UK socialist or UK communist party? [Archive]

politics student

28th July 2008, 21:36

I disagree with the CPB's analysis of the former Soviet Bloc, and don't think that they're borad enough on many issues. Still, they're nice guys and we get on well when both our groups are selling newspapers on a Saturday.

I can't get the other link to work, is it the SPGB or the Socialist Party of England and Wales?

I HIT 25 POSTS!!!!!!!!! finally I can post links.

http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/ GB.

The UK communist part kind of put me off due to still waiting for them to send my info that socialist party has mailed me leaflets, emailed me a large collection of essays and party history + put me in contact with someone who lives near me who is a party member.

At the moment I am considering the socialist party also because of the international links.

Sam_b

28th July 2008, 21:43

Pogue

28th July 2008, 21:51

The Socialist Workers Party/Respect have the most influence/membership, and I agree with most of what they say, they do well fighting fascism too.
The Communist Party of Britain have links with the CND, and have a good party line, although I don't agree with them having links with the 'Communist Party' in China(what a misleading and incorrect name), but otherwise they're spot on. They have links with the co-operative run daily newspaper of the left Morning Star, well worth buying, the only daily left wing paper in English in the world or something.

The thing is, theres so many parties, it's ridiculous. My aim is to try and work towards getting them all united into one party for the UK, a United Socialist Party, so that we can begin to make real political ground over here. With all this sectarianism, we waste alot of time and energy, and the fascists in the BNP get stronger.
So get involved in as many groups as possible and strive for unity amongst the parties, I'd say. They all have the same ideas.

Sam_b

28th July 2008, 21:54

well worth buying

They're good on predicting the horses. Apart from that its a pretty terrible read IMO.

strive for unity amongst the parties, I'd say. They all have the same ideas.

They really don't, though.

Pogue

28th July 2008, 21:58

politics student

28th July 2008, 22:10

Its wrong to join the SP solely for its international links over its party platform. If you're going to make a serious choice here, read up on your theory and see which fits best. For me, the SP do not do nearly enough around the issue of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and their organisation in the occupied six counties takes a completely sectarian attitude towards our comrades over there. Not to mention that their stance on Northern Ireland is unbelievably poor.

A lot of these issues came to a head at te last Solidarity conference (the SP's international tendency, the CWI organises within this in Scotland, as do the SWP) where it became clear that the CWI would not support the Iraqi resistance and also not support calls for an open borders policy on immigration.

Nevertheless, it is important to do your own research rather than depend on whoever contacts you first and rely on this.

I should also put our guys hat into the ring... www.swp.org.uk (http://www.swp.org.uk) www.socialistworker.co.uk (http://www.socialistworker.co.uk) ;)

The international links I considered a bonus.

Theory wise and I have meet a lot of the local members in the past, very union based but I am still not sure.

Yeah You are right and I am glad I started this thread as it opens up more options. I am emailing all parties I look at for further information.

Pogue

28th July 2008, 22:12

A good thing to do is go on the national Anti-BNP/Stop the war demonstrations, where there are stands for the parties present. That way you can talk and read stuff.

Sam_b

28th July 2008, 22:12

Socialism, anti-imperialism, stop the war, trade unionism, etc. Things which are fundamental which they all have in common.
No divisions which can justify the splits and sectarianism we see at the moment.

Sectarianism is putting your particular practice over that of anothers.

The whole idea of socialist parties is a question of strategy. Wheras we advocate the use of broad, united front movements, many others have an ultra-leftist attitude of only bringing in the 'finished product' of revolutionaries and will not work with groups such as Stop the War. How on earth will all this be resolved by an ultra-bureaucratic 'UK United Socialist Party'?

Pogue

28th July 2008, 22:34

I think trying is much better than having 50 or so small groups who don't have a platform from which to put across their ideas to the working class.

Sam_b

28th July 2008, 22:41

They tend not to have a platform because they are elitist and don't build.

Pogue

28th July 2008, 22:44

I see. Do you think I should join the SWP?

Sam_b

28th July 2008, 22:48

Do you think I should join the SWP?
[/URL]
If you agree with 'where we stand' ([URL]http://www.swp.org.uk/where.php (http://www.swp.org.uk/where.php#barker)) then absolutely. Otherwise we're all happy to work with you in united fronts and other activites :)

I can provide more information (branches etc) on request.

Pogue

28th July 2008, 22:53

What could I get involved with if I joined the party? I sometimes see you guys on demonstrations.

Sam_b

28th July 2008, 22:56

I'll drop you a PM in a second.

Trystan

28th July 2008, 22:57

What could I get involved with if I joined the party?

Flying Hezbollah flags or some such.:rolleyes:

Sam_b

28th July 2008, 23:09

Flying Hezbollah flags or some such.

Your support for international solidairty and anti-imperialism is duly noted :rolleyes:

As is your lack of any analysis.

Trystan

28th July 2008, 23:15

Your support for international solidairty and anti-imperialism is duly noted :rolleyes:

:lol:

And here was I expecting a half-arsed explanation as to why the SWP are not Islamists untrue to socialist principles.

Your honesty is duly noted. :rolleyes:

Sam_b

28th July 2008, 23:17

Again, where's your analysis?

Or are you simply jumping on an anti-SWP bandwagon?

Trystan

29th July 2008, 12:29

Again, where's your analysis?

Or are you simply jumping on an anti-SWP bandwagon?

Argh . . . would this do?

http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b167/Jauhara/Lillyassedwhitehezbos.jpg

ALLAH ACKBAR!

Philosophical Materialist

29th July 2008, 12:43

The most influential far-left parties are the CPB, SWP and the Socialist Party (England & Wales).

I am a comrade of the CPB. You could show interest in joining at our website and a party comrade will get in contact with you to see if it's what you really want to do.

Though I don't count myself as a Trotskyist the SP(E&W) have an admirable party line too and have good resources.

I get on well with the SWPites and they seem good people.

Look at each party's website, talk to current and former comrades of those parties. Examine and compare each party's analysis of material conditions and Marxism. Also try and find out just how democratic each party is.

Good luck in your search.

Die Neue Zeit

29th July 2008, 14:34

Consider the CPGB-PCC:

http://www.cpgb.org.uk/

Trystan

29th July 2008, 15:01

Consider the CPGB-PCC:

http://www.cpgb.org.uk/

I'm actually in the process of joining the CPGB. They seem to have a pretty good programme. Are you a member?

Philosophical Materialist

29th July 2008, 17:36

I'm actually in the process of joining the CPGB. They seem to have a pretty good programme. Are you a member?

Avoid avoid avoid. They're ultra-sectarian and a bit cultish.

Hit The North

29th July 2008, 18:14

My advice:

Only join a party which is in your local area. There's no point being in the CPGB if their nearest branch is fifty miles away. Go to meetings, get involved in campaigns, find your feet. The world doesn't need any more armchair Marxists.

29th July 2008, 19:40

I for one of course recommend the Socialist Party and don't find myself in the critique Sam_b is putting forward (sectarianism, etc). I for one have some strong opinions on the IST which the SWP is leading, for one they completely left behind the whole method of a transitionary program and instead of putting daily struggles into a class context, they threat them as if they were problems on their own (whether they are student struggles, women/gay movement, muslims, etc). The SWP is opportunist to its core. I can see why they would find others "sectarian" from their perspective.

This page (http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/FAQFrame.htm) offers a load of information on our stances and views. You can contact us for a discussion and ask anything you want directly.

Sam_b

29th July 2008, 20:00

Argh . . . would this do?

Do you have a problem with supporting national liberation movements?

ALLAH ACKBAR!

And are you by any chance Islamophobic?

If this is the best critique that the British sectarian left has to offer, then no wonder we're going on leaps and strides.

29th July 2008, 20:16

Do you have a problem with supporting national liberation movements?

And are you by any chance Islamophobic?

If this is the best critique that the British sectarian left has to offer, then no wonder we're going on leaps and strides.

Well, the support the SWP is giving to groups like Hezbollah, Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood is questionable at best. By comparison, we (CWI) do support their right to fight against American or Israelian imperialism, however we also attack their Islamist alternative, which might very well be even more reactionary than current conditions Arab people are living in today.

Trystan

29th July 2008, 20:20

Do you have a problem with supporting national liberation movements?

They're not a national liberation movement. They're Iranian stooges who fought Israel by proxy. And the Iranian regime lock up civil rights campaigners and socialists who want to do away with the theocracy of the regime. Not to mention hanging homosexuals and fining/imprisoning women for failing to respect sharia law by wearing head scarves.

And are you by any chance Islamophobic?

No, not really. Unless you consider opposition to right-wing Islamist movements "Islamophobic".

Are you perhaps anti-semitic? Might your support for an Islamist organisation who launch rockets into civilian areas be suggestive of it? :rolleyes:

f this is the best critique that the British sectarian left has to offer, then no wonder we're going on leaps and strides.Support for the "Party of God" isn't helping it much. :lol:

Devrim

29th July 2008, 20:30

By comparison, we (CWI) do support their right to fight against American or Israelian imperialism, however we also attack their Islamist alternative, which might very well be even more reactionary than current conditions Arab people are living in today.

Really? It is not the impression that I get from the CWI articles I have read. The position that comes across to me (on the most basic level) is that they say that there fight is not a class fight.

And are you by any chance Islamophobic?

This is the SWP's line against anyone who criticises them cuddling up to the Imams.

Devrim

Yehuda Stern

29th July 2008, 20:37

If this is the best critique that the British sectarian left has to offer, then no wonder we're going on leaps and strides.

That's funny. Didn't your little Galloway project just burst up? The fact that you pick up some people into your group every now and then on a very low theoretical basis doesn't mean you're making any great achievements. It just means that you're fooling yourselves a bit better than the rest of the British left. The Grantites were in your position not that long ago - look at them now.

Regarding the SWP's commitment to "international solidarity" and their non-sectarianism, I feel it would be useful to some comrades attracted to this group that I tell of the ISL's experience with them. When we started moving in a state capitalist direction, we naturally tried analyzing theories of state capitalism by several groups. One of these was inevitably the SWP. Some comrades had made the unfortunate suggestion that we should approach the SWP with the intention of becoming their Israeli section. This was not a unanimous decision, but it did have a majority.

When we first came into contact with the SWP, a man by the name of Joseph answered us. His first reaction was that we should leave Israel, as we have nothing to do here because the Israelis cannot become revolutionaries. Leaving aside the fatalist carelessness towards simple Israelis, it is clear that the SWP does not even consider it possible that Israeli revolutionists might become involved with Palestinian workers. But this falls right in with the trade unionist, reformist outlook of the SWP: if there's no union work to do, no "workers' party" to work in, no fronts to make with reformist politicians, then we might as well just move to Britain.

In the following weeks, we have attempted to carry out some political discussion with Joseph. He did say that he had great respect for revolutionaries working in hard conditions, but the discussions were moving in a very slow pace. By this time we have delved deeper into the problems of the organization: the nationalist bent of its state capitalist theory, which suggested that the class conflict did not exist in the USSR but that the incentives for Stalinist imperialism were external, and its conception of a united front as a strategy rather than a tactic.

We were promised that Alex Callinicos would contact us at some point, until the breakdown of Respect, when all discussions were completely cut off. We then informed Joseph that we want nothing to do with this national-reformist group. We never received a follow up.

I do not tell this story because I believe the ISL deserves to be on the mind of every organization it contacts all the time. But I think the SWP's attitude to the question of internationalism is well illustrated by this story.

They're not a national liberation movement. They're Iranian stooges who fought Israel by proxy. ...Are you perhaps anti-semitic? Might your support for an Islamist organisation who launch rockets into civilian areas be suggestive of it?

Pure Zionist propaganda. The Islamist groups, while supported by Iran, were set up in opposition to the Zionist occupiers. While they are reactionary, their basis is on the oppressed masses. In this sense they are like any national liberation movement in history. Were nationalist groups all over the world not supported by the Soviet imperialists, sometimes even by western imperialism?

And, in a follow up to your question on anti-Semitism, might the difference you make between secular national liberation movements and Islamic ones be rooted in said Islamphobia?

Trystan

29th July 2008, 20:49

Pure Zionist propaganda. The Islamist groups, while supported by Iran, were set up in opposition to the Zionist occupiers. While they are reactionary, their basis is on the oppressed masses.

Agreed. But by your own admission they are reactionary. They do not present a long-term alternative to Israeli/American imperialism other than Islamism. In other words, they do not fully represent the interests of the oppressed masses.

And, in a follow up to your question on anti-Semitism, might the difference you make between secular national liberation movements and Islamic ones be rooted in said Islamphobia?

That wasn't a serious question. I just think it's funny how many leftists accuse you of "Islamaphobia" in the same way the media accuses the left of being "anti-Semitic".

InTheMatterOfBoots

29th July 2008, 20:50

Please leave the Communist Party as clean on leaving as you would like to find it on entering.

www.afed.org.uk

Sam_b

29th July 2008, 20:56

I have to go to work in a few minutes, so i'll keep it brief, and try topost more when I get back from my other job tomorrow night. However...

I think Trystan's poor analysis and grasp of the imperialist problem is very similar to some of the lines peddled by other left groups in Britain with regard to the Iraqi resistance. By this I mean that certain groups, notably Worker's Liberty, who won't support the resistance unless it is completely flawless: secular, socialist and of the right line of this too.

Unfortunately, the people of Iraq and Lebanon, not to mention Palestine, are forced into any resistance they can to protect themselves and their families. Trystan's very brief and, as Yehuda has rightly said,(I'll try to respond to your comments tomorrow!) incorrect analysis fails to address the grassroots movement from below in Lebanon and with regards to the like of Hezbollah and Hamas. The leadership of these organisations is deeply reactionary, yes: but, and the very big but. is that working class people have seen them as defending their communities from imperialism and massacre, and thus have taken up arms allongside them in resistance. Do you honestly think that everyone in Hezbollah is an 'Iranian stooge' that condones the hanging of homosexuals? The important thing is that change to the system can be made once these countries are free of imperialist threat and occupation, rather than trying to organise a completely unified, secular and socialist working class front. Communities are united under Hezbollah to resist Israel's murders, and its the job of socialists and trade unionists to make the arguments inside the organisation to build and put forwards the socialist program after it has effectively defended itself.

I'm on the side of those oppressed by imperialism. The question is, are you?

Pogue

29th July 2008, 21:08

I often doubt who the 'workers' and 'socialist' parties of the UK serve, the poor people, or themselves. This ridiculous sectarianism seems to be a playground for leftist intelectuals to play revolutionary and argue.
This is seen best by how every group refuses to co-operate/unite.
Fucks sake, you're all socialists.

InTheMatterOfBoots

29th July 2008, 21:36

Fucks sake, you're all socialists.

Correction. They're all Marxists. Very different implications.

29th July 2008, 21:56

Really? It is not the impression that I get from the CWI articles I have read. The position that comes across to me (on the most basic level) is that they say that there fight is not a class fight.
How does that contradict with what I said? Hamas/Hezbollah/etc indeed don't fight along class lines, but along sectarian ones.

Pogue

29th July 2008, 22:07

They all believe in socialism. This movement is becoming as distorted and dividied as Christianity.

Devrim

29th July 2008, 22:09

How does that contradict with what I said? Hamas/Hezbollah/etc indeed don't fight along class lines, but along sectarian ones.

Indeed that is the impression that the articles give. But you wrote:

By comparison, we (CWI) do support their right to fight against American or Israelian imperialism,So the question that I am asking is do you support their fight, and if so why do you support a 'sectarian' struggle?

Devrim

InTheMatterOfBoots

29th July 2008, 22:25

They all believe in socialism. This movement is becoming as distorted and dividied as Christianity.

But what is socialism? Ask every group and you will get some very different answers.

29th July 2008, 23:00

Indeed that is the impression that the articles give. But you wrote:

So the question that I am asking is do you support their fight, and if so why do you support a 'sectarian' struggle?

Devrim

We support them in their fight against imperialism, or rather the mass movement that follows them, but that doesn't mean we support them ideologically or programmatically. On the contrary. We try to convince layers of working class people to fight along class lines instead.

politics student

30th July 2008, 01:10

They all believe in socialism. This movement is becoming as distorted and dividied as Christianity.

I normally get pissed off with comments like communism is a religion but the comparison seems deserved when we are this divided.

I would prefer to join an international socialist party or an EU socialist party.

I do wonder if the EU can be changed through a socialist party standing in the EU parliament elections to give them a base to campaign to the proletarians to revolt and change the member states into a united communist europe.

Saying that most socialists I have met hate the EU for what it is at the moment rather than the potential it can offer us, the hate should be channeled to more productive efforts of change.

I do regret failing to read more marxism recently than I have at the moment I am heavily reading fascism(Hate this ideology to my very core but interesting history and motivations to counter the enlightenment), nationalism (Hate most of this ideology as well but so diverse almost to the point anarchism is) and anarchism, highly enjoy reading political philosophy. I bought a few more books on revolutionary marxism recently I am sure by now I am on some list the intelligence services have in a folder somewhere.

Devrim

30th July 2008, 05:32

We support them in their fight against imperialism, or rather the mass movement that follows them, but that doesn't mean we support them ideologically or programmatically.

What does it mean then?

Devrim

30th July 2008, 06:06

What does it mean then?

Devrim

I think I'm pretty clear, what part is it that you don't get?

Devrim

30th July 2008, 06:12

I don't think you are clear at all. Start with these questions:

Are these struggles, which divide the working class as you say, beneficial or detrimental to the class struggle?

What does it mean to support them against imperialism?

Devrim

Yehuda Stern

30th July 2008, 07:24

Agreed. But by your own admission they are reactionary. They do not present a long-term alternative to Israeli/American imperialism other than Islamism. In other words, they do not fully represent the interests of the oppressed masses.

Sure, and we would never give these groups political support: no voting for them in elections, no presenting them as great revolutionaries, no "we are all Hizb Allah." But if we lived in a country under attack by imperialism, we would shoot in the same direction as the Islamists, all the time keeping our organizational independence and our right to propagate our ideas among their rank and file.

Devrim

30th July 2008, 07:34

Sure, and we would never give these groups political support: no voting for them in elections, no presenting them as great revolutionaries, no "we are all Hizb Allah." But if we lived in a country under attack by imperialism, we would shoot in the same direction as the Islamists, all the time keeping our organizational independence and our right to propagate our ideas among their rank and file.

We reject this approach. I have a question to ask though. This sort of approach would work with Hezbollah. It is precisely the sort of support that they are trying to build. It is a part of their strategy. I think it is exactly the sort of 'political' support that they want.

Other groups, for example the PKK in Turkey, have a completely different outlook. They would not accept 'your right to propagate our ideas among their rank and file'. They would shoot you. They have a history of this sort of behaviour. What attitude would you take towards a group like this?

Devrim

Devrim

30th July 2008, 07:45

When we first came into contact with the SWP, a man by the name of Joseph answered us. His first reaction was that we should leave Israel, as we have nothing to do here because the Israelis cannot become revolutionaries. Leaving aside the fatalist carelessness towards simple Israelis, it is clear that the SWP does not even consider it possible that Israeli revolutionists might become involved with Palestinian workers. But this falls right in with the trade unionist, reformist outlook of the SWP: if there's no union work to do, no "workers' party" to work in, no fronts to make with reformist politicians, then we might as well just move to Britain.

This is quite interesting. Do you think that the SWP leadership theoretically believe this, or do you think the idea of having an Israeli section might have seemed a bit inopportune for them at the time given some of their allies?

Devrim

Redboy

30th July 2008, 11:59

There is this small new London-based communist party:
http://www.unitedcomrades.com
;)

Aurelia

30th July 2008, 12:15

http://www.oneparty.co.uk/

Sick of revisionism, Trotskyism and 'left-wing' liberalism?

Looking for a party of genuine Marxism-Leninism?

Pogue

30th July 2008, 12:19

The difference between every single socialist party in the UK is incredibly minimal. It's almost always a difference of some small tactic, which is irrelevant, because the parties are too small and dividied to ever be in a position to implement tactics, and also because these tactics will probably be irrelevant when a revolution comes anyway.
The SP and SWP are both Trotskyist Socialist parties. Yet they are two different parties who refuse to unite.
There is a legion of other socialist/communist parties. You have the Communist Party of Britain, whose aims and principles, as said by their website, are identical to the Socialist Party and the Socialist Workers Party.
You then have about 50 or so small 'revolutionary' groups who are not actualy parties.
I like how you always see the socialist groups on demonstrations, and I like how the SWP is involved in the Stop The War Coalition, CND, UAF, etc. But I'm frustatred by split and schism after schism and split. Because in 30 years the far left in the UK has got no where. Ok, so Respect's George Galloway was elected as an MP. And now Respect has split for another fucking stupid reason.
The way these people talk and act makes me think that the poverty of people in this country and others is not the main concern of these groups, nor is creating an alternative to the BNP, because they continue to have this insane and childish arguments which mean the left is further weakened.
It's incredibly frustrating, and is why many people ignore the far-left completely. It certainly has put me off of joining the organisations. I go on demonstrations all the time, but it's never really apealled to me to join a group, because I don't want to be part of a small group with loads of drama who seem to be bashing their heads against each other's brick walls rather than sorting things out and creating that thing the left has always called for, unity.
It seems if you really want to try and make a difference, you're only hope is supporting a leftist candidate for election to parliament or the GLA, and organise in the Unions, where the workers are.

Yehuda Stern

30th July 2008, 16:18

This sort of approach would work with Hezbollah. It is precisely the sort of support that they are trying to build. It is a part of their strategy. I think it is exactly the sort of 'political' support that they want.

If it would work, all the better for us. It will hasten their political downfall and our ascent. But I doubt it's really that simple. Like you said:

the PKK in Turkey, have a completely different outlook. They would accept 'your right to propagate our ideas among their rank and file'. They would shoot you. They have a history of this sort of behaviour. What attitude would you take towards a group like this?

This would happen with any reactionary group. We have to remain vigilant and watch our back. I think that actually this argument illustrates that an ultra-left is just an opportunist afraid of his own opportunism: do you think, my friend, that we are about to ask either Hizb Allah or the PKK for permission to spread our ideas? We will do it, always making sure to put our members at minimum risk.

This is quite interesting. Do you think that the SWP leadership theoretically believe this, or do you think the idea of having an Israeli section might have seemed a bit inopportune for them at the time given some of their allies?

The latter breeds the former. The SWP isn't an anti-Semitic group, but their popular front policies, their revolving door membership style, and their association with certain groups has, no doubt, created the possibility that many SWP supporters are anti-Semitic. I recall being told by a Scottish leftist that at an anti-war conference, SWP supporters complained that "only Jews" opposed a motion giving political support to Hizb Allah.

But I think it goes deeper than that. First off, Cliff's version of state capitalism, rooted in part in Shachtmanism and in part in James-Dunayeskaya, is nationalist in essence. The Cliffites boast about having a very loose international structure, and if you'll look you'll see that other than the SWP, most ISL sections are quite marginal. It is clear from studying the history of the SWP is that their conception is essentially reformist and electoralist, as illustrated by Respect and their support in the past for left Labour Party reformists. They are not interested in building an international party.

Another aspect is their obsession with making fronts with other left groups on an unprincipled basis, and even with Muslim and Labour politicians who are opposed to the mainstream line of New Labour. Less than anything, they would want a section in the Middle East whose existence would serve as a challenge to the groups they support unconditionally - even less, in a country where this might clash with some conceptions of its allies from Respect and other fronts.

Hit The North

30th July 2008, 17:02

Originally posted by H-L-V-S:
It's incredibly frustrating, and is why many people ignore the far-left completely. It certainly has put me off of joining the organisations. I go on demonstrations all the time, but it's never really apealled to me to join a group, because I don't want to be part of a small group with loads of drama who seem to be bashing their heads against each other's brick walls rather than sorting things out and creating that thing the left has always called for, unity. I understand your frustration, comrade. But maintaining an individual presence and refusing to join an organization only adds to the fragmentation of the left. Irrespective of the weaknesses of particular organizations, at least as a fighter for socialism you will be working with and learning from other socialists. This is a great thing and strengthens both you, the organization and, ultimately, our class.

davidbrooke

30th July 2008, 20:29

politics student

30th July 2008, 20:44

Philosophical Materialist

30th July 2008, 21:31

I am confused why these socialist parties refuse to unite.

I have read all 3 of their informations and am still confused I struggle to see much difference, some support issues stringer than other but why can they not unite into a larger party. They could still campaign for these issues but as one group rather than a few. :confused:

Ideological differences are quite few and yes I agree with you these parties ought to work together. I am guessing the reasons why these different parties are not working together are concerns of internal democracy (extreme democracy Vs top-down diktat), fears of aligned parties being absorbed by a larger party, and spurious personality clashes.

Sadly the collapse of the Socialist Alliance put back efforts for far-left unity some years leaving small left parties with animosity towards the SWP.

I think my party the CPB would join a viable far-left unity coalition. In the past it was paralysed by the concept of "reclaiming the Labour Party for the working class", something which I don't think will ever happen. Since joining the CPB I have argued for cross-party unity on the left, and I think as time goes on more people are realising that this is preferable, than tactically supporting the Labour Party because "the Tories are worse." This viewpoint is generational, with younger members seeing Labour as redundant and no longer relevant to working class interests.

If the British left can organise a united party around extreme democracy, Marxist principles, then there would be tangible gains for the working class. Having a larger consistent socialist party would encourage membership, and the pooling of sources would aid education and propaganda. A viable left-wing party would encourage trade unions to affiliate, allowing educated revolutionaries greater access to working people and raising socialist consciousness.

politics student

30th July 2008, 22:02

Ideological differences are quite few and yes I agree with you these parties ought to work together. I am guessing the reasons why these different parties are not working together are concerns of internal democracy (extreme democracy Vs top-down diktat), fears of aligned parties being absorbed by a larger party, and spurious personality clashes.

Sadly the collapse of the Socialist Alliance put back efforts for far-left unity some years leaving small left parties with animosity towards the SWP.

I think my party the CPB would join a viable far-left unity coalition. In the past it was paralysed by the concept of "reclaiming the Labour Party for the working class", something which I don't think will ever happen. Since joining the CPB I have argued for cross-party unity on the left, and I think as time goes on more people are realising that this is preferable, than tactically supporting the Labour Party because "the Tories are worse." This viewpoint is generational, with younger members seeing Labour as redundant and no longer relevant to working class interests.

If the British left can organise a united party around extreme democracy, Marxist principles, then there would be tangible gