;s vital for socialists to become them figureheads of the movement to defend immigrants and to close the divisions between native workers who are anti-immigrant (and it&#39;s much more ocmplex than just a racial issue, lots of black and Asian workers are very anti-eastern European immigrants, and many of these eastern Europeans are much more right-wing int heir economic views than these ethnic minority groups, and often use traditional European chauvinism to look down on them). So yes, although I can see how it&#39;s terrible for native workers to have to face competition from casual immigrant labour, but we have to make this part of a campaign to defend immigrant working conditions and end their exploitation. As I know for a fact that redarmyfaction is a contributing Socialist Party supporter, I know that this is the movement he is backing also. The SP actually has a decent record at defending immigrants from deportation, I remember a recent case of a Nigerian family in Bolton, etc., and they have a good record on fighting racism (Militant wasn&#39;t so good on that I admit). I disagree with their line against immigrationc ontrols, but we can have that argument somewhere else.

But his comment about being a party "for muslims" is right on the money, which is why I think it has annoyed so many people. RESPECT put on its website that it was "the party for muslims". It did NOT say "working class muslims". we&#39;ve talked time and time again aboout its alliances with Bengali millionaires, with local landlords on the councils, etc., and in this way it operates much like Labour in fact. We&#39;re told to seperate this from the SWP, but, so hold, if the SWP is pushing through politics which divide the working class along community lines, then how is it suddenly redeemed formt hat jsut because it can say "ah bt the worst parts of that were carried through by non SWP members". That&#39;s nonsense. If you form the coalition and use it, then you&#39;re collectively responsible for its effects. Now if the African or British or Polish working class looks and sees this commitment to cross-class Islamic communalism from RESPECT, then why should they forgive the SWP, whose leadership were pulling the strings, just because "RESPECT is politically independent of the SWP"? This is nonsense you will have to agree. Now not all responses by the non-muslim working class to muslims or immigrants will be correct, and we HAVE to counter them. But we should counter them through secular, cross-community socialism in which all workers are equal, rather than through cheap opportunism ina particular "explosive" area. I can see what the RESPECT did, and it was politically tempting - when I am selling papers, and I see a muslim, the temptation is to just talk about the Middle East and Islamophobia. I&#39;ve evn had propositions from people who want to "compare Marxism and Islam". But ultimately, we have to fight Islamophobia as a tool of the bourgeoisie used to divide the working class and necessary for imperialist capitalism, NOT as an evil in itself which can be combatted by all muslims regardless of their class.

And finally we should not drop our commitment, our publically stated commitment as Marxists, to seperate workers from their "religious" leadership. Do we make a united front with a semi-colonial Islamic *nation* which is under attack by imperialists? Yes we do, and we should support Imam&#39;s businissmen or clerics who come out to fight the occupation. But do we transport that to Bethnal Green or Birmingham? No, because it doesn&#39;t apply, we&#39;re not in a war of one state against another, but an internal war withint he state of one class against another, and this is the ONLY war we want to promote. Otherwise we will have white and muslim workers fighting each other in the street, and certain element within RESPECT I fear would prefer that to class war.

[citizen_snips]

Difficult situation. I am not a fan of the SWP, or of George Galloway (for different reasons - mostly), so I think if I was living down south it would be hard to take sides. I&#39;m not going to get into slagging though, this is intended as constructive criticism and it&#39;s just my own opinion.

I don&#39;t think it&#39;s all over for Respect. It could still be made better. There is a problem where the party seems to be Muslim oriented, and maybe *most* of this is just in people&#39;s perceptions rather than reality, but still there is something to this criticism as well. It&#39;s not entirely false, the SWP themselves who have always said it was false are now saying it exists. The fact is that if this religious element wasn&#39;t intentional in Respect, more should be done to challenge it. Not to make religious people unhappy, but to make it more open to people who feel persecuted by the intolerant and oppressive side of religion.

I can&#39;t give any constructive criticism on the SWP. I&#39;m sure people join with the best of intentions, and members think they are doing things the right way based on theory etc, but... there is a reason they are hated by almost every group they come into contact with.

[Hit The North]

Zurdito:

I&#39;m sorry, but if you are part of a coalition, then you have collective responsibility for everything it does, even if you disagree.

In which rule book does it say that? There&#39;s no necessary doctrine of collective responsibility in a coalition which is, by definition, a temporary alliance between different parties.


if the SWP is pushing through politics which divide the working class along community lines,

The SWP isn&#39;t doing this and one of its main criticisms of RESPECT is that it is doing this by focusing too heavily on "community leaders". It&#39;s all there in the John Rees statement which Devrimanka likes to quote. Namely:

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.

It couldn&#39;t be expressed more clearly.

citizen_snips writes:
can&#39;t give any constructive criticism on the SWP. I&#39;m sure people join with the best of intentions, and members think they are doing things the right way based on theory etc, but... there is a reason they are hated by almost every group they come into contact with.
Comrade, revolutionary politics is not a popularity contest. Besides, name me an organization on the left which is not hated by everyone else on the left. I can think of maybe the Socialist Party of Great Britain - but that&#39;s only because they never do anything&#33;

[citizen_snips]

Originally posted by Citizen [email protected] 23, 2007 05:32 pm
citizen_snips writes:
can&#39;t give any constructive criticism on the SWP. I&#39;m sure people join with the best of intentions, and members think they are doing things the right way based on theory etc, but... there is a reason they are hated by almost every group they come into contact with.
Comrade, revolutionary politics is not a popularity contest. Besides, name me an organization on the left which is not hated by everyone else on the left. I can think of maybe the Socialist Party of Great Britain - but that&#39;s only because they never do anything&#33;
I can think of various left groups that I dislike the politics and methods of - various socialists, anarchists, reformists even (not including the Labour Party here, they are even worse than all the others, and definitely do not count amongst the "left"). I think out of these, the SWP is the worst, because they actively try and control and wreck other groups. My problems with the organisation don&#39;t extend to all members, I have met good socialists who are SWP members, it is mainly the leadership I&#39;m talking about. In the past I dismissed what other activists (mainly anarchists) said about them, because of course some people just like to have a go at the Trots. Now, with more experience (I&#39;m in the SSP) I would be wary about working with them.

[Hit The North]

I think out of these, the SWP is the worst, because they actively try and control and wreck other groups.

Example?

[citizen_snips]

Did you miss the bit where I said I was a member of the SSP?

