SWP councillor joins Tories [Archive]

Rosa Lichtenstein

14th February 2008, 02:50

Thius just shows that you lot should not believe what the bourgeois press prints (this story's only basis was an article in the East London Advertiser, and clearly made up to influence the vote in Tower Hamlets in two days time):

Tower Hamlets Councillor stays with Respect14/02/2008Tower Hamlets Councillor Ahmed Hussain quashed rumours that he had joined the Tory party today and insisted that he was sticking with Respect.

Following stories in the local paper, The East London Advertiser, the leader of the Respect group of councillors Oliur Rahman said: "I spoke with Councillor Ahmed Hussain today and he made it absolutely clear that he is staying with Respect and stands by its values."

Councillor Rahman added, "there are some people who want to jump on any rumour that gets out to damage Respect. They would be better advised to check the facts with me. Our Respect group remains united and ready to join the fight against the Tories and New Labour in the Greater London Authority elections."

This is an offical Respect Press release:

http://www.respectcoalition.org/index.php?ite=1773

So, CDL you can stick your sectarian trolling...

Devrim

14th February 2008, 09:11

Thius just shows that you lot should not believe what the bourgeois press prints (this story's only basis was an article in the East London Advertiser, and clearly made up to influence the vote in Tower Hamlets in two days time):

The story comes from the RESPECT RENEWAL website. It is just as bourgeois as the SWP.

It is possible that there is nothing to this. All the same I find it hard to imagine that there is nothing to it. I don't think that the SWP would be hesitant about using the bourgeois courts to drag them through a libel case if it were absolutely untrue.

Also, if there was nothing to it, I would expect a comment on the RESPECT statement about the picture. It could be completely innocent. If it was, I would want to explain it.

What I imagine has happened is that the guy was considering it, and then was pulled back into line.

We have a pretty open membership policy in the SWP - after all we're not a cult. If people profess fidelity to the basic aims of revolutionary socialism and they commit themselves to activity, they're pretty much taken on face value.

Yes, you let people in if they have a left leg.

If they're opportunists and fakers, they don't last long.

Neither do most of the membership.

Devrim

Xiao Banfa

14th February 2008, 09:17

Yes, you let people in if they have a left leg.

That's how they operate in my country as well.

They even wanted me to join, that's how mental case they are.

But there are some good ****s in it as well.

Hit The North

14th February 2008, 11:45

Devrim:
All the same I find it hard to imagine that there is nothing to it.Try harder.

What I imagine has happened is that the guy was considering it, and then was pulled back into line.On second thoughts, don't bother.

Yes, you let people in if they have a left leg.Yes, but we insist they have the right one removed :rolleyes:. In fact, here's our inspiring founder:

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/510FPMRQHBL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-dp-500-arrow,TopRight,45,-64_OU01_AA240_SH20_.jpg

Neither do most of the membership.Lol. You should check out the link in your signature. Your organisation of anti-trade unionists seems to have disappeared altogether :lol:.

BobKKKindle$

14th February 2008, 11:46

Even if this story were true (which, as is clear if one does some proper research and does not blindly accept a hostile organization's viewpoint, it isn't) it should not be interpreted as evidence that the SWP is in any way a 'bourgeois' organization or is not fully committed to revolutionary socialism, as sudden changes of political orientation are a fairly common occurrence, and are not restricted to the SWP or the Trotskyist left - Mussolini was a socialist in his youth, and the current leader of the British National-Anarchist movement, Troy Southgate, was once on the editorial board of Alternative Green. Only those with no analytical abilities would assume that the actions of a few isolated and politically opportunist individuals give a reliable indication of the politics of the parties, of which they were members.

BobKKKindle$

14th February 2008, 12:02

Devrim

14th February 2008, 12:21

Lol. You should check out the link in your signature. Your organisation of anti-trade unionists seems to have disappeared altogether
It is called a broken link. Thanks.
Devrim

Devrim

14th February 2008, 12:33

I'd also like to point out that some members are showing an unbelievable level of hypocrisy and self-delusion - when SWP members were recently asked to leave the party due to a failure to abandon their support for George Galloway within RESPECT and accept the SWP's platform, we were accused of being authoritarian, and yet now, when this false rumor has emerged, we are criticized for our open membership policy!

What you may have failed to notice is that different people have criticised you for different things. There are a lot of people who post on here. I certainly didn't comment on the SWP being 'authoritarian'.

I think that the SWP's membership policy is ridiculous, and could not be held by a revolutionary organisation.

If you allow people into a political organisation who do not have agreement with its politics, you can not have a democratic organisation, which sticks to those aforementioned politics.

Only those with no analytical abilities would assume that the actions of a few isolated and politically opportunist individuals give a reliable indication of the politics of the parties, of which they were members.

Here you are right. It would reflect though on the quality of the cadres you are recruiting, and what sort of people you recruited out of the Respect shambles.

Even if this story were true (which, as is clear if one does some proper research and does not blindly accept a hostile organization's viewpoint, it isn't)

So are you suggesting that we 'blindly accept' the SWP's viewpoint?

There are three possibilities
1) RESPECT RENEWAL are blatantly lying
2) RESPECT are blatantly lying
3) The truth is somewhere between the two.

I suspect that the third will turn out to be the case.

Devrim

Leo

14th February 2008, 12:39

Try harder.
On second thoughts, don't bother.
Lol. You should check out the link in your signature. Your organisation of anti-trade unionists seems to have disappeared altogetherWow, you're really insecure about your politics, aren't you?

I'd also like to point out that some members are showing an unbelievable level of hypocrisy and self-delusion - when SWP members were recently asked to leave the party due to a failure to abandon their support for George Galloway within RESPECT and accept the SWP's platform, we were accused of being authoritarian, and yet now, when this false rumor has emerged, we are criticized for our open membership policy!I assume it wasn't the same people who accused you of the two things.

BobKKKindle$

14th February 2008, 13:00

If you allow people into a political organisation who do not have agreement with its politics, you can not have a democratic organisation, which sticks to those aforementioned politics.

So what kind of membership policy do you advocate - do you think people should have to take some sort of test, or submit a list of achievements and previous political activities before they are allowed to join an organization? Should members be subject to constant inspection to make sure they have not changed their views? Before the recent tensions within RESPECT, there was no indication that the three members who were eventually asked to leave disagreed with the SWP on major issues, and so therefore they were not considered candidates for expulsion - upon discovering that the members were undermining the SWP's position through their support for Galloway (after he denounced the SWP's role in RESPECT) and comments made outside the party to others, they were promptly contacted by the central committee and asked to change - their subsequent refusal to do so forced the CC to expel the members concerned.

What mistakes did we make? Our actions were fully consistent with the principles of democratic centralism.

So are you suggesting that we 'blindly accept' the SWP's viewpoint?

RESPECT Renewal made the accusation - the SWP has responded by quoting the member, who has, unsurprisingly denied the false charges posed by RESPECT Renewal. The government page for the council still lists the member as part of RESPECT - link (http://sps2ksrv.towerhamlets.gov.uk/MeetYourCouncillor/MemberDetails.aspx?ID=69)

What reason then, do you have to suppose that both groups have not accurately described what has (or has not) occurred?

Rosa Lichtenstein

14th February 2008, 13:08

I am sorry guys, but you can all stop speculating; here is the official press release from Respect (posted now a second time):

Tower Hamlets Councillor stays with Respect

14/02/2008

Tower Hamlets Councillor Ahmed Hussain quashed rumours that he had joined the Tory party today and insisted that he was sticking with Respect.

Following stories in the local paper, The East London Advertiser, the leader of the Respect group of councillors Oliur Rahman said: "I spoke with Councillor Ahmed Hussain today and he made it absolutely clear that he is staying with Respect and stands by its values."

Councillor Rahman added, "there are some people who want to jump on any rumour that gets out to damage Respect. They would be better advised to check the facts with me. Our Respect group remains united and ready to join the fight against the Tories and New Labour in the Greater London Authority elections."

http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.respectcoalition.org/index.php?ite=1773

The original non-story came from a bourgeios newsaper (and it broke two days before a local election, for obvious reasons).

So, Devrim, that Tory rag is lying, not Respect or Respect Renewal.

Hit The North

14th February 2008, 14:22

Wow, you're really insecure about your politics, aren't you?

Why, for taking the piss out of sectarian muck-raker like Devrim? Do us a favour...:rolleyes:

And here's proof, if needed, of how piss-poor and sectarian his politics are:

Devrim:
There are three possibilities
1) RESPECT RENEWAL are blatantly lying
2) RESPECT are blatantly lying
3) The truth is somewhere between the two.No chance that it's in fact the bourgeois press that's lying? The reason he discounts this is because he doesn't know who the real enemy is. Duck comrades if this fool ever gets a gun, because he's bound to be pointing it in the wrong direction!

But, Leo, thanks for your usual thoughtful intervention. ;)

Wanted Man

14th February 2008, 14:28

Well, it does look like a blatant Tory lie. Shame on the people who gleefully copied it without hearing both sides. I wonder when we'll be seeing the rectification.

Andy Bowden

14th February 2008, 15:00

Sorry Rosa, its RESPECT-SWP who are doing the lying,

http://www.eastlondonadvertiser.co.uk/content/towerhamlets/advertiser/news/story.aspx?brand=ELAOnline&category=news&tBrand=northlondon24&tCategory=newsela&itemid=WeED14%20Feb%202008%2014%3A17%3A03%3A833

East London Advertiser.

FORMER Respect councillor Ahmed Hussain put pen to paper today (Thurs) and signed his Tory party membership forms… only hours after frenzied speculation he had changed his mind.
He met local Tory bosses at 12.30pm and sealed his defection after an extraordinary 24 hours of confusion over his future.

After Tower Hamlets council confirmed the defection a short while ago, Cllr Hussain, a former strong ally of Respect MP George Galloway, told the Advertiser: “I’ve signed the forms and I’m just relieved it’s now all settled so I can look forward to the future.

“It’s been a very tough 24 hours. It’s always difficult to leave your friends, but when you have to make a decision, you’ve got to do it.”

The Tower Hamlets political scene went into ‘meltdown’ yesterday after we revealed that Hussain, representing Mile End East ward on the authority and a former member of the Socialist Workers Party, was defecting to the Conservatives.

After being greeted like a king at Tory HQ in Millbank yesterday morning, Cllr Hussain had a sudden last minute attack of nerves sparking a day of dramatic twists and turns.

He told the Advertiser at 2pm yesterday he was going ahead with the defection and applauded his new national party leader David Cameron’s approach in a quote.

But when rumours started circulating around the Town Hall that he was set to become the Tory’s first Bengali councillor in Tower Hamlets, he was bombarded with calls and text messages from colleagues urging him to change his mind.

Some warned he was committing political suicide.

About an hour before he was due to inform council chief executive Martin Smith of his move, he told Tory group leader Peter Golds he needed ‘more time.’

He then spent the rest of the afternoon and evening consulting with councillors from all parties for advice.

At midnight, leading political figures believed that he had U-turned and decided to remain with the rebel Respect Unity Coalition group, and leave Cllr Golds as the humiliated ‘bride at the altar.’

Respect Unity group leader Oli Rahman and SWP boss John Rees then issued a press statement in the early hours of this morning attacking the Advertiser’s story as “a rumour”. They insisted Cllr Hussain remained firmly on their side.

But after spending the night thinking, Cllr Hussain called the paper at 9.30am to confirm he was defecting.

Three hours later, he met Cllr Golds and former Tory group leader Simon Rouse to sign his party membership forms, then emailed the council’s chief executive shortly after.

It means the Tories, who less than two years ago had just one councillor at Tower Hamlets, now have eight and have become the main Opposition group.

Cllr Golds said: “I’m absolutely delighted he has joined us. We’ve been in discussions with each other for some time on this matter and have had meetings both locally and with Conservative Central Office.

“Ahmed will make a wonderful addition to the Conservative group and will continue to contribute to the political debate in both Tower Hamlets and nationally.

John Rees’s press release earlier this morning:

For immediate release
14/02/08

Tower Hamlets Councillor stays with Respect

Tower Hamlets Councillor Ahmed Hussain quashed rumours that he had joined the Tory party today and insisted that he was sticking with Respect.

Following stories in the local paper, The East London Advertiser, the leader of the Respect group of councillors Oliur Rahman said: “I spoke with Councillor Ahmed Hussain today and he made it absolutely clear that he is staying with Respect and stands by its values.”

Councillor Rahman added, “there are some people who want to jump on any rumour that gets out to damage Respect. They would be better advised to check the facts with me. Our Respect group remains united and ready to join the fight against the Tories and New Labour in the Greater London Authority elections.”

ENDS

Leo

14th February 2008, 16:01

Why, for taking the piss out of sectarian muck-raker like Devrim?No, because you immediately tried to ridicule everything said against your party (without even properly reading them probably) and insult the ones saying it, you even tried to mock a link which appeared broken because RevLeft changed it's software recently (!) instead of trying to even answer the questions posed, which you are obviously not secure enough to answer because you fear being humiliated if you say something stupid. Your latest post too is an example of this. If you are not new in the SWP, then I'd say they are not reeducating their cadres well enough for them to seem confident.

Devrim

14th February 2008, 16:04

Why, for taking the piss out of sectarian muck-raker like Devrim? Do us a favour...:rolleyes:

And here's proof, if needed, of how piss-poor and sectarian his politics are:

There are three possibilities
1) RESPECT RENEWAL are blatantly lying
2) RESPECT are blatantly lying
3) The truth is somewhere between the two.

Devrim: No chance that it's in fact the bourgeois press that's lying? The reason he discounts this is because he doesn't know who the real enemy is. Duck comrades if this fool ever gets a gun, because he's bound to be pointing it in the wrong direction!

But, Leo, thanks for your usual thoughtful intervention. ;)

If the bourgeois press is lying then RESPECT RENEWAL is. That is the source I read it from.

Devrim

Rosa Lichtenstein

14th February 2008, 16:08

Thank you for that Andy, but I already saw it at the SU site.

Now that we seem to have the facts, some of the speculation can stop.

But why do you assume it is Respect that is lying?

Neither you nor I have the full facts yet, so it would be wise to wait before any of us make fools of ourselves by yet more speculation.

Devrim

14th February 2008, 16:10

But then let's look at this source:

Deleted quote already posted

It looks like he has defected afterall.

Rosa Lichtenstein

14th February 2008, 16:10

Devrim:

If the bourgeois press is lying then RESPECT RENEWAL is. That is the source I read it from.

Not necessarily; they may be quoting it believing it to be true.

Not every flasehood is a lie, you know.

Rosa Lichtenstein

14th February 2008, 16:11

Devrim, Andy has already posted it.

Do try to stay awake.

Rosa Lichtenstein

14th February 2008, 16:13

Ah, you have awoken from your sectarian slumbers.

We might get some sense out of you yet.

Devrim

14th February 2008, 16:13

So what kind of membership policy do you advocate - do you think people should have to take some sort of test, or submit a list of achievements and previous political activities before they are allowed to join an organization?

I think that you should have discussions with people to make sure that they agree with your politics.

Devrim

Rosa Lichtenstein

14th February 2008, 16:14

The SWP does that.

People change, or do you dialecticians not know that?

Devrim

14th February 2008, 16:18

The SWP does that.

From what I have seen they are not very intense. More like, "Do you want to join", "Yes" "OK".

People change, or do you dialecticians not know that?

You seem to have an obsession with dialectics. I don't know why you call us dialecticians though.

Devrim

Rosa Lichtenstein

14th February 2008, 16:52

Cevrim:

From what I have seen they are not very intense. More like, "Do you want to join", "Yes" "OK".

Yes, well this is on a par with your quoting other anecdotal evidence, no matter how dubious, just to malign the SWP.

I am pleased to see you are at least consistently biased.

You seem to have an obsession with dialectics. I don't know why you call us dialecticians though

Indeed, and it's almost comparable with your obsession to believe any old rubbish just so long as it puts the SWP in a bad light.

Andy Bowden

14th February 2008, 16:56

Peoples politics do change, and there have been many people on the Left who have gone wholeheartedly into the side of the right-wing.

But in this case, the SWP were claiming this councillor was part of the "Left" in a "Left-Right split".

Devrim

14th February 2008, 17:05

Ignoring Rosa's bickering, and looking at what has happened here, it seems that an SWP councillor has crossed over to the Conservative Party. From what I can make out, he decided to do it, John Rees appears to have then talked to him and convinced him to stay, only for him to go ahead, and leave anyway.

The response of SWP members, and supporters was to first claim that it was a lie, and then to mock, or insult anybody who commented on it. To be fair, Bob Kindles at least tried to discuss things. It could possibly be put down to him not having been in the SWP long.

For the record seeing as I have been accused of 'sectarian muck raking' amongst other things. I don't believe the SWP is a revolutionary working class organisation. I also don't believe that it is equipped to deal with a re-emergence of class struggle, and is going into decline.

I don't want to 'put the SWP' in a bad light. I just find the whole affair amusing.

Devrim

Rosa Lichtenstein

14th February 2008, 17:08

Andy:

But in this case, the SWP were claiming this councillor was part of the "Left" in a "Left-Right split".

Yes, and some peolple can change very quickly.

So, what is you point?

Rosa Lichtenstein

14th February 2008, 17:17

Devrim, once again proving that my 'bickering' is spot on, shows he prefers yet more speculation to fact:

Ignoring Rosa's bickering, and looking at what has happened here, it seems that an SWP councillor has crossed over to the Conservative Party. From what I can make out, he decided to do it, John Rees appears to have then talked to him and convinced him to stay, only for him to go ahead, and leave anyway.

You cannot possibly know what Rees did or did not do, or what was or was not said, or promised.

The response of SWP members, and supporters was to first claim that it was a lie, and then to mock, or insult anybody who commented on it. To be fair, Bob Kindles at least tried to discuss things. It could possibly be put down to him not having been in the SWP long.

For the record seeing as I have been accused of 'sectarian muck raking' amongst other things. I don't believe the SWP is a revolutionary working class organisation. I also don't believe that it is equipped to deal with a re-emergence of class struggle, and is going into decline.

I don't want to 'put the SWP' in a bad light. I just find the whole affair amusing.

We still do not have the full facts, but that does not stop you from fibbing, does it?

And, the complaint above (at least from me) was that you lot were speculating. I did not use the word 'lie' of you, or of the others.

But, I think you (singular) are now beginning to edge in that direction by your constant desire to substitute speculation for fact.

In that case Citizen Z was rather restrained in the language he used to describe your sectarian snivelling, and now adolescent amusement.

bellyscratch

14th February 2008, 17:18

Just had an emai from respect

Dear Members,

We sent out the following press release earlier today.

Respect National Office

Statement from Respect on Cllr Ahmed Hussain's resignation
14/02/2008

We are sorry to hear that Cllr Ahmed Hussain has joined the Tories. We had discussions with him yesterday where he agreed that he was going to stay with Respect. We issued a statement saying that, in good faith, but clearly his assurances meant nothing.

He has joined a party which supports war and privatisation, which has little representation among ethnic minorities, and which has few supporters among working class people in Tower Hamlets or anywhere else.

This is a betrayal of the principles on which he was elected and will be a great disappointment to those who voted for him. He should resign immediately and stand in a by election, where voters will have the chance to cast their opinion on his change of politics.

Rosa Lichtenstein

14th February 2008, 17:20

Thanks for that bellywhatever.

So, it looks like this guy lied.

The tories are welcome to him.

RebelDog

14th February 2008, 17:44

You can't trust politicians, no matter what they say or who they claim to represent. They represent themselves.

Leo

14th February 2008, 17:57

it seems that an SWP councillor has crossed over to the Conservative Party. From what I can make out, he decided to do it, John Rees appears to have then talked to him and convinced him to stay, only for him to go ahead, and leave anyway.

We are sorry to hear that Cllr Ahmed Hussain has joined the Tories. We had discussions with him yesterday where he agreed that he was going to stay with Respect. We issued a statement saying that, in good faith, but clearly his assurances meant nothing.

You cannot possibly know what Rees did or did not do, or what was or was not said, or promised.

:rolleyes: Remarkable.

Cencus

14th February 2008, 18:06

What possesses someone to jump from the S.W.P. to the Tories? He's old enough to remember the Thatcher years, surely he doesn't believe that shower of scum have changed that much. I really just don't get it. I've talked to quite a few SWP folks over the years and they have all seemed sincere, we've had some arguements but none that would make me think they'd accept a Conservative sympathiser in their ranks, the whole thing just seems so wrong. It's just fucked up. Not having a go at atthe SWP just shocked.

Random Precision

14th February 2008, 18:06

This is a huge shame. I wonder what convinced him that the Tories had the answers and socialism does not. In any case, however, the SWP is still a great organization and this event, as bizarre and demoralizing as it seems, does not detract from it.

You can't trust politicians, no matter what they say or who they claim to represent. They represent themselves.

Quoted for truth.

bellyscratch

14th February 2008, 18:33

Thanks for that bellywhatever.

So, it looks like this guy lied.

The tories are welcome to him.

ha! just call me Ross

Andy Bowden

14th February 2008, 20:56

Yes Rosa, peoples politics can change quickly but to go from being ostensibly the Socialist wing of RESPECT to the Tories in a matter of a couple of months is too quick for someones politics to honestly change from black to white.

Its more plausible that he held Conservative sympathies while he was a RESPECT councillor; which questions how he can be on the "Left" end of the split.

Nothing Human Is Alien

15th February 2008, 01:53

So, CDL you can stick your sectarian trolling...

Maybe you missed the first words of my post: "Assuming this is true"

Anyway, it turned out it was.

Rosa Lichtenstein

15th February 2008, 02:34

Devrim:

Remarkable.

It is remarkable that you, even now, prefer fantasy over fact, I agree.

Rosa Lichtenstein

15th February 2008, 02:38

CDL:

Maybe you missed the first words of my post: "Assuming this is true"

No I saw that. Whenever I read anything trailed in the bourgeois press about a comrade, or a party, I always assume it's false.

You, with your sectarian mind-set seem to assume it's true!

Anyway, it turned out it was.

But, you did not know that at the time. But that did not stop you jumping in with your size eleven boots.

Rosa Lichtenstein

15th February 2008, 02:43

Andy:

Yes Rosa, peoples politics can change quickly but to go from being ostensibly the Socialist wing of RESPECT to the Tories in a matter of a couple of months is too quick for someones politics to honestly change from black to white.

So, what are you suggesting, that we enter this in the Guiness Book of Records?

What is you political point, over and above this fascinating bit of trivia?

Its more plausible that he held Conservative sympathies while he was a RESPECT councillor; which questions how he can be on the "Left" end of the split.

No, it's more plausible that he was a lying opportunist SOB.

Unfortunately, the left has not yet discovered a mind probe that detects these individuals, or a time machine allowing us to nip into the future to see how these b*stards turn out.

I'll let you know the moment one or other is invented...

Rosa Lichtenstein

15th February 2008, 02:47

Random:

This is a huge shame. I wonder what convinced him that the Tories had the answers and socialism does not. In any case, however, the SWP is still a great organization and this event, as bizarre and demoralizing as it seems, does not detract from it.

One of the motivating factors in the recent split was over precisely this, that when one turns to electioneering, one attracts all manner of opportunists, who get elected on a radical platform, and then defect.

Classic opportunism here. And the defection was timed for maximum damage two days before a vote was to take place.

Rosa Lichtenstein

15th February 2008, 02:49

Cencus:

What possesses someone to jump from the S.W.P. to the Tories? He's old enough to remember the Thatcher years, surely he doesn't believe that shower of scum have changed that much. I really just don't get it. I've talked to quite a few SWP folks over the years and they have all seemed sincere, we've had some arguements but none that would make me think they'd accept a Conservative sympathiser in their ranks, the whole thing just seems so wrong. It's just fucked up. Not having a go at atthe SWP just shocked.

You are right, it is f*cked up. But, as I have pointed out, this guy was a lying opportunist.

Zurdito

15th February 2008, 02:50

Unfortunately, the left has not yet discovered a mind probe that detects these individuals, or a time machine allowing us to nip into the future to see how these b*stards turn out.

There are three quite simple steps you can take to repel such individuals:

1.) All elected representatives of the party earn a workers wage
2.)Do not peddle the idea that landlords and tenants, shopkeepers and their employees, millionaires and workers, have the same interests because they are from the same ethnic background
3.)Openly argue for revolutionary politics at all times and within all united fronts...ie the Trotskyist conception of the UF as opposed to Tony Cliff's conception.

Rosa Lichtenstein

15th February 2008, 02:56

Zurdito:

1.) All elected representatives of the party earn a workers wage
2.)Do not peddle the idea that landlords and tenants, shopkeepers and their employees, millionaires and workers, have the same interests because they are from the same ethnic background
3.)Openly argue for revolutionary politics at all times and within all united fronts...ie the Trotskyist conception of the UF as opposed to Tony Cliff's conception.

How will that stop liars and opportunists?

And, you seem to think that Trotskyist politics is a body of eternal truths that does not grow and develop with the class struggle.

Now, that is an odd sort of view for an alleged 'dialectician' to hold.

And who argued that millionaires and workers had the same interests?

Zurdito

15th February 2008, 03:17

How will that stop liars and opportunists?

Presumably honest and principled politics would be unliekly to appeal to such people. Also, I doubt many liars and opportunists want to earn a workers wage - it would have kept Galloway away, that's for sure.

And, you seem to think that Trotskyist politics is a body of eternal truths that does not grow and develop with the class struggle.

But why would the class struggle demand that united fronts silence opposition on a whole range of ideological issues instead of narrowly on the issue in question? Why would a united front demand that different groups be unable to campaign under their own banner as part of a united front? This is just anti-democratic practice and a totally degenerated concept of what should be a very straightforward tool for trotskyists which we can use to grow and to break sections of the masses from their leaders, instead of simply dissolving trot minorities in cross-class aliances (and note that I am not against cross-class aliances themselves on principle, as I would make a deal with the devil and his grandmother to further the class struggle)

Now, that is an odd sort of view for an alleged 'dialectician' to hold.

I don't fetishize "change" in the way that says you can completely re-write everything someone wrote with the blanket excuse "times have changed" without ever having to show wat factors exactly mean you would have agreed with them at the time but do not agree with them now.

And who argued that millionaires and workers had the same interests?

OK, so, the SWP set itself up as the internal left opposition in RESPECT.

Did the leadership of this left opposition allow its members, at the time when the coallition with Galloway was still going, to publically criticise the right of the movement, such as millionaire member Azmal Hussein and prominent millionaire supporter Mohammed Zabadne. If SWP members had to endorse this coallition without being able to openly criticise the right wing of it, then weren't revolutionary activists being forced to endorse the presence of millionaire's in their party? One thing is to be an opnely critical left-wing of a coallition, another is to have to publically stand shoulder to shoulder with millionaire's whilst proclaiming yourself to be a fighter for the proletariat and to say that there is no contradiction there.

Nothing Human Is Alien

15th February 2008, 03:25

No I saw that. Whenever I read anything trailed in the bourgeois press about a comrade, or a party, I always assume it's false.

Unless it's about the Red Army or the PDPA, right?

Xiao Banfa

15th February 2008, 03:35

Unfortunately, the left has not yet discovered a mind probe that detects these individuals, or a time machine allowing us to nip into the future to see how these b*stards turn out.

Yeah, but you can make sure yer members commint to a minimum of worker oriented socialist principles and aren't just getting on your bandwagon.

Rosa Lichtenstein

15th February 2008, 03:37

CDL:

Unless it's about the Red Army or the PDPA, right?

Certainly the 'Red' army, since it was an imperialist army.

And stop derailing this thread...

Rosa Lichtenstein

15th February 2008, 03:39

Xiao:

Yeah, but you can make sure yer members commint to a minimum of worker oriented socialist principles and aren't just getting on your bandwagon.

And how will that stop liars.

Do you not think that the 'security forces' have moles in most left organisations, individuals who can lie effectively about such things?

If they can do it, so can opportunists.

Xiao Banfa

15th February 2008, 03:43

And how will that stop liars.

Do you not think that the 'security forces' have moles in most left organisations, individuals who can lie effectively about such things?

If they can do it, so can opportunists.

Fair enough, but your reasoning for not having a less open membership is faulty.

The fact that you have millionaires in respect shows that your membership criteria is as loose as (insert crude metaphor).

Zurdito

15th February 2008, 03:46

The fact that you have millionaires in respect shows that your membership criteria is as loose as (insert crude metaphor).

That wasn't a mistake. No-one turned around and said "shit, how did those unwelcome millionaires get in!? I wish we could rid of them so they would stop donating us money". In fact the one I mentioned was a prominent member.

Rosa Lichtenstein

15th February 2008, 03:51

Zurdito:

Presumably honest and principled politics would be unliekly to appeal to such people. Also, I doubt many liars and opportunists want to earn a workers wage - it would have kept Galloway away, that's for sure.

As I have just said to Xiao:

And how will that stop liars.

Do you not think that the 'security forces' have moles in most left organisations, individuals who can lie effectively about such things?

If they can do it, so can opportunists.

As to this:

But why would the class struggle demand that united fronts silence opposition on a whole range of ideological issues instead of narrowly on the issue in question? Why would a united front demand that different groups be unable to campaign under their own banner as part of a united front? This is just anti-democratic practice and a totally degenerated concept of what should be a very straightforward tool for trotskyists which we can use to grow and to break sections of the masses from their leaders, instead of simply dissolving trot minorities in cross-class aliances (and note that I am not against cross-class aliances themselves on principle, as I would make a deal with the devil and his grandmother to further the class struggle)

If you want to debate this, then start an new thread in the Trotskyist section.

I don't fetishize "change" in the way that says you can completely re-write everything someone wrote with the blanket excuse "times have changed" without ever having to show wat factors exactly mean you would have agreed with them at the time but do not agree with them now.

But you go to the other extreme and claim there should never be any changes made to anything Trotsky said, even though Trotsky himself changed his mind many times during his life (at least he was a consistent dialectician).

OK, so, the SWP set itself up as the internal left opposition in RESPECT.

Whatever gave you that idea?

Did the leadership of this left opposition allow its members, at the time when the coallition with Galloway was still going, to publically criticise the right of the movement, such as millionaire member Azmal Hussein and prominent millionaire supporter Mohammed Zabadne. If SWP members had to endorse this coallition without being able to openly criticise the right wing of it, then weren't revolutionary activists being forced to endorse the presence of millionaire's in their party? One thing is to be an opnely critical left-wing of a coallition, another is to have to publically stand shoulder to shoulder with millionaire's whilst proclaiming yourself to be a fighter for the proletariat and to say that there is no contradiction there.

In a united front, you do not go in loudy proclaiming your differences.

That should seem obvious. You either dissolve the front, or you look for maximum agreement while preserving your own politics.

If any of these individuals publicly said things on behalf of Respect that contravened its policies, they would have been censured.

Do you know of any such incidents?

Rosa Lichtenstein

15th February 2008, 03:54

Xiao:

The fact that you have millionaires in respect shows that your membership criteria is as loose as (insert crude metaphor).

He was in the SWP.

And, in a united front, you make alliances with those you would not normally touch with a barge pole. And how many millionaires were there in Respect? Less than 0.1%

Criteria for membership of Respect are not the same as those for the SWP.

Rosa Lichtenstein

15th February 2008, 03:55

Zurdito:

That wasn't a mistake. No-one turned around and said "shit, how did those unwelcome millionaires get in!? I wish we could rid of them so they would stop donating us money". In fact the one I mentioned was a prominent member.

What makes you say he was 'prominent'?

Zurdito

15th February 2008, 04:00

What makes you say he was 'prominent'?

1.) As a marxist, I know that when a millionaire enters into a movement, he enters from a position of pwoer.

2.) Chris Harmann said so:

http://www.isj.org.uk/index.php4?id=396&issue=117

Local millionaire restaurateur and property developer Azmal Hussein became a key figure in Tower Hamlets Respect. Abjol Miah, a young member of the Islamic Forum Europe, was celebrated as “the general” of the campaign. Mohammed Zabadne, a millionaire building contractor, was invited to speak at the victory rally and organised the first victory social a week later

EDIT: I apologise, those are John Rees' words, quoted (and apparently fully endorsed) by Chris Harman.

Rosa Lichtenstein

15th February 2008, 04:05

Zurdito:

1.) As a marxist, I know that when a millionaire enters into a movement, he enters from a position of pwoer.

Not if the democratic structures of the party keep 'him' in check.

Chris Harmann said so:

You are really getting desperate now, for Harman is quoting Oona King, here. They are not his words.

You really will stoop to any level in order to make these sectarian attacks, won't you?

Zurdito

15th February 2008, 04:08

They aren't Oona King's words. The reference states that the quote is from:

John Rees, “Respect: Anatomy of a Crisis”, SWP Preconference Bulletin 3 (December 2007).

RebelDog

15th February 2008, 09:17

Rosa:

Not if the democratic structures of the party keep 'him' in check.

Come on Rosa, that is highly naive. You sound like a member controlled by the party elite and not the other way around. How can a millionaire have any place in a movement that 'claims' to be revolutionary/working class oriented?

Rosa Lichtenstein

15th February 2008, 09:24

Sorry Z, I will check that, and get back to you.

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

Yep, sorry, in my haste to malign you, I did not read it too carefully -- apoligies again.

However, Rees is being critical in this comment, and the content of what he says is what lay behind the split.

Rosa Lichtenstein

15th February 2008, 09:28

RebelDog:

Come on Rosa, that is highly naive. You sound like a member controlled by the party elite and not the other way around. How can a millionaire have any place in a movement that 'claims' to be revolutionary/working class oriented?

I am not in the SWP.

RebelDog

15th February 2008, 11:03

RebelDog:

I am not in the SWP.

Then I must apologise, I was under the misapprehension you are a member of the SWP. But just to clarify: you do support an open door policy on membership of the SWP and thus the inclusion of millionaires/capitalists?

Rosa Lichtenstein

15th February 2008, 12:21

If I ever re-join the SWP, I will listen to their recruitment policy, and the reasons for it, and then decide what I think.

There are no millionaires recruited to the SWP, as far as I know.

But, you must not confuse Respect with the SWP.

Comrade Qwatt

15th February 2008, 12:42

Respect is the expression of the petite-bourgeois intellectual leftist establishment in the UK, more appropriately put they are bourgeois socialists, although some are Utopian.

Rosa Lichtenstein

15th February 2008, 12:44

Yes, thanks for those profound sectarian thoughts, comrade...

Comrade Qwatt

15th February 2008, 12:51

Yes, thanks for those profound sectarian thoughts, comrade...
Sectarianism is creating a party which expresses itself an entity apart from and acting differently to (or even contrary too) the interests of the proletariat. So if anything, Respect and groups like it are the sectarian ones . It seems these days any common half-baked liberal can claim some infinite variety of 'socialism', no matter how reactionary, and how bourgeois it is.

I was simply commenting on the 19th century liberal bourgeois influence on the modern left, and how it makes people act like the bourgeois trying to thrown down the old feudal religious order, when in fact that order is gone (although some conservatism remains) and our enemy is the bourgeois.

Rosa Lichtenstein

15th February 2008, 12:58

Qwatt:

Sectarianism is creating a party which expresses itself an entity apart from and acting differently to (or even contrary too) the interests of the proletariat. So if anything, Respect and groups like it are the sectarian ones . It seems these days any common half-baked liberal can claim some infinite variety of 'socialism', no matter how reactionary, and how bourgeois it is.

And, of course, we should just accept this because you say so.

Sorry, but I do not recall voting to make you 'god'...

Rosa Lichtenstein

15th February 2008, 12:59

Owatt:

Sectarianism is creating a party which expresses itself an entity apart from and acting differently to (or even contrary too) the interests of the proletariat. So if anything, Respect and groups like it are the sectarian ones . It seems these days any common half-baked liberal can claim some infinite variety of 'socialism', no matter how reactionary, and how bourgeois it is.

And, of course, we should just accept this because you say so.

Sorry, but I do not recall the vote that made you 'god'...

Comrade Qwatt

15th February 2008, 13:06

No actually I am simply expression a Marxist position on the matter, if you knew Marxism you'd know this and not reply with personalized attacks. It's quite obvious that the modern liberal-left are simply products of the same 19th century liberal ideas, the same ideas which were the paving stones for the revolution of the bourgeois over the feudals. The concepts of 'freedom' became natural expression for bourgeois ideas of free trade, free enterprise, freedom of conscious etc.

I simply think that any proletarian movement should not adopt these ruling class ideologies.

OrientalHado

15th February 2008, 13:40

Rosa Lichtenstein

15th February 2008, 14:03

Comrade Qwatt:

No actually I am simply expression a Marxist position on the matter, if you knew Marxism you'd know this and not reply with personalized attacks. It's quite obvious that the modern liberal-left are simply products of the same 19th century liberal ideas, the same ideas which were the paving stones for the revolution of the bourgeois over the feudals. The concepts of 'freedom' became natural expression for bourgeois ideas of free trade, free enterprise, freedom of conscious etc.

You may have got Marx right, but that does not mean you have applied him correctly, or judged the SWP accurately.

It was this that I was questioning. You just assert these conclusions about Respect, etc., as profound truths we should all accept, and leave it at that.

Zurdito

15th February 2008, 15:35

yes it is worth noting that there are no millionaires in the SWP, in case anyone misunderstood.

Andy Bowden

15th February 2008, 17:42

My political point Rosa, is that the claim touted by the SWP that this councillor was on the "left" in a "Left-Right split" is bollocks, and this defection challenges the assertion that it was a left-right split.

Rosa Lichtenstein

16th February 2008, 04:38

Andy:

My political point Rosa, is that the claim touted by the SWP that this councillor was on the "left" in a "Left-Right split" is bollocks, and this defection challenges the assertion that it was a left-right split.

I don't follow your reasoning.

A rat jumping ship has no effect on that ship's destination, crew or even physical structure.

Same here.

Devrim

17th February 2008, 02:21

Actually, it is a lot of fuss over nothing. Member of the petty-bourgeoisie moves from one bourgeois party to another.

Devrim

Andy Bowden

17th February 2008, 02:21

But the "rat" in question was supposed to be the left-wing of RESPECT, his withdrawal of the RESPECT whip was supposed to be a political expression of that.

Rosa Lichtenstein

17th February 2008, 10:18

Devrim:

Member of the petty-bourgeoisie moves from one bourgeois party to another.

Oh, has someone left your party, then?

Rosa Lichtenstein

17th February 2008, 10:20

Andy:

But the "rat" in question was supposed to be the left-wing of RESPECT, his withdrawal of the RESPECT whip was supposed to be a political expression of that.

We seem to be going round in circles.

Why is it so odd that left or, indeed, right wingers jump ship?

Are you that politically unaware?

Andy Bowden

17th February 2008, 12:54

Respect-SWP is meant to be the Left split from Respect-Renewal, yet so far, no RR councillors have defected to the Tories (whatever other crap politics they have).

This guy was touted as the "Left". Now if he had defected in a year, two years, then that could be seen as a legitimate, though unfortunate political evolution from being a Socialist to a Tory.

But I don't believe that kind of evolution can happen over a period of weeks - from being the Left of a Left-of-centre party, to joining the centre-right.

I think this guy had Tory sensibilities when he was being touted as the "Left" by John Rees, and a ships direction is ultimately dependent on its crew.

And in case anyone forgot, these "Left" councillors were also having talks with the Lib Dems re a coalition on Tower Hamlets.

Rosa Lichtenstein

17th February 2008, 14:32

A ship is sailing West, and a rat jumps ship. Does that alter that ship's dirrection?

Another ship is sailing East, and no rat jumps ship. Does that alter its direction?

Why are you having trouble with this very simple idea?

and a ships direction is ultimately dependent on its crew.

And that crew tells you it is still sailing West (even though it has lost a rat) -- what are you going to do?

Throw a wobbly?

But I don't believe that kind of evolution can happen over a period of weeks - from being the Left of a Left-of-centre party, to joining the centre-right.

Your ability to believe things does not, I am sorry to have to tell you, constitue a sound basis for a political conclusion.

When it does, I suspect we will tell you.

these "Left" councillors were also having talks with the Lib Dems re a coalition on Tower Hamlets.

Well, that was a rumour put about by the press, but we have yet to see the proof.

Zurdito

17th February 2008, 14:47

A ship is sailing West, and a rat jumps ship. Does that alter that ship's dirrection?

Come on Rosa, we know why the rat jumped ship, and it's not cause it was sailing west.

Rosa Lichtenstein

17th February 2008, 14:53

Z:

Come on Rosa, we know why the rat jumped ship, and it's not cause it was sailing west.

Simple: because he was a rat.

Andy Bowden

18th February 2008, 01:23

Your ability to believe things does not, I am sorry to have to tell you, constitue a sound basis for a political conclusion.

Its an ability that seems to have served you very well.

Believe the RESPECT split is on a "left-right" basis all you want - the reality is that everything the SWP criticise Galloway for today the accepted without criticism in 2004.

Well, that was a rumour put about by the press, but we have yet to see the proof.

SWP-RESPECT also said that this guys defection was a "rumour". Itd actually be better if it was true, the Lib Dems are probably more progressive than the Tories.

Rosa Lichtenstein

18th February 2008, 13:49

Andy:

Its an ability that seems to have served you very well.

Indeed, and that's because I refuse to believe things for which there is no evidence, and reject rumour as 'fact' (unlike some who post here).

Believe the RESPECT split is on a "left-right" basis all you want - the reality is that everything the SWP criticise Galloway for today the accepted without criticism in 2004.

I did not say whether or not I belived this, so that paragraph was a waste of keyboard tapping.

SWP-RESPECT also said that this guys defection was a "rumour". Itd actually be better if it was true, the Lib Dems are probably more progressive than the Tories.

Which it was until it was confirmed. I believed it when the evidence emerged; you believed it before then because you wanted to.

Andy Bowden

18th February 2008, 15:27

No, I believed it when I saw a photograph of the councillor shaking hands with the Tories, alongside an article describing his presence at Tory press conference, with Tory ministers giving quotes about what a gain to the Tory party he was.

You believed a statement saying it was all lies and bullshit, that didn't actually come from the defecting councillor himself, but from Oilur Rahman, when the evidence (photographs, quotes from leading Tories etc) all suggested he had defected.

Rosa Lichtenstein

18th February 2008, 16:32

Andy:

No, I believed it when I saw a photograph of the councillor shaking hands with the Tories, alongside an article describing his presence at Tory press conference, with Tory ministers giving quotes about what a gain to the Tory party he was.

It was still a rumour at that stage, and would remain one until the rat concerned confirmed it.

You believed a statement saying it was all lies and bullshit, that didn't actually come from the defecting councillor himself, but from Oilur Rahman, when the evidence (photographs, quotes from leading Tories etc) all suggested he had defected.

I believed an official statement issued by by comrades, as opposed to credulously accepting a rumour put about by the bourgeois press, and the Tories.

And the language they used was not scatological, as you seem to think.

redarmyfaction38

18th February 2008, 22:34

Random:

One of the motivating factors in the recent split was over precisely this, that when one turns to electioneering, one attracts all manner of opportunists, who get elected on a radical platform, and then defect.

Classic opportunism here. And the defection was timed for maximum damage two days before a vote was to take place.

so, why? despite all the warnings from fellow comrades, labelled "sectarians" by the swp, did you embark on this policy?
"respect" was doomed from the outset to be nothing more than a "protest vote" party, it had no clear socialist programme or ethics.
WHY does the swp still refuse to work with other socialist, anarchist and trade union groupings to form a new workers party based on socialist/workerist policies?
why? does it have such an obsession with control from above when all evidence of political resistance to the capitalist system demonstrates a desire for control from below.

imo, the swp is as guilty of "opportunism" as the defectors it now condemns.
the truth is the swp created respect, allowed opportunists into the party, sided with religious minorities instead of giving a class based programme and now weeps and wails at the behaviour of its previously "not allowed to be criticised" protegies.

redarmyfaction38

18th February 2008, 22:47

Andy:

It was still a rumour at that stage, and would remain one until the rat concerned confirmed it.

I believed an official statement issued by by comrades, as opposed to credulously accepting a rumour put about by the bourgeois press, and the Tories.

And the language they used was not scatological, as you seem to think.
rosa, love, you display a willingness to believe the "party line" that could only lead to some sort of "state socialism" should the swp ever manage to convince enough activists to support it "come the revolution".
it's laughable, the swp becomes ever more irrelevant by the hour, it's arrogance, conceit and refusal to accept that many hundreds, if not thousands, of fellow activists might, just, have a clue what they are talking about and acting upon alienates all of us who aint members of the "all knowing, all wise and always politicaly correct" swp.
get a life love.

Rosa Lichtenstein

19th February 2008, 03:46

RedArmySectarian:

so, why? despite all the warnings from fellow comrades, labelled "sectarians" by the swp, did you embark on this policy?

I didn't. I am not in the SWP.

"respect" was doomed from the outset to be nothing more than a "protest vote" party, it had no clear socialist programme or ethics.
WHY does the swp still refuse to work with other socialist, anarchist and trade union groupings to form a new workers party based on socialist/workerist policies?
why? does it have such an obsession with control from above when all evidence of political resistance to the capitalist system demonstrates a desire for control from below.

1) I did not know you were a minor deity, able to predict what will, and what will not succeed.

2) Where is your proof of your allegation about their 'refusal' to work with other groups?

imo, the swp is as guilty of "opportunism" as the defectors it now condemns.

Yes, but who is interested in the views of a bigotted sectarian like you?

rosa, love,

You'll be saying "Don't worry your pretty little head over such complex things" next.

you display a willingness to believe the "party line"

Once more, I am neither in Respect nor the SWP.

And, I'd defend any other left group if they were attacked by sectarians (like you) -- I just happen to know the SWP better.

it's laughable,

Never mind, let's hear it anyway.

the swp becomes ever more irrelevant by the hour, it's arrogance, conceit and refusal to accept that many hundreds, if not thousands, of fellow activists might, just, have a clue what they are talking about and acting upon alienates all of us who aint members of the "all knowing, all wise and always politicaly correct" swp.
get a life love.

Get a non-sectarian brain.

redarmyfaction38

20th February 2008, 23:28

RedArmySectarian:

I didn't. I am not in the SWP.

1) I did not know you were a minor deity, able to predict what will, and what will not succeed.

2) Where is your proof of your allegation about their 'refusal' to work with other groups?

Yes, but who is interested in the views of a bigotted sectarian like you?

You'll be saying "Don't worry your pretty little head over such complex things" next.

Once more, I am neither in Respect nor the SWP.

And, I'd defend any other left group if they were attacked by sectarians (like you) -- I just happen to know the SWP better.

Never mind, let's hear it anyway.

Get a non-sectarian brain.

that's your answer for everything innit; anyone that disagrees with you or points out the facts about what has been happening vis a vis the relationship between the swp and other revolutionary socialist parties is a sectarian.
well, LOVE, (being patronising in order to give you a tatse of your own medicine), the very term "sectarianism" has no place in a political debate, it is a religious term, however, i can understand how an undieing supporter of the party line could begin to believe that anybody with a differing view could be a heretic or sectarian.

Rosa Lichtenstein

21st February 2008, 00:09

RedArmyFactionalist:

that's your answer for everything innit; anyone that disagrees with you or points out the facts about what has been happening vis a vis the relationship between the swp and other revolutionary socialist parties is a sectarian.

No; just to you, sweetie.

well, LOVE, (being patronising in order to give you a tatse of your own medicine), the very term "sectarianism" has no place in a political debate, it is a religious term, however, i can understand how an undieing supporter of the party line could begin to believe that anybody with a differing view could be a heretic or sectarian.

It has a place if it summarises your emotive and irrational response to everything the SWP does or believes.

redarmyfaction38

21st February 2008, 23:53

RedArmyFactionalist:

No; just to you, sweetie.

It has a place if it summarises your emotive and irrational response to everything the SWP does or believes.
my response is irrational!!!

ffs! that really takes the biscuit.

the swp tells the railway unions they can't stand candidates in the london mayoral elections cos the swp wants a clear run for its proteges, the swp refuses to accept a federal position within the campaign for a new workers party cos that means it won't be able to dominate the new workers party, the swp makes alliances with the petit bourgeouisie and religious and racial, as it turns out, bigots, loses control of said alliance, blames everybody but its leaders, who decided and defended this policy to the point of suspending members who questioned it, then did a complete about turn and expelled anybody that followed the previous party line and you accuse me of being irrational!!!!!!!!!!!!!
soz rosa, your argument does not hold water.
the actions of the swp leadership lead to my criticisms of their policies and program, i quite happily subscribe to newsletters from workers power, i subscribe to the socialist newspaper, i enjoy recieving and reading bread and roses from the iww, all of which broaden my perceptions and knowledge of revolutionary socialism, anarcho syndicalism etc. etc.
most importantly of all however, i'm a worker, i actually work for a living at the shitty end of the pay scale and the political manouvering and contradictory actions of the swp are too similar to the political manouvering of the bourgeouis politicians of the parliamenary parties.
in fact, they appear like a supposedly lefty version of the bnp.

Rosa Lichtenstein

22nd February 2008, 09:46

RedArmyFictionalist:

my response is irrational!!!

Carried, unanimously!

Next motion please...

the swp tells the railway unions they can't stand candidates in the london mayoral elections cos the swp wants a clear run for its proteges, the swp refuses to accept a federal position within the campaign for a new workers party cos that means it won't be able to dominate the new workers party, the swp makes alliances with the petit bourgeouisie and religious and racial, as it turns out, bigots, loses control of said alliance, blames everybody but its leaders, who decided and defended this policy to the point of suspending members who questioned it, then did a complete about turn and expelled anybody that followed the previous party line and you accuse me of being irrational!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Proof?

soz rosa, your argument does not hold water.

What argument?

the actions of the swp leadership lead to my criticisms of their policies and program, i quite happily subscribe to newsletters from workers power, i subscribe to the socialist newspaper, i enjoy recieving and reading bread and roses from the iww, all of which broaden my perceptions and knowledge of revolutionary socialism, anarcho syndicalism etc. etc.

Sorry, I fell asleep half-way through; you were saying?

most importantly of all however, i'm a worker, i actually work for a living at the shitty end of the pay scale and the political manouvering and contradictory actions of the swp are too similar to the political manouvering of the bourgeouis politicians of the parliamenary parties.

You have said this before -- and I have told you I am a worker, too.

So, what is it next? Snap boxes at 50 paces?

in fact, they appear like a supposedly lefty version of the bnp.

And you wonder why I just take the piss out of you when you come out with slurs like this.

Louis Pio

23rd February 2008, 13:40

Here's an interview with Ahmed Hussain on his defection http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/709/mycommunity.html

Marsella

23rd February 2008, 14:25

I don't understand why a party which, apparently, supports revolution would enter petty parliamentary politics.

Its rather like a communist party declaring itself against wage-slavery, then goes ahead and starts exploiting workers.

All it does is confuse the workers who follow their reasoning. Capitalism can't be voted about, but vote for us anyway!

All we end up with is reformist parties and disenfranchised workers.

So much for 'raising class consciousness.'

Rosa Lichtenstein

23rd February 2008, 14:29

Rosa Lichtenstein

23rd February 2008, 14:33

Martov, you really must try to squash your ultra-left leanings.

No one imagines capitalism can be voted out; but when the level of struggle is very low, and there is a huge gap between the 'official' left (i.e., 'New Labour') and a large section of the UK working class, it makes sense for propaganda and organisational reasons (in that it draws in people who would normally not get involved).

bloody_capitalist_sham

23rd February 2008, 14:59

Louis Pio

23rd February 2008, 15:02

Teis: And why would a half-way decent socialist want to listen to a word a rat like this might have to say -- except for sectarian purposes?

More to the point, what is a supposedly 'socialist' paper doing publishing it?

Well interesting to hear it from the horses mouth so to speak. His "communialism" is quite striking. He seems never to have been quite conscious of anything really, a bit of food for thought

I think we both know why Weekly Worker publishes it, they use all their time on the rest of the left and take great pleasure in it. Sometimes something interesting come out of it, most of the time not.

Marsella

23rd February 2008, 15:26

Martov, you really must try to squash your ultra-left leanings.

I apologize Rosa, but you may have to put up with it a lot more with RS2K coming back! :lol:

No one imagines capitalism can be voted out; but when the level of struggle is very low, and there is a huge gap between the 'official' left (i.e., 'New Labour') and a large section of the UK working class, it makes sense for propaganda and organisational reasons (in that it draws in people who would normally not get involved).

Hasn't SWP been in electoral politics since the early 70's?

What propaganda reasons? What organisational reasons?

read lenin!!!

Yes...I used to hear similar chanting during Sunday prayers: 'read the Bible!'

But I assume you're referring to this: http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/lwc/ch07.htm

In Lenin's time it was quite practical to enter parliament.

Indeed, 'free elections' really only had just been won.

After all, this was in backwards Russia!

Since Lenin & co's main concept of a proletarian revolution was one where the party gained mass support, it made sense for them to engage in areas where mass support was available. The most practical avenue was elections (where they still only gained a bare quarter of the vote).

But, here we are, 90 years later.

That's 90 years of experimenting with parliamentary politics.

What has it achieved?

You Trotskyists call the left-communists purists, but the left-communist position is based on one of materiality.

Parliamentary politics hasn't worked, nor could it work, so therefore it has been abandonded.

Unfortunately, I am on the opposite end of chants of 'read lenin.'

May I chant back: Look at reality?

Being nice and moderate so you can win election seats is selling out.

Do you really expect them to change their rhetoric once they actually gain a majority? If that ever happens, whatever communistic elements of the party which did exist, would have been watered down like cordial.

You don't enter parliamentary politics without getting shit on your shoes, as this whole episode demonstrates.

What I fear that this sort of electorial pandering does in instill in the minds of many that elections are a solution.

Well, they are not.

And when SWP loses the elections, or suffers whatever silly setbacks that seem to plague these parties, I wonder who feels disenchanted?

Now, some may become radicalized by that (I seem to remember that TAT used to be in SWP! :lol:) but for the most part, I would say the opposite is true.

Workers walk away believing that communism is unachievable because they lost an election (!). Politics, lest of all revolutionary politics, exists their minds altogether.

So, the contention that elections raise worker's class consciousness may have been true a hundred odd years ago, where the struggle for universal suffrage was occuring, but today, parliamentary politics is a counter-productive tactic.

How can we possibly solve proletarian problems with bourgeoisie 'solutions?'

Rosa Lichtenstein

23rd February 2008, 15:43

Teis:

Well interesting to hear it from the horses mouth so to speak. His "communialism" is quite striking. He seems never to have been quite conscious of anything really, a bit of food for thought

Yes, and if I quote Peter Taaffe at you, with a disarming "its interesting to hear it from the horses mouth" about the expulsion of Woods, Grant and Co, I expect you will be just a chipper about it, won't you?

[Except, of course, Taaffe is a socialist, whereas this turncoat is a tory rat -- but you still find his view 'interesting'.]

I think we both know why Weekly Worker publishes it, they use all their time on the rest of the left and take great pleasure in it. Sometimes something interesting come out of it, most of the time not

Yes, it is pretty clear why you, a 'Trotskyist', are reading what has now become little more than a communist party gossip rag, which publishes articles airing the views of tory party turncoats: you are just as sectarian as they are.

Rosa Lichtenstein

23rd February 2008, 15:45

Martov:

Hasn't SWP been in electoral politics since the early 70's?

No.

What propaganda reasons? What organisational reasons?

Since you are not taking this seriously, I honestly can't be bothered to tell you.

Go back to sleep.

Louis Pio

23rd February 2008, 16:04

Rosa im sorry I have hurt your very delicate feelings. Also from reading your post I get the feeling I am personal responsible for this guy being recruited to the SWP despite him not being a socialist to begin with and therefore it seems I am also responsible for his subsequent defection.

You really are a piece of work Rosa and a very dishonest one and that even. You defend the SWP fair enough, but if people criticise them you either call them secterian or quickly says "im not a member", you never stop and think just a tiny bit about the politics and the results of recruiting everybody without questioning their politics. A bit easy don't you think? Throwing insults at people but never having to eloborate on the politics you defend because "you are not a member"?

Marsella

23rd February 2008, 16:09

No.Ummm...so could you tell me since when?

Since you are not taking this seriously, I honestly can't be bothered to tell you.

Go back to sleep.Right...

I used question marks because I wanted to learn your opinion, or at least so you could give a more detailed response about the SWP's reasoning behind elections.

But that's fine if you don't want to answer. :)

bloody_capitalist_sham

23rd February 2008, 16:21

Martov, have you read Left-wing communism?

I'm not preaching, you don't have to accept it or anything, but your questions were answered by Lenin years ago and still (to me) seem valid. So that's why i said
'read Lenin' because it just seems your dismissing him without reading his stuff.

So, how much Lenin have you read, and if you have read left wing communism, why did you even ask those questions because you know the answers already.

Rosa Lichtenstein

23rd February 2008, 16:41

Teis:

Rosa im sorry I have hurt your very delicate feelings. Also from reading your post I get the feeling I am personal responsible for this guy being recruited to the SWP despite him not being a socialist to begin with and therefore it seems I am also responsible for his subsequent defection.

No you aren't; and I see your 'feelings' are quite delicate enough to allow you to find the views of a tory 'interesting'.

You really are a piece of work Rosa and a very dishonest one and that even. You defend the SWP fair enough, but if people criticise them you either call them secterian or quickly says "im not a member", you never stop and think just a tiny bit about the politics and the results of recruiting everybody without questioning their politics. A bit easy don't you think? Throwing insults at people but never having to eloborate on the politics you defend because "you are not a member"?

What has that got to do with anything?

As I have said to you before (but I might as well talk to the cat, for all the good it does), I'd defend any socialist group against the leis and the smears you sem to lap up.

But, when it comes to something you believe (like that mystical theory I am not allowed to mention) you soon become abusive.

Rosa Lichtenstein

23rd February 2008, 16:41

Martov:

so could you tell me since when?

No.

Louis Pio

23rd February 2008, 17:41

I'd defend any socialist group against the leis and the smears you sem to lap up.

You don't but you and I know that, you never engage in discussions about other groups to defend them, only to engage in a bit of namecalling. Not only are you dishonest but you also think people are stupid.

Of course this case is interesting, only a few days ago this guy was supposedly a socialist and he was also a council member for one of the "Respects" in their stronghold, back then you had no problems with him. Now he's defected and you tell people not to look at the case because he's "just a tory", somehow I think he was also a tory before.
Now in your world suggesting that Respect and SWP would admit all and anyone despite their politics is secterian even though alot of recent developments shows otherwise.
You would become a good parliamentarian, always avoiding the subject in question, a real teflon politician.

Btw it's obvious you support Respect, so why are you totally incapeable of defending it's policies, besides throwing insults around?

Rosa Lichtenstein

23rd February 2008, 19:46

Teis:

You don't but you and I know that, you never engage in discussions about other groups to defend them, only to engage in a bit of namecalling. Not only are you dishonest but you also think people are stupid.

Notice the subjunctive mood the the main verb I used:

I'd defend any socialist group against the leis and the smears you sem to lap up.

Since English is not your first language, let me expand it for you:

I would defend any socialist group against the leis and the smears you sem to lap up.

This does not say I have done so (even though I might have) or that I do (even though I might do so); just that I would. And I am quite specific: I'd defend them against the kind of lying, sectarian attacks you seem to be fond of.

So, not only would you not defend anyone, you'd actually join in the attacks (as you have done in this thread). And that is because, like so many others here, your first and last thought is sectarian. You obviously think a defeat for the left will weaken the bosses! That can be the only reason you join in.

Of course this case is interesting, only a few days ago this guy was supposedly a socialist and he was also a council member for one of the "Respects" in their stronghold, back then you had no problems with him. Now he's defected and you tell people not to look at the case because he's "just a tory", somehow I think he was also a tory before.

We have been through all this; may I suggest you wake up?

You would become a good parliamentarian, always avoiding the subject in question, a real teflon politician.

What issues have I avoided in this thread?

And, talking of bourgeois politics: you are the one who thinks it oh so very socialist to find the opinions of a tory "interesting".

Btw it's obvious you support Respect, so why are you totally incapeable of defending it's policies, besides throwing insults around?

More to the point: are you incapable of discussing this without repeating third hand gossip, lies and smears?

So far, in every thread on this topic, that is all you have ever done.

I am quite happy to discuss Respect when debating with comrades who are interested in socialist politics, not sectarian point-scoring.

And, I am not even a supporter of Respect.

You do not seem to be able to get anything right.

Finally, insulting a sectarian like you makes my day. So, please do not go away...

Louis Pio

24th February 2008, 01:39

Do you use the word lying in your own fashion just as we found you did with the word secterian?
Can't really see were I have been lying, posted an interview and tried to get you to elaborate on the politics you defend.

What issues have I avoided in this thread?

And, talking of bourgeois politics: you are the one who thinks it oh so very socialist to find the opinions of a tory "interesting".

The issue of Ahmed Hussain, a guy that was supposedly a socialist a few days ago. And well the issue being here how the fuck this guy could be in the SWP and Respect in the first place. I mean it's not a slow transition as we have seen with several people like Jospin and the like, rather it seems to have happened overnight. Of course things like that don't happen overnight surely.

I am quite happy to discuss Respect when debating with comrades who are interested in socialist politics, not sectarian point-scoring.

But the problem is Rosa, anyone with a different view are just a secterian in your book.

You obviously think a defeat for the left will weaken the bosses! That can be the only reason you join in.

But how was it a defeat for the left? Ahmed Hussain seems to have never been left at all? Or am I missing something? Actually it would have strenghtened the left if Hussain had been criticised by the left (not just outside Respect, but the left inside first and foremost SWP) for the communialist views he had before he defected, but back then it was all pretending he was a good party soldier.

And, I am not even a supporter of Respect.

No of course, you never say what you mean or what? Most be quite easy that way Rosa, always hiding. Never having to live in the real world, never taking a stand. If it's true you don't support Respect then I haven't seen you talk about your views on organisation and tactics at all, quite an accomplishment for a member with your postcount

Rosa Lichtenstein

24th February 2008, 10:52

T:

Do you use the word lying in your own fashion just as we found you did with the word secterian?

No, I use it of Tories and of those supposed 'socialists' who believe them.

The issue of Ahmed Hussain, a guy that was supposedly a socialist a few days ago. And well the issue being here how the fuck this guy could be in the SWP and Respect in the first place. I mean it's not a slow transition as we have seen with several people like Jospin and the like, rather it seems to have happened overnight. Of course things like that don't happen overnight surely.

Once more, we have been over this; do you have a short-term memory problem?

But the problem is Rosa, anyone with a different view are just a secterian in your book.

Not so; I call 'comrades' like you sectarian since you indulge in petty point scoring and regurgitate Tory propaganda.

When comrades criticise my view of dialectics, I never use this word; so I can't be employing it in the way you suggest.

You have had this pointed out to you several times, in other threads, and at New Youth (if I have identified you correctly). So this is yet another example of your preference for lies over honesty when it comes to me.

But how was it a defeat for the left? Ahmed Hussain seems to have never been left at all? Or am I missing something? Actually it would have strenghtened the left if Hussain had been criticised by the left (not just outside Respect, but the left inside first and foremost SWP) for the communialist views he had before he defected, but back then it was all pretending he was a good party soldier.

If you can't see this, there is not much I can do to help you.

No of course, you never say what you mean or what? Most be quite easy that way Rosa, always hiding. Never having to live in the real world, never taking a stand. If it's true you don't support Respect then I haven't seen you talk about your views on organisation and tactics at all, quite an accomplishment for a member with your postcount

I'd defend any group on the left of which I am not a member or supporter, if they were attacked by sectarians like you. I just happen to know more about the SWP and Respect.

And, whether or not I am active in any sort of politics, that does not justify your treacherous retailing of Tory propaganda here.

Devrim

24th February 2008, 11:45

On the SWP's recruitment policy:

Are reports that you joined the Socialist Workers Party correct? You’re right actually. They actually pinned me down and got me signed on this piece of paper as a member - and Lutfa [Begum]. And it was not that we wholeheartedly joined it, but they were on our case. Oli did well to stay away from them and not sign anything, but he does attend SWP meetings. We were doing that because they were part of the coalition.
I did fill out a form, but, to be honest with you, after the membership had been turned over I didn’t even bother renewing. I didn’t know it was going to turn out as it has now, so I regret that. But don’t get me wrong: I still have my social values and hopefully I can bring some of that to the Conservative group.

Devrim

Rosa Lichtenstein

24th February 2008, 13:11

Devrim:

On the SWP's recruitment policy:

Ah, another 'socialist' who believes what a Tory turncoat says.

Hit The North

24th February 2008, 13:30

But don’t get me wrong: I still have my social values and hopefully I can bring some of that to the Conservative group.

Apart from being the Tory rat so accurately portrayed by Rosa, he seems like a pretty confused individual. But the argument that this is a fault which lies inside the SWP rather than in Mr Hussain's character has not been proved in this thread by those who advance it.

In fact the whole affair just demonstrates the truth of the comment I posted on page one:

If they're opportunists and fakers, they don't last long.

Now we're on page six and Devrim, the arch-sectarian, has been reduced to approvingly quoting Tory turncoats in order to use it as a stick for beating fellow socialists.

What a pathetic waste of energy.

Louis Pio

24th February 2008, 15:35

If you can't see this, there is not much I can do to help you

Well it depends once again on tactics, I never thought Respect was any advance for the left as we have discussed before. Actually I think it's the opposite, and the internal contradictions that have surfaced now is just a part of that. Also it seems to show that it was not a good idea to be voting against core principles of workers movement like for example "workers representatives on a workers wage" (well the mess with Galloway is the example here, since I don't think local councillors get quite alot).
What would be your ideas on how the left could break through? You never talk about them, which is why discussing with you most of the time feels like flogging a dead horse.

Devrim

24th February 2008, 16:29

Ah, another 'socialist' who believes what a Tory turncoat says.

Now we're on page six and Devrim, the arch-sectarian, has been reduced to approvingly quoting Tory turncoats in order to use it as a stick for beating fellow socialists.

Well yes, I believe what he say about being recruited to the SWP. It agrees with everything that I already know about the SWP and confirms it. I don't quote it approvingly, or disapprovingly. It is just amusing when on the same thread as somebody claims that the SWP have deep political discusions with people who apply to join we see the reality of their methods.

It is also funny that the SWP's supporters are accusing people of believing what a Tory says as if it was some kind of sin. Members of the Conservative Party don't always lie, you know? I believe this guy when he talks about his personal experience.

These are the very same SWP members, and supporters who earlier in this thread were coming out with things like this:

Thius just shows that you lot should not believe what the bourgeois press prints

Even if this story were true (which, as is clear if one does some proper research and does not blindly accept a hostile organization's viewpoint, it isn't)

I initially thought that there was something to it. If only for the reason that they wouldn't completely make it up because they would get sued to hell.

Rosa chose to believe the Respect:

I am sorry guys, but you can all stop speculating; here is the official press release from Respect (posted now a second time):
...
The original non-story came from a bourgeios newsaper (and it broke two days before a local election, for obvious reasons).

So, Devrim, that Tory rag is lying, not Respect or Respect Renewal.

And was proven completely wrong. Maybe she would have been better off listening to her own advice:

Neither you nor I have the full facts yet, so it would be wise to wait before any of us make fools of ourselves by yet more speculation.

Really though the discussion is about whether to believe a bourgeois party or a bourgeois newspaper.

I find it best to read between the lines of both, and if you look back at this thread, it is quite clear that I was right about the events.

However, I think the real political point is not that this guy is a 'Tory turncoat', but that he probably has very similar ideas now to the ones he held when he was in the SWP.

As for a 'stick for beating fellow socialists', I think that the SWP is a bourgeois party, not a socialist one.

Devrim

Louis Pio

24th February 2008, 16:47

As for a 'stick for beating fellow socialists', I think that the SWP is a bourgeois party, not a socialist one.

How the fuck is SWP bourgious? Personally I think their politics is extremely flawed, but of course they aren't bourgious, it's really missing the point. This throwing the word bourgious around is just as stupid as Rosa's fetich for throwing the word sectrian around.

Devrim

24th February 2008, 16:58

We believe that they have bourgeois politics. It is not the point of this thread. If you want to discuss it start a new one, and I'D be happy to.
Devrim

Rosa Lichtenstein

24th February 2008, 17:32

T:

Well it depends once again on tactics, I never thought Respect was any advance for the left as we have discussed before. Actually I think it's the opposite, and the internal contradictions that have surfaced now is just a part of that. Also it seems to show that it was not a good idea to be voting against core principles of workers movement like for example "workers representatives on a workers wage" (well the mess with Galloway is the example here, since I don't think local councillors get quite alot).

What would be your ideas on how the left could break through? You never talk about them, which is why discussing with you most of the time feels like flogging a dead horse.

Ah, I see you have to appeal to that bogus 'theory' (sometimes known as 'dialectics' to mkae your case).

Now, that just amounts to an admission of defeat on your part, in view of the fact that I have demolished that 'theory' beyond repair.

And, I do not care to share any ideas with a sectarian point-scorer like you.

Rosa Lichtenstein

24th February 2008, 17:41

Devrim:

Well yes, I believe what he say about being recruited to the SWP.

I am glad you here acknowledge the fact that you agree with a Tory rat.

And it only 'agrees' with your prior 'knowledge' since you are a biased sectarian (as you have amply demonstrated in several threads).

And was proven completely wrong.

I was making a point about speculation, something you still confuse with fact.

Maybe she would have been better off listening to her own advice:

Which I did. So, what is your problem?

Really though the discussion is about whether to believe a bourgeois party or a bourgeois newspaper.

No, it's whether you believe comrades or Tory rats.

But, you chose to believe the latter, for reasons we both know.

However, I think the real political point is not that this guy is a 'Tory turncoat', but that he probably has very similar ideas now to the ones he held when he was in the SWP.

You are good at make-belief. Have you by any chance been employed by Bush or Blair to write WMD dossiers? You are a natural.

[By the way, supply proof of the above slur or withdraw it. Even the dodgy dossiers that you could have written have been withdrawn.]

Rosa Lichtenstein

24th February 2008, 17:46

T:

This throwing the word bourgious around is just as stupid as Rosa's fetich for throwing the word sectrian around.

As you have been told, I do not throw it around; I aim it at biased point scorers like you and Devrim (but this latest post of yours suggests you are an inconsitent sectarian, unlike the expert Devrim, who can always be relied on to be consitent in this regard).

Devrim

24th February 2008, 17:53

I am glad you here acknowledge the fact that you agree with a Tory rat.

I said I believed him on this point. I also believed him when he said he had left Respect. You didn't. Who turned out to be right.

No, its whether you believe comrades or Tory rats.

You chose the latter, for reasons we both know.

So are you suggesting that we believe Respect even when what they say turns out to be untrue?

Quite apart from that I have already pointed out that we consider the SWP to be a bourgeois party. We don't consider you to be comrades in any way.

Devrim

Rosa Lichtenstein

24th February 2008, 19:21

Devrim:

I said I believed him on this point. I also believed him when he said he had left Respect.

Yes I know; and you seem to be proud of the fact that you believe a Tory rat.

That says more about you than I can.

So are you suggesting that we believe Respect even when what they say turns out to be untrue?

He lied to comrades in Respect; what can I tell you?

But, hey, you still believe a Tory liar, so good for you...

Quite apart from that I have already pointed out that we consider the SWP to be a bourgeois party. We don't consider you to be comrades in any way.

Well, we already know you prefer the opinions of a Tory -- so, if the SWP is bourgeios, that makes you equally so.

Either that, or a fool.

Take your pick...

Devrim

24th February 2008, 20:30

Well, we already know you prefer the opinions of a Tory

It is particularly ironic that the SWP supporters are now trying to smear people by attempting to connect people with this guy. One could almost imagine that they are confused, and think that he was in our organisation, and not a member of theirs.

Devrim

Rosa Lichtenstein

24th February 2008, 20:55

Devrim:

It is particularly ironic that the SWP supporters are now trying to smear people by attempting to connect people with this guy. One could almost imagine that they are confused, and think that he was in our organisation, and not a member of theirs.

Yes, how awful of us to point out that a supposed 'socialist' is touting the views of a Tory rat.

Devrim

24th February 2008, 22:25

Just then people can note what views I am touting:
1) I believed him when he said he had left the Respect.
2) I believe him when he described how he joined the SWP.
Devrim

Rosa Lichtenstein

24th February 2008, 23:08

Devrim:

Just then people can note what views I am touting:
1) I believed him when he said he had left the Respect.
2) I believe him when he described how he joined the SWP.
Devrim

And, it is worth underlining yet again, Devrim is so desperate to believe anything and everything bad about the SWP and Respect, that he'll even stoop to swallowing the lies of a Tory turncoat.

Devrim

25th February 2008, 05:24

Devrim:

Quote:
Just then people can note what views I am touting:
1) I believed him when he said he had left the Respect.
2) I believe him when he described how he joined the SWP.
Devrim
And, it is worth underlining yet again, Devrim is so desperate to believe anything and everything bad about the SWP and Respect, that he'll even stoop to swallowing the lies of a Tory turncoat.

Which lies? The first point there is certainly true, and as there are only two, 'lies' certainly shouldn't be plural. The second one seems quite believable, and tallies with my knowledge of the SWP's recruiting methods.

Of course there are those who have lost all critical faculties to the point where they believe respect press releases unquestioningly even when they contradict reality.

Shocking as it may seem, the bourgeois press do tell the truth on occasion. I don't imagine a newspaper would last long if for example it consistently lied about the football results.

Devrim