when will the swp get the message?

[redarmyfaction38]

rosa, citizenzero etc. it is time the swp recognised that despite its supposed numerical supremacy, it's time it got off the high horse and recognised that it can only help the cause by co operation and compromise with other revolutionary socialists and anarchists rather than adopting a cociliatory approach and allying itself with "radical" elements of the bourgeouisie.

[spartan]

rosa, citizenzero etc. it is time the swp recognised that despite its supposed numerical supremacy, it's time it got off the high horse and recognised that it can only help the cause by co operation and compromise with other revolutionary socialists and anarchists rather than adopting a cociliatory approach and allying itself with "radical" elements of the bourgeouisie.

The SWP is Reformist? (I admittedly dont know that much about the SWP).

Anyway Reformism isnt that bad if done on a temporary basis and not as the main aim of your movement (Which should be to make the workers living/working standards and position as good as possible before the revolution to overthrow the Bourgeoisie).

If it wasnt for workers going on strikes, and forcing the Bourgeoisie to comply with their demands, then it is unlikely that we would have the benefits that we now experience in the workplace and in general society, so dont completely write Reformism off as it has given us some hard fought for basic rights which any violent action hasnt (Indeed the state will more than likely respond with force, rather then compromise, when confronted with violence and feeling threatened, so the workers very wisely decided to hit the Bourgeoisie where it hurt the most, the economy via striking, which forced the Bourgeoisie to comply so as to retain profits).

Having said all that i myself am no Reformist, i just refuse to demonise it and refuse to use it, when it has been proven as quite a useful (And popular judging by self described reformist politicians historical and recent electoral success) tool for the workers when in the right hands (Though i think that we can all agree that most of the recent self described Reformist politicians are not the right hands for this tool to be in, cue sexual pun:D).

[Zurdito]

The SWP is Reformist? (I admittedly dont know that much about the SWP).

Anyway Reformism isnt that bad if done on a temporary basis and not as the main aim of your movement (Which should be to make the workers living/working standards and position as good as possible before the revolution to overthrow the Bourgeoisie).

If it wasnt for workers going on strikes, and forcing the Bourgeoisie to comply with their demands, then it is unlikely that we would have the benefits that we now experience in the workplace and in general society, so dont completely write Reformism off as it has given us some hard fought for basic rights which any violent action hasnt (Indeed the state will more than likely respond with force when confronted with violence, so the workers hit the Bourgeoisie where it hurt the most, the economy via striking, which forced the Bourgeoisie to comply so as to retain profits).

Having said all that i myself am no Reformist, i just refuse to demonise it and refuse to use it, when it has been proven as quite a useful (And popular judging by self described reformist politicians historical and recent electoral success) tool for the workers when in the right hands (Though i think that we can all agree that most of the recent self described Reformist politicians are not the right hands for this tool to be in, cue sexual pun:D).

One thing is for an openly revolutionary organisation to put forward demands under capitalism - what Trotsky called transitional demands. This is not just an option, but obligatory, otherwise, it is impossible to relate to people's day to day struggles.

Another thing entirely is to sow the illusion amongst workers that capitalism can be reformed into something better and that no revolution is necessarry.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Aren't minimum demands better, though? [Even though said demands should incorporate the full scope of reformist-Keynesian demands...]

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

RedArmySectarian:



rosa, citizenzero etc. it is time the swp recognised that despite its supposed numerical supremacy, it's time it got off the high horse and recognised that it can only help the cause by co operation and compromise with other revolutionary socialists and anarchists rather than adopting a cociliatory approach and allying itself with "radical" elements of the bourgeouisie.


You should begin such posts with a "Once upon a time"; it would be more honest, and more accurate.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ I see that you've brought your hot temper outside the Philosophy forum. ;)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

In fact, I was quite cool when I wrote that; it is just that RedArmySectarian posts nothing but his negative opinion of the SWP. He needs a good slap.

When asked to justify his allegations, he gets abusive; so I get the first kick in these days.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ I have more negative opinions about Trot groups in general that makes his specific position look like he's a party comrade of yours, yet you aren't giving ME the kicks. :p

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

No, I wasn't kicking you!

Whatever made you think that?

[Die Neue Zeit]

I don't think you understood my remarks. Why aren't you giving me the kicks for having a more negative opinion of Trot groups in general than he does (and for stating it out louder and clearer than he)?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

You do not strike me as a rabid sectarian like RedArmyF.

[Die Neue Zeit]

"By co operation and compromise with other revolutionary socialists and anarchists" doesn't sound sectarian to me. :confused:

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

You have to understand, anyone who criticizes the State Department socialist Cliffites is a "sectarian" in Rosa's eyes.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

CDL:


You have to understand, anyone who criticizes the State Department socialist Cliffites is a "sectarian" in Rosa's eyes.


That is not so, and nothing I have said implies it.

However, RedArmyFactionalist is not arguing this, even though you, CDL, might think he is.

But, your connection with reality is not too good, is it?

And, you will perhaps notice what a non-sectarian does: he/she congratulates other parties/traditions for any progress they have made -- just like I did with your POWR group.

Sectarians, on the other hand, just wish to tear down, denigrate, belittle and rubbish other socialist groups/parties.

You need to learn from that...

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Sectarianism means putting the program of your sect above the interests of the working class. I have not done that, nor have many others you have condemned here.

[RNK]

Sectarians, on the other hand, just wish to tear down, denigrate, belittle and rubbish other socialist groups/parties.

Lol.

I am closer to the IMT myself, however I don't think either group has any unique claim to importance.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

CDL-as-was:


Sectarianism means putting the program of your sect above the interests of the working class. I have not done that, nor have many others you have condemned here.


You are using a very narrow meaning of the word 'sectarian', which is not the one I was using.

But, even if we put this to one side, it is still the case that when it comes to other groups who do not follow the letter of your own tendency's line, you: tear down, denigrate, belittle and rubbish...

And so do far too many others here. It is, as should seem obvious, one of the reasons why the left is so weak and ineffectual: we regard one another with more hatred than we do the bosses.

Now, I have shown you the proper way to behave -- with regard to POWR: I welcomed it unreservedly.

So, stop being a naughty boy, and be told...

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ And I don't use that narrow definition of "sectarianism" in my polemics over in my user group, either. :)

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Yeah, unfortunately most of the left has bagged the communist usage of a lot of terms (with long established, concrete meanings) like sectarian, imperialist, revisionist and even proletarian, opting instead to take a sort of post-modernist position that words mean whatever you want them to. It's a part of a reason why there's so much muck for anyone interested in revolutionary politics to trek through.


But, even if we put this to one side, it is still the case that when it comes to other groups who do not follow the letter of your own tendency's line, you: tear down, denigrate, belittle and rubbish...

In other words, criticize?


And so do far too many others here. It is, as should seem obvious, one of the reasons why the left is so weak and ineffectual: we regard one another with more hatred than we do the bosses.

That's certainly not the case for me or my comrades, though a difference has to be made in some situations. For instance, for all their political faults, I'd consider many "Stalinists," "Maoists," "left-communists" and "Trotskyists" alike comrades and a part of the workers movement. I don't have the same opinion of State Department socialists who aren't bosses, but do their best to make themselves indistinguishable from that enemy class.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

NHIA:



In other words, criticize?


There are two sorts of crticism: destructive and constructive.

Sectarians indulge almost exclusively in the former.



That's certainly not the case for me or my comrades, though a difference has to be made in some situations. For instance, for all their political faults, I'd consider many "Stalinists," "Maoists," "left-communists" and "Trotskyists" alike comrades and a part of the workers movement. I don't have the same opinion of State Department socialists who aren't bosses, but do their best to make themselves indistinguishable from that enemy class.


Well, you seem intent on abandoning those fine sentiments here.

By the way, your new name sounds a bit 'liberal' -- in sense you were using that word when you criticised me for lamenting 'human casualties' in Afghanistan.

Just a thought...

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

JR:


And I don't use that narrow definition of "sectarianism" in my polemics over in my user group, either

Aaannd...

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

I guess it's easy to make things up in other threads, since most people won't bother to look up the post in question.

Of course I didn't actually say what you claim, but instead pointed out that communists don't judge things by the number of deaths involved, but by analyzing class forces.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

NHIA:



Of course I didn't actually say what you claim, but instead pointed out that communists don't judge things by the number of deaths involved, but by analyzing class forces.


Well, let's see what you said:


Okay, so lets go by your liberal perspective in judging of what is 'better.' Were more people "blown up" in revolutionary Afghanistan or under the Taliban? You get two guesses.


http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1069299&postcount=19

And:


Judging things by 'how many people were blown up' instead of by examing class forces is a liberal perspective.


http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1069726&postcount=25

So, yes you did qualify what you said; but that does not let you off the hook, for your name should be, if you are concerend be seen as no liberal, 'Nothing Human, Depending On The Class Forces Involved, Is Alien'.

You see how ridiculous your earlier pedantry was? Calling me a 'liberal' for not dotting every 'i' and crossing every 't'.

If I am a liberal, then so are you for missing class forces out of your name.

[Random Precision]

CdeL, I fail to see why you are so hostile to us "Cliffites". Is it the Cuba thing? :confused:

[Keyser]

To the OP:

What specific criticisms do you have of the SWP?

Your opening post was rather vague and I think that if a party is to be criticised, criticism is good if the intention is a contructive debate that can improve the party's politics, then specific aspects/policies should be addressed.

I have my own criticisms of the SWP and would like to discuss them, if the OP highlighted what he saw as being wrong with the SWP.