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 06:58 pm
Did you miss the bit where I said I was a member of the SSP?
No. I&#39;m still waiting for your example, though - and by this I mean a detailed account, not a one sentence accusation.

[citizen_snips]

There was a big discussion on these forums at the time of the split. I&#39;m not interested in going over all of that again, there will not be agreement, but the result of the experience was that many people now have a very negative view of the SWP.

For another example: At the time of G8 Alternatives I was very new to the whole scene of activism, I didn&#39;t know the different groups all that well, and I tended to dismiss the anti-SWP criticisms from various people as just typical lefty in-fighting. In hindsight, might have been something to it. I have a lot of respect for Mark Thomas and he wrote a pretty good article on this. I wouldn&#39;t expect him to complain about nothing at all.

That&#39;s really all I have to say, I didn&#39;t come here to stir up slagging matches. If you&#39;re in the SWP you probably have enough on your plate at the moment, and as our groups have gone our separate ways now, it&#39;s not worth my time either.

[Zurdito]

In which rule book does it say that? There&#39;s no necessary doctrine of collective responsibility in a coalition which is, by definition, a temporary alliance between different parties.

There&#39;s no rule book it&#39;s just a question of intellectual integrity. You may oppose certain elements of your group from within the coallition and lobby for change etc., but ultimately if you carry on funding it, facilitating it and backing it whilst it carries out those actions, then you helped create the situation which arises from them.



The SWP isn&#39;t doing this and one of its main criticisms of RESPECT is that it is doing this by focusing too heavily on "community leaders". It&#39;s all there in the John Rees statement which Devrimanka likes to quote

So because John Rees says it now after 3 years of banning criticism of supporting those politics, suddenly it&#39;s all ok?

I don&#39;t doubt that the SWP&#39;s intention was to strengthen the working class and they thought that the best way to attack the British state and British bourgeoisie was through this alliance which would therefore benefit us all, and I don&#39;t doubt that they realised that not all members of the coallition had these politics and that it would be necessary to oppose those elements from within and be the left-wing of RESPECT. That doesn&#39;t change the fact that RESPECT promoted communalist poltiics for years and that the SWP supported this.

The SWP would tell you that it&#39;s grown through this and is now in the position to take on the communalist elements of RESPECT and leave them behind whilst bulding on the gains RESPECT made in winning people over to progressive politics and enhancing the consciousness of the muslim working class and the links it built between them and non-muslim workers through the SWP&#39;s influence in the coallition...but the thing is I think you know that&#39;s not true, and that actually the communalist elements within RESPECT went in weaker than they have emerged, whilst the SWP in fact has got weaker since it joined, considering that 25% of its own membership (which is not growing in numbers) actually voted against backing their own leadership against Galloway. So what happened was that a left-group gave its platform to communalist groups, was used by them, was dumped, and they came out stronger while the SWP didn&#39;t.

So taking that into account then how can the SWP not be blamed for, practically speaking, weakening the working class and strengthening communalistic groups?

[redarmyfaction38]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 08:14 pm

In which rule book does it say that? There&#39;s no necessary doctrine of collective responsibility in a coalition which is, by definition, a temporary alliance between different parties.

There&#39;s no rule book it&#39;s just a question of intellectual integrity. You may oppose certain elements of your group from within the coallition and lobby for change etc., but ultimately if you carry on funding it, facilitating it and backing it whilst it carries out those actions, then you helped create the situation which arises from them.



The SWP isn&#39;t doing this and one of its main criticisms of RESPECT is that it is doing this by focusing too heavily on "community leaders". It&#39;s all there in the John Rees statement which Devrimanka likes to quote

So because John Rees says it now after 3 years of banning criticism of supporting those politics, suddenly it&#39;s all ok?

I don&#39;t doubt that the SWP&#39;s intention was to strengthen the working class and they thought that the best way to attack the British state and British bourgeoisie was through this alliance which would therefore benefit us all, and I don&#39;t doubt that they realised that not all members of the coallition had these politics and that it would be necessary to oppose those elements from within and be the left-wing of RESPECT. That doesn&#39;t change the fact that RESPECT promoted communalist poltiics for years and that the SWP supported this.

The SWP would tell you that it&#39;s grown through this and is now in the position to take on the communalist elements of RESPECT and leave them behind whilst bulding on the gains RESPECT made in winning people over to progressive politics and enhancing the consciousness of the muslim working class and the links it built between them and non-muslim workers through the SWP&#39;s influence in the coallition...but the thing is I think you know that&#39;s not true, and that actually the communalist elements within RESPECT went in weaker than they have emerged, whilst the SWP in fact has got weaker since it joined, considering that 25% of its own membership (which is not growing in numbers) actually voted against backing their own leadership against Galloway. So what happened was that a left-group gave its platform to communalist groups, was used by them, was dumped, and they came out stronger while the SWP didn&#39;t.

So taking that into account then how can the SWP not be blamed for, practically speaking, weakening the working class and strengthening communalistic groups?
i&#39;m answering the last post i read as i think the other posters after my comment have answered as i would have done.

the swp and respect have been one in the same, they have now split, because after 3 years? john rees, suddenly accepts all the criticisms of respect/swp policy us "sectarians" put forward 3 years ago.

yet, we&#39;re still "sectarians" and they are still not willing to accept the notion that they, like the rest of us, are politically aware, political minority amongst the working class and that is the interest of the working class we serve, not the political ambitions of leaders of the swp or any other "socialist" or "anarchist" wannabe rulers.

[Hit The North]

RAF38:

yet, we&#39;re still "sectarians" and they are still not willing to accept the notion that they, like the rest of us, are politically aware, political minority amongst the working class and that is the interest of the working class we serve, not the political ambitions of leaders of the swp or any other "socialist" or "anarchist" wannabe rulers.

What drivel&#33;

The key difference between Rees&#39;s comments now and those of the "sectarians" (as you accurately depict yourselves) three years ago is that John&#39;s analysis is based on experience, doing the &#39;politics&#39; and getting hands dirty, whereas yours is based on cynical speculation born out of a sectarian reluctance to join anything you don&#39;t control.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by Citizen [email protected] 23, 2007 09:14 pm
The key difference between Rees&#39;s comments now and those of the "sectarians" (as you accurately depict yourselves) three years ago is that John&#39;s analysis is based on experience, doing the &#39;politics&#39; and getting hands dirty, whereas yours is based on cynical speculation born out of a sectarian reluctance to join anything you don&#39;t control.
So not being able to realise for three years that cross class nearly communal politics has nothing to offer militant workers of any ethnic group is being touted as an achievement.

Tony Cliff must be turning in his grave. At least he had a vague idea of what Marxism was.

Devrim

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by devrimankara+October 23, 2007 10:30 pm--> (devrimankara @ October 23, 2007 10:30 pm)
Citizen [email protected] 23, 2007 09:14 pm
The key difference between Rees&#39;s comments now and those of the "sectarians" (as you accurately depict yourselves) three years ago is that John&#39;s analysis is based on experience, doing the &#39;politics&#39; and getting hands dirty, whereas yours is based on cynical speculation born out of a sectarian reluctance to join anything you don&#39;t control.
So not being able to realise for three years that cross class nearly communal politics has nothing to offer militant workers of any ethnic group is being touted as an achievement.

Tony Cliff must be turning in his grave. At least he had a vague idea of what Marxism was.

Devrim [/b]
Who&#39;s claiming it as an achievement?

[Louis Pio]

One thing is what you learn from experience another is that anybody considering themselves as marxists should take former experience into account. Or else why should anybody bother writing anything theoretical? John Rees and SWP didn&#39;t do the last, they just wrote any criticism off as secterian and now suddenly made a uturn. Zig zags like that are unfortunately wellknown in the communist movement, the 3. international after Lenin&#39;s a good example.
Anyway I think I will wait til after the 17. Nov conference to discuss anything further on the subject. It&#39;s a shame SWP&#39;ers and supporters are so dismissive since we then mostly have the Weekly Worker to read about it in, and it is a lefttabloid.

[bolshevik butcher]

Who&#39;s claiming it as an achievement?

Well you have just criticised those who took the stand that you now recognise as correct and in line with socialist principles for not taking this line in the first place, but rather have praised the swp for taking an oppertunist adventurist line, and now realising this won&#39;t help them grow.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by Citizen [email protected] 23, 2007 09:40 pm
Who&#39;s claiming it as an achievement?
I am sorry. I must have completely misunderstood you tone. So you are admitting that you have been involved in what is basically cross class frontism for the past three years.
Devrim

[Devrim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 09:41 pm
It&#39;s a shame SWP&#39;ers and supporters are so dismissive since we then mostly have the Weekly Worker to read about it in, and it is a lefttabloid.
MATB has much better coverage of it than here. They have even got a RESPECT committee member* on there defending the SWP.

He is being very honest:


I honestly hope I&#39;m wrong and I hope respect emerges stronger from conference but it would be dishonest to suggest that the situation was getting better.

Devrim

*Of course it is the internet, and he may not be who he says he is, so I am not attributing this quote.

[Louis Pio]

MATB?

[Devrim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 10:01 pm
MATB?
Meanwhile at the bar, it is another discussion board.
Devrim

[Zurdito]

Originally posted by Citizen [email protected] 23, 2007 09:14 pm
The key difference between Rees&#39;s comments now and those of the "sectarians" (as you accurately depict yourselves) three years ago is that John&#39;s analysis is based on experience, doing the &#39;politics&#39; and getting hands dirty, whereas yours is based on cynical speculation born out of a sectarian reluctance to join anything you don&#39;t control.

So in other words the "sectarians" knew 3 years ago what you&#39;ve only just found out.

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by bolshevik [email protected] 23, 2007 10:42 pm

Who&#39;s claiming it as an achievement?

Well you have just criticised those who took the stand that you now recognise as correct and in line with socialist principles for not taking this line in the first place, but rather have praised the swp for taking an oppertunist adventurist line, and now realising this won&#39;t help them grow.
The point is that this outcome was not set in stone. It wasn&#39;t built into some a-priori design. It was always a possibility given the various elements of the coalition, yes. But no one in the SWP was in denial of that. If the so-called "communalists" get their way it will signify the weakness of the SWP within the coalition and, more importantly, demonstrate how the attacks by the British state against Muslims as a community has boosted the prestige of the community leadership. Of course, it doesn&#39;t help matters for young Muslim activists to see the cynicism of the rest of the (mainly) white British left. In some respects (no pun intended) it is the abstainers, the nay-sayer, the doom-mongers on the sidelines who are the best friends of the "community leaders", not the SWP.

Devrimankara writes (attempting to score another sectarian point):

Tony Cliff must be turning in his grave. At least he had a vague idea of what Marxism was.

Cliff was an advocate of getting your hands dirty - of making mistakes in the process. He knew that revolutionaries had to intervene in the life of the class, engage with it. He praised Lenin for his pragmatic politics and argued that revolutionaries should abide by only a few principles: 1. That socialism could only be achieved through revolution; and 2. that the revolution had to be the act of the workers themselves. Everything else is strategy and tactics.


So you are admitting that you have been involved in what is basically cross class frontism for the past three years.

No. There are no bourgeois organizations in RESPECT.

RESPECT was an attempt to engage with an increasingly radicalizing Muslim community. One that was becoming increasingly aware of its structural disadvantages and was, in turn, subject to greater state surveillance and oppression. It was an attempt to try and win a new audience to socialist ideas - on the back of the anti-war movement but in a political environment where socialist ideas are barely discussed, and a vacuum created by New Labour and a quiescent trade union movement living off depressing one-day strikes.

Has it failed? Not yet.

However, all this "we told you so" finger pointing is just shoddy.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by Citizen Zero+October 23, 2007 10:37 pm--> (Citizen Zero &#064; October 23, 2007 10:37 pm)In some respects (no pun intended) it is the abstainers, the nay-sayer, the doom-mongers on the sidelines who are the best friends of the "community leaders", not the SWP.
[/b]
So what you are trying to say is that the best friends of the "community leaders" were not the ones in alliance with them, but those who criticised that alliance.

Is this supposed to be dialectical, or something?


Originally posted by Citizen [email protected]
No. There are no bourgeois organizations in RESPECT.

Would I be correct in assuming that you viewed the Islamic Party of Britain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Party_of_Britain) as a proletarian party then?


Citizen Zero
attempting to score another sectarian point

It is also quite impressive the way that you assume that shouting sectarian makes everything all right. I don&#39;t think that you really understand what it means though.

Devrim

[Hit The North]

So what you are trying to say is that the best friends of the "community leaders" were not the ones in alliance with them, but those who criticised that alliance.
I&#39;m saying that you don&#39;t win anyone to socialist ideas if you refuse to engage with them.

Criticise the SWP all you want. But none of their critics on the left in Britain are doing anything worth discussing.



Would I be correct in assuming that you viewed the Islamic Party of Britain as a proletarian party then?

Of course not. Does that make it bourgeois?


It is also quite impressive the way that you assume that shouting sectarian makes everything all right. I don&#39;t think that you really understand what it means though.

Why, are you doing something other than sectarian mud slinging?

[Zurdito]

Of course not. Does that make it bourgeois?

Here&#39;s a tip, borrow a copy of the communist manifesto, and turn to page, erm, page 1 actually.

In the earlier epochs of history, we find almost everywhere a complicated arrangement of society into various orders, a manifold gradation of social rank. In ancient Rome we have patricians, knights, plebians, slaves; in the Middle Ages, feudal lords, vassals, guild-masters, journeymen, serf; in almost all of these classes, again, subordinate gradations.

...

The epoch of the bourgeoisie possesses, however, this distinctive feature: it has simplified the class antagonisms. Society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes facing each other

I&#39;ll let you guess what they are. Maybe you&#39;re a "post-marxist" or something though... :unsure:

[Hit The North]

The epoch of the bourgeoisie possesses, however, this distinctive feature: it has simplified the class antagonisms. Society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes facing each other

I&#39;ll let you guess what they are.

I know what they are, sunshine. I don&#39;t recall the Manifesto mentioning the Islamic Party of Britain, though. Neither do I recall Marx or Engels arguing that a political organization can only be either proletarian or bourgeois.

[Zurdito]

What is the Islamic Party of Britain then if not bourgeoise? It&#39;s leader is a millionaire. Why evade the question? It would be more credible if you admitted making alliances with bourgeoise groups and then justfied it. And name me one classification used by Marx, Engels, Lenin or Trotsky for parties within capitalsit societies which is neither proletarian nor bourgeoise? I don;t know of any. At the left scale of the bourgeoise spectrum we have bourgeoise workers parties, and on the right scale of the proletarian spectrum we have the commnist parties of the deformed or degenerated workers states. But they are all one or the other. If you&#39;re class is defined by your relation to the means of production, then fundamentally you fall down on one side or the other of the divide. There are all kinds of ways to avoid adressing that question if you want but as a marxist it should be this particular question which you are MOST interested in, surely.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by Citizen Zero+October 23, 2007 11:29 pm--> (Citizen Zero @ October 23, 2007 11:29 pm) I&#39;m saying that you don&#39;t win anyone to socialist ideas if you refuse to engage with them.
[/b]
The question is who you are engaging with. Is it the task of communists to win rich (Islamic) businessmen to socialism?


Originally posted by Citizen Zero+--> (Citizen Zero)I know what they are, sunshine. I don&#39;t recall the Manifesto mentioning the Islamic Party of Britain, though. Neither do I recall Marx or Engels arguing that a political organization can only be either proletarian or bourgeois.[/b]

Marx argued that political organisations represent classes. He also argued as Zurdito rightly pointed out:


Originally posted by Manifesto
The epoch of the bourgeoisie possesses, however, this distinctive feature: it has simplified the class antagonisms. Society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes facing each other.

Please tell us which class the Islamic party of Britain represents.


Citizen [email protected]
Why, are you doing something other than sectarian mud slinging?

Actually I am just watching with vague interest from afar, and making the odd comment. I consider the SWP to be an anti-working class party, and so in my view it is no more sectarian than making these sort of comments about a split in the Conservative party. It does have the added entertainment value that their members are here trying to defend them though.


Criticise the SWP all you want. But none of their critics on the left in Britain are doing anything worth discussing.

Most of the left have thoroughly bourgeois politics. The SWP is no exception.


Zurdito
And name me one classification used by Marx, Engels, Lenin or Trotsky for parties within capitalsit societies which is neither proletarian nor bourgeoise? I don;t know of any. At the left scale of the bourgeoise spectrum we have bourgeoise workers parties, and on the right scale of the proletarian spectrum we have the commnist parties of the deformed or degenerated workers states. But they are all one or the other.

Zurdito makes a good point here (though I disagree with his class characterisation of the Stalinists).

How should we characterise RESPECT as a party?

Devrim

[redarmyfaction38]

Originally posted by Citizen [email protected] 23, 2007 09:14 pm
RAF38:

yet, we&#39;re still "sectarians" and they are still not willing to accept the notion that they, like the rest of us, are politically aware, political minority amongst the working class and that is the interest of the working class we serve, not the political ambitions of leaders of the swp or any other "socialist" or "anarchist" wannabe rulers.

What drivel&#33;

The key difference between Rees&#39;s comments now and those of the "sectarians" (as you accurately depict yourselves) three years ago is that John&#39;s analysis is based on experience, doing the &#39;politics&#39; and getting hands dirty, whereas yours is based on cynical speculation born out of a sectarian reluctance to join anything you don&#39;t control.
what bollox&#33; once again the swp presents itself as the "vanguard of the proletariat" whilst sadly lacking behind, not just in theory, but experience.
unwilling, as usual, to accept that any grouping outside of the swp might have had "experience" in the nitty gritty of actual on the ground experience, and tried, in the interest of class solidarity, to warn you of the massive fuck up you were about to engage in&#33;
all hail the all knowing and wondrous swp leadership, that not only alienates its own members but has managed to push thouisands of potential working class "militants" into the bnp and then pretends it&#39;s someone elses fault. FFS. grow up.
i&#39;m sick of this discussion, i&#39;m sick of the twisting and turning of the swp and its supporters, i&#39;m sick of the fact that with every utterance the swp sound even more like the party political prats on offer from the bosses parties.
nuff said, any respect i might have had for their past record is now buried in contempt for THEIR sectarianism.

[Hit The North]

redarmyfiction writes:
all hail the all knowing and wondrous swp leadership, that not only alienates its own members but has managed to push thouisands of potential working class "militants" into the bnp and then pretends it&#39;s someone elses fault. FFS. grow up.

So the ranks of the BNP are being swelled by working class militants who would otherwise be socialist? So the growth of the BNP is down to the failure of the SWP who have alienated thousands of workers (whilst presumably your pathetic little outfit has done nowt but tail-end their reactionary attitudes)? So you claim this obvious bollocks and ask me to grow up?


i&#39;m sick of this discussion

Thank fuck for that. You only talk shit anyway.

[redarmyfaction38]

Originally posted by Citizen [email protected] 25, 2007 11:38 pm
redarmyfiction writes:
all hail the all knowing and wondrous swp leadership, that not only alienates its own members but has managed to push thouisands of potential working class "militants" into the bnp and then pretends it&#39;s someone elses fault. FFS. grow up.

So the ranks of the BNP are being swelled by working class militants who would otherwise be socialist? So the growth of the BNP is down to the failure of the SWP who have alienated thousands of workers (whilst presumably your pathetic little outfit has done nowt but tail-end their reactionary attitudes)? So you claim this obvious bollocks and ask me to grow up?


i&#39;m sick of this discussion

Thank fuck for that. You only talk shit anyway.
i promised myself i wouldn&#39;t, but, you&#39;re a complete prat if you can&#39;t see that the swp/respect allegiance to militant islam, it&#39;s refusal to condemn terrorist outrages that result in the deaths of thousands of ordinary workers, it&#39;s total neglect of the issues that workers in britain are concerned about in favour of concentrating on "minority issues" has driven would be militants into the arms of the bnp.
i suggest you start listening to working class people rather than talking at them.
as for my "pathetic little outfit", it is neither reactionary nor over inflated with its own importance, unlike the swp, which is both.
know a party by its friends, if you ally yourself with reactionaries, then you will be seen as reactionaries and the muslim fundamentalists are reactionaries.
then there&#39;s gorgeous george, what an example of a "socialist fighter", at the mere suggestion that a workers rep should be paid a workers wage, he suggests he should be paid more than the ludicrous mps salary he all readt enjoys.
now... whose talking shit round here?

that would be you, citizen zero.

good name, cos you got fuck all idea.

[Marion]

From the Socialist Worker:


The SWP is not going to be driven out of Respect... We urge everyone to support our position that we need to defend Respect as a project that has socialism as a central part, that will not make endless concessions in order to win votes, and that stands up for democracy.

Where to start??

[redarmyfaction38]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 07:29 pm
From the Socialist Worker:


The SWP is not going to be driven out of Respect... We urge everyone to support our position that we need to defend Respect as a project that has socialism as a central part, that will not make endless concessions in order to win votes, and that stands up for democracy.

Where to start??
might try with proposing some "worker orientated policies".
workers reps on workers wages, building respect as an alternative to the capitalist parties, involving "fellow travellers" rather than denouncing them as "sectarians", encouraging debate rather than trying to control it, kicking galloway into touch.
just a few ideas.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

RAF:


might try with proposing some "worker orientated policies".
workers reps on workers wages, building respect as an alternative to the capitalist parties, involving "fellow travellers" rather than denouncing them as "sectarians", encouraging debate rather than trying to control it, kicking galloway into touch.
just a few ideas.

Do you ever have anything useful to say, other than this sectarian point-scoring?

[Zurdito]

"kick Galloway into touch" wasn&#39;t useful?

It might have ben useful if you&#39;d listened 3 years ago.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Z:


"kick Galloway into touch" wasn&#39;t useful?

It might have ben useful if you&#39;d listened 3 years ago.

It would be even more useful if you stopped point-scoring too.

[citizen_snips]

I find it a bit depressing that the whole idea behind respect was just to nudge in the general direction of socialist ideas. If people have the time outside of work and the commitment to get involved in a political group, they need at least to know the principles of that group. I think socialists should be open about their position, and should try to organise based on socialist principles. The position of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" is known to be rubbish, but so is "the enemy of my enemy might be my friend if I pretend to be their friend and slip them enough of our leaflets".

It feels as if SWP members are ashamed of calling themselves socialists, and want to build up a socialist group without telling the members it&#39;s more than just some bunch that seems a little bit left wing.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Citizen Snips, if you read the discussions going on in blogosphere (especially at Socialist Unity) you will see that this is not so.

There are genuine differences here about the future trajectory of Respect, some of which revolve around the concerns you express.

One of the problems here is that this developing split has been surrounded on all sides by speculation, gossip, inuendo and baseless accusation (much of it echoed here).

And, of course, far too much sectarian point scoring from those whose own parties/traditions have achieved sod all over the last generation or so.

That amounts to those who belong to hoplessly ineffectual parties criticising the only group on the left to have chalked up any sort of success in the last 20 years.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by redarmyfaction38+October 27, 2007 11:30 pm--> (redarmyfaction38 @ October 27, 2007 11:30 pm) ...workers reps on workers wages, building respect as an alternative to the capitalist parties, involving "fellow travellers" rather than denouncing them as "sectarians", encouraging debate rather than trying to control it, kicking galloway into touch.
just a few ideas. [/b]
Generally they have denounced them as racists as often as sectarians.

An SWP member on another forum wrote talking about a Respect meeting in Tower Hamlets:

SWP member
Its also worth noting that certain prominate figures in Galloway&#39;s camp also opposed the participation of women in the meeting saying "we left our wives at home."
It is funny how the SWP want us to note what their &#39;allies&#39; are like now, when if you mentioned merely six months ago they would have castigated you as a racist.

Devrim

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

That amounts to those who belong to hoplessly ineffectual parties criticising the only group on the left to have chalked up any sort of success in the last 20 years.

What success was that? Perhaps the counterrevolutionary overthrow of the USSR, which the SWP championed for years? :lol:

[Devrim]

Originally posted by Lenin&#39;s tomb blog
George Galloway was central to building this coalition, but it is my view that he now has a different idea in mind: one that is more oriented to reformism and whose strategy is one of electoralism. He has changed his mind about the basis of the Respect coalition. I direct you to this editorial in Socialist Worker, which I agree with wholeheartedly.

http://leninology.blogspot.com/

SWP supporters seem to be blaming Galloway here for turning towards reformism, and electorialism. Funnily enough, GG&#39;s position seems the most consistent of all of them to me. He has always been &#39;oriented to reformism&#39;, and had a &#39;strategy of electoralism&#39;.
Devrim

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Devrim:

Once again, even while you are not in possession of all the facts -- that does not prevent you from mischief-making, your preferred option, it seems.

Well, at least you are a consistent fabulist...

CDL:


What success was that? Perhaps the counterrevolutionary overthrow of the USSR, which the SWP championed for years?

Which the alleged ruling-class of the USSR (i.e., the workers) did nothing to stop -- in fact, in many cases they joined in.

Now, that was a success; I am glad we agree. :D

Devrim:


An SWP member on another forum wrote talking about a Respect meeting in Tower Hamlets:

QUOTE (SWP member)
Its also worth noting that certain prominate figures in Galloway&#39;s camp also opposed the participation of women in the meeting saying "we left our wives at home."

It is funny how the SWP want us to note what their &#39;allies&#39; are like now, when if you mentioned merely six months ago they would have castigated you as a racist.

Still relying on gossip (as I said you would)?

[Devrim]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 29, 2007 01:08 pm
Once again, while you are not in possession of the full facts -- that does not prevent you from mischief-making, your preferred option, it seems.

Well, at least you are a consistent fabulist...
Once again, a pathetic school maamish comment, followed by a smear in place of any political analysis. What does mischief making mean in this context in any case?
Devrim

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Devrim:


Once again, a pathetic school maamish comment, followed by a smear in place of any political analysis.

Well, stop doing it then.


What does mischief making mean in this context in any case?

You should know -- you are the resident expert.

[Luís Henrique]

Rosa, there is no branch of SWP in Brazil, so I have no direct experience with their politics. Which is to mean, I am someone who can be convinced either by the SWP supporters or opposers.

If you want to convince me that the SWP is doing something right, you will have to do something different from what you are doing. You know quite well that the SWP was immaterial to the toppling of Stalinist dictatorship in the Soviet Union, so you shouldn&#39;t brag that this is a SWP&#39;s success. And you should address devrim&#39;s points instead of trying to ridicule him with turns of rhetoric.

It is no secret that my political position is, generally speaking, much closer to yours than to devrim&#39;s. But with your despicable debate tactics, you are not succeeding in convincing me that devrim is wrong in this particular issue.

Luís Henrique

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

LH:


If you want to convince me that the SWP is doing something right, you will have to do something different from what you are doing. You know quite well that the SWP was immaterial to the toppling of Stalinist dictatorship in the Soviet Union, so you shouldn&#39;t brag that this is a SWP&#39;s success. And you should address devrim&#39;s points instead of trying to ridicule him with turns of rhetoric.

I am not trying to convince anyone of anything, here. Merely deflect the sectarian point scoring of mischief-makers like Devrim.

And, this thread is not about the successes of the SWP, real or imagined.

If you want to read of their successes -- you can find them here:

http://www.marxists.de/intsoctend/birchall/srgroup.htm

http://www.marxists.de/intsoctend/birchall/index.htm

http://www.dkrenton.co.uk/anl/anl.html

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

http://www.stopwar.org.uk/

Just for starters...


It is no secret that my political position is, generally speaking, much closer to yours than to devrim&#39;s. But with your despicable debate tactics, you are not succeeding in convincing me that devrim is wrong in this particular issue.

I did not know you were a crushed flower... :(

Softies like you are no use to anyone. :)

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 30, 2007 12:46 am

It is no secret that my political position is, generally speaking, much closer to yours than to devrim&#39;s. But with your despicable debate tactics, you are not succeeding in convincing me that devrim is wrong in this particular issue.

I did not know you were a crushed flower... :(

Softies like you are no use to anyone. :)
Nor are people like you, who deride everybody and refuse to engage in rational debate.

The problem, however, is not my supposed softness, but the fact that your debating techniques are ineffective.

Luís Henrique

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

LH:


Nor are people like you, who deride everybody and refuse to engage in rational debate.

You of all people should know by know that I debate with serious comrades.

On the other hand, I just take the piss out of idiots (like some of the above).


The problem, however, is not my supposed softness, but the fact that your debating techniques are ineffective.

Not so; they achieve exactly what I want them to achieve: they piss off the sectarian point-scorers. ;)

And you are still just a softy... :)

[Redmau5]

they piss off the sectarian point-scorers.

It seems people can&#39;t criticise the SWP in any way without being accused of &#39;sectarian point-scoring&#39; and &#39;mischief-making&#39;.

[chebol]

No one, I think, is (or at least they shouldn&#39;t be) deriding the real successes of the SWP.

The problem is that the matter at hand is the third major failure of the left in the UK to successfully - and continually - regroup (in one way or another). As Colin Fox said "nothing is so divisive as a call for left unity".

The role of the SWP is very much under the spotlight. Whether they are in the right or wrong (and I tend toward the latter view, myself), the fact is that in the Socialist Alliance and now in Respect (and to a degree in the SSP, the relatively small nature of which role might bode well fore their recovery) the SWP has either played the role of wrecker, or is utterly inept at dealing with the rest of the left.

The farce currently surrounding the split/ non-split (Tower Hamlets) issue is only the latest bubble to burst in a number of weeks, and the resignations from the SWp are more telling than any "expulsions". Jerry Hicks, for one, whose statement is here:
http://respectuk.blogspot.com/2007/10/jerr...-socialist.html (http://respectuk.blogspot.com/2007/10/jerry-hicks-resigns-from-socialist.html)
And read this: http://www.isg-fi.org.uk/spip.php?article363

The role of the SWP, as far as I can tell, in this matter, is deplorable - to be polite. If you want me to be rude, just ask, and I&#39;ll freely lay in. But I don&#39;t think that&#39;s particularly useful, as there is still something to be salvaged here.

Despite - it would seem, perhaps - what Rees and co would have us think.

More background and updates on what&#39;s going on:
http://liammacuaid.wordpress.com/

http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=923
http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=922
http://www.workersliberty.org/node/9457

And Rosa, your style doesn&#39;t piss off the sectarian point scorers. They quite happily keep playing the game, notching up mindless victories. Your style does, however, have the effect of turning off those interested in a genuine debate or discussion because of two things:

1. You react to sectarian point scoring with sectarian point scoring.

2. You over-react to criticism with.... sectarian point-scoring (albeit of your own particular flavour).

A bit more engagement with the issues, and a bit less bark would be nice.

[Andy Bowden]

According to the RESPECT supporters blog, in further developments the four councillors who resigned the RESPECT whip were at a press conference, announcing their desire to form a new party RESPECT (Independents)....with John Rees, national sec of RESPECT at the press conference :wacko:

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Thanks for that Chebol; at last someone who seems to know what he is talking about.

But I do not respond to sectarian point-scoring with more of the same (or if I do, perhaps you&#39;d like to provide the links to substantiate that allegation?), but with piss-taking, etc.

And, I do not over-react (you will be saying I am &#39;hysterical&#39; next, I fear&#33;). How is pisstaking an over-reaction to bare-faced lying?


A bit more engagement with the issues, and a bit less bark would be nice.

Your attempt to inform this discussion with what look like facts, means I have no problem &#39;engaging&#39; with you.

The difficulty I have is that your reportage is one-sided.

You do not quote blogs where the SWP is defended (for example the one I link to below), but merely ones that are largely hostile.

Is that fair?

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

As Colin Fox said "nothing is so divisive as a call for left unity".

I think a main mistake of many comrades is that they even consider Cliffites a part of the workers movement. &#39;Comrades&#39; who compete with the bourgeoisie for the position of best anti-communist, who scab on workers&#39; states, who ally with the some of the most anti-worker forces in history, who back labor bureaucrats and their dictates... these are no comrades at all.

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 30, 2007 04:55 pm

As Colin Fox said "nothing is so divisive as a call for left unity".

I think a main mistake of many comrades is that they even consider Cliffites a part of the workers movement. &#39;Comrades&#39; who compete with the bourgeoisie for the position of best anti-communist, who scab on workers&#39; states, who ally with the some of the most anti-worker forces in history, who back labor bureaucrats and their dictates... these are no comrades at all.
All left wing anarchists rejected the USSR and the past workers&#39; states as capitalist and authoritarian. Do you think they are scabs?

One thing is true though. Self respecting anarchists never backed labor bureacrats nor ended in bed with reactionary mullahs, as the SWP does.

[Hit The North]

Which "Labour bureaucrats" are you referring to?

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 30, 2007 08:11 am
You of all people should know by know that I debate with serious comrades.
Do you?


On the other hand, I just take the piss out of idiots (like some of the above).

Yes, that you do. The issue, here, being whether you judgement about some of us being idiots is accurate or not.


Not so; they achieve exactly what I want them to achieve: they piss off the sectarian point-scorers. ;)

Easy targets, easy scores...


And you are still just a softy... :)

I don&#39;t care whether you think I&#39;m a softy or not. I&#39;m not participating in any juvenile competition about hardness.

On the other hand, I start to get a glimpse about why you are so adamantly anti-Freudian... :lol:

Luís Henrique

[Zurdito]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 30, 2007 02:06 pm
Thanks for that Chebol; at last someone who seems to know what he is talking about.

But I do not respond to sectarian point-scoring with more of the same (or if I do, perhaps you&#39;d like to provide the links to substantiate that allegation?), but with piss-taking, etc.

And, I do not over-react (you will be saying I am &#39;hysterical&#39; next, I fear&#33;). How is pisstaking an over-reaction to bare-faced lying?


A bit more engagement with the issues, and a bit less bark would be nice.

Your attempt to inform this discussion with what look like facts, means I have no problem &#39;engaging&#39; with you.

The difficulty I have is that your reportage is one-sided.

You do not quote blogs where the SWP is defended (for example the one I link to below), but merely ones that are largely hostile.

Is that fair?
Your friend the Lenin impersonator doesn&#39;t defend the SWP, he just refuses to comment, Rosa. In fact the only argument he engages in over the recent crisis is with people like Harry&#39;s Place - a pro-war, neo-liberal blog of the Nick Cohen school and who say that the left supporting the Iraqi Resistance is morally wrong and we&#39;ve become islamists etc., so I&#39;d say he&#39;s not really dealing with the serious criticisms of the RESPECT project, he&#39;s just blowing out of the water some mindless moralising by a bunch of outdated middle aged middle class male wannabe journalists whose only influence is amongst middle aged middle class males. An easy argument to win, but a pointless one, as I bet he won&#39;t convert one Harry&#39;s Place reader. So it just seems like self-indulgence. Now if you really want to deal with the serious criticisms, get your mate at Leninology to try something like this:

http://badmatthew.blogspot.com/2007/04/wor...on-respect.html (http://badmatthew.blogspot.com/2007/04/workers-power-on-respect.html)

[Devrim]

The SWP seem to be not only loosing members to respect in the UK, but also now seem to be causing dissent internationally. This (http://unityaotearoa.blogspot.com/2007/10/crisis-in-respect-letter-to-british-swp.html) is from the second open letter that their New Zealand section has written about the issue:


Originally posted by SWNZ+--> (SWNZ)Socialist Worker - New Zealand comrades see this course of action from our IST comrades in the SWP as potentially suicidal.[/b]

There is even an accusation of &#39;ultra-leftism&#39; against the SWP:


SWNZ
It seems to us an uncontroversial statement that tactics must be based on much more than principles - a lesson which Lenin himself explained clearly in his famous “Left-Wing” Communism. Revolutionary tactics must be based on the objective realities of the time - the level of class consciousness, the balance of forces in society at any given moment, the resources and cadre available to a revolutionary organization. To derive tactics from principles is not the method of scientific socialism, but of a dogmatic or even sectarian approach, that the party is “schoolteacher to the class”.

As we see it, the disaster overtaking Respect has been exacerbated by the SWP deriving tactics from principles.

Devrim

[Devrim]

It seems that the party is over:

Originally posted by Linda Smith and Salma Yaqoob+--> (Linda Smith and Salma Yaqoob)There have been two meetings between SWP leaders and non-SWP Respect National Council members including the National Chair and Vice-chair - last Thursday and last Sunday. At both these meetings there was an agreement that the relationship between leading SWP and non-SWP members in Respect had fundamentally and irretrievably broken down and that there had to be a rapid but amicable separation if we were to avoid a profoundly destructive continuation of the divisions which now exist inside Respect. The principal issue was what names the two successor organisations would have. Non-SWP representatives wanted to issue a joint statement on Sunday but the SWP leadership wanted to keep the discussions secret.[/b]
The document continues with allegations of the SWP rigging the conference (http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=937):


Linda Smith and Salma Yaqoob
We now have documentary evidence that Student Respect officers locally have been encouraged to send in to the Respect National Office lists of names of students who have put their names down as “interested” in Respect at Freshers’ Fair, but who have not paid over a penny to the student organisation locally, much less to the Respect national office, in order to become members of Respect.
...
This is a blatant attempt to “pack” the Annual Conference by getting SWP members to register as members at the last minute and to get themselves elected as delegates from effectively non-existent Respect branches, rotten boroughs with delegate election meetings not properly convened.

Devrim

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

The SWP leadership is not splitting from Respect

8pm Monday 29 October 2007

This evening a shocking email has been sent from Respect’s National Office without consultation under the headline “SWP leadership splitting from Respect”.

I want to make it absolutely clear, as I have on a number of other previous occasions the SWP is not and has no intention of splitting from Respect.

I have just spoken to John Rees and he categorically denies making any of the statements attributed to him in the latest email.

Four Respect Councillors have withdrawn from the whip. But they have made it clear that they still belong to the organisation and stand by its original aims. They have withdrawn from the whip because they are opposed to the direction Respect seems to be heading in and they are disgusted with the bullying and intimidation they have been facing inside the Respect Tower Hamlets councillors’ group.

George Galloway and his supporters have made it clear that they do not want to have a Respect conference in less than three weeks time. Instead of allowing the Respect membership to decide the way forward, they are trying to ratchet up the pressure and make it appear that it is the SWP that wants to split from Respect.

I repeat the SWP has not split from Respect. I want to make it 100 percent clear that the SWP will not be bullied or blackmailed out of the coalition and nor will we just walk away from Respect. We were part of its foundation and have put as much work into the project as anyone or any other group.

The recent statements being sent out by Linda Smith and George Galloway are increasingly hysterical and are designed to confuse and disorientate Respect members and supporters who are opposed to the witch-hunt.

There should be a big health warning from any statement coming out from Linda Smith and George Galloway.

Comrades should feel free to forward this email on to their local groups — so our position is clear.

In solidarity,

Martin Smith, SWP National Secretary


Respect: there is no split — let the members decide

9.30pm Monday 29 October 2007

The Socialist Workers Party has no intention of leaving Respect and will not be “splitting” from the coalition it helped create and to which it has been so central.

John Rees did not state support for standing candidates against Respect candidates or against George Galloway.

The statement sent out earlier today is a further attempt to remove John as National Secretary and the SWP and those who share our views from Respect and to force a split in the coalition.

Our statement opposing the attack on the left in Respect has the support of 21 National Council members and six councillors, plus some 900 activists who have been central to the success of Respect.

We continue to believe that the best way to resolve our differences is by letting the members decide at the National Conference, which is now less than three weeks away. We desire a democratic settlement of the outstanding issues in a way that ensures members have their say.

The statement issued today, by threatening John’s removal and by trying to declare a split in Respect would undermine a democratic solution to the debate within Respect.

John can only be removed through Respect&#39;s democratic structures, not by the issuing of a letter. The crisis within Respect is best resolved at our National Conference.
John Rees
Lindsey German
Chris Bambery
Elaine Graham-Leigh

From the SWP website

[redarmyfaction38]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 10:12 pm

The SWP leadership is not splitting from Respect

8pm Monday 29 October 2007

This evening a shocking email has been sent from Respect’s National Office without consultation under the headline “SWP leadership splitting from Respect”.

I want to make it absolutely clear, as I have on a number of other previous occasions the SWP is not and has no intention of splitting from Respect.

I have just spoken to John Rees and he categorically denies making any of the statements attributed to him in the latest email.

Four Respect Councillors have withdrawn from the whip. But they have made it clear that they still belong to the organisation and stand by its original aims. They have withdrawn from the whip because they are opposed to the direction Respect seems to be heading in and they are disgusted with the bullying and intimidation they have been facing inside the Respect Tower Hamlets councillors’ group.

George Galloway and his supporters have made it clear that they do not want to have a Respect conference in less than three weeks time. Instead of allowing the Respect membership to decide the way forward, they are trying to ratchet up the pressure and make it appear that it is the SWP that wants to split from Respect.

I repeat the SWP has not split from Respect. I want to make it 100 percent clear that the SWP will not be bullied or blackmailed out of the coalition and nor will we just walk away from Respect. We were part of its foundation and have put as much work into the project as anyone or any other group.

The recent statements being sent out by Linda Smith and George Galloway are increasingly hysterical and are designed to confuse and disorientate Respect members and supporters who are opposed to the witch-hunt.

There should be a big health warning from any statement coming out from Linda Smith and George Galloway.

Comrades should feel free to forward this email on to their local groups — so our position is clear.

In solidarity,

Martin Smith, SWP National Secretary


Respect: there is no split — let the members decide

9.30pm Monday 29 October 2007

The Socialist Workers Party has no intention of leaving Respect and will not be “splitting” from the coalition it helped create and to which it has been so central.

John Rees did not state support for standing candidates against Respect candidates or against George Galloway.

The statement sent out earlier today is a further attempt to remove John as National Secretary and the SWP and those who share our views from Respect and to force a split in the coalition.

Our statement opposing the attack on the left in Respect has the support of 21 National Council members and six councillors, plus some 900 activists who have been central to the success of Respect.

We continue to believe that the best way to resolve our differences is by letting the members decide at the National Conference, which is now less than three weeks away. We desire a democratic settlement of the outstanding issues in a way that ensures members have their say.

The statement issued today, by threatening John’s removal and by trying to declare a split in Respect would undermine a democratic solution to the debate within Respect.

John can only be removed through Respect&#39;s democratic structures, not by the issuing of a letter. The crisis within Respect is best resolved at our National Conference.
John Rees
Lindsey German
Chris Bambery
Elaine Graham-Leigh

From the SWP website
not really taking the piss, yeh i am. love this whole debate, their&#39;s the swp swinging one way or another, disowning gorgeous george, then stating their absolute commitment to respect, whilst expelling members in the first place for questioning their support of gorgeous george and his "reformist?" ideology, then expellling the members that told them it would be a complete cock up in the first place, one of them being, of course, a "sectarian" that joined them after a similar cock up by the militant tendancy.
makes you wonder, dunnit?
i&#39;m afraid the swp/respect have done it; they&#39;ve managed, once again, to fuck up a brilliant opportunity for creating a socialist alternative to "new labour" by a) being scared to present a radcal socialist alternative and, b) being dumb enough to be sucked into allegiances with supposedly "radical" religious minorities and the remnants of former stalinist parties.
worst of all, they&#39;ve combined with such, in germany and other nations worldwide, to carry out cuts in public services and attacks on workers wages and conditions.

given the parties name, they have proven they aint socialist, they aint workerist and they are split as a party&#33;&#33;

maybe it&#39;s time forv a makeover?

maybe, they should call themselves the "no faith in the working class want to be the old labour reformist and sell out the workers party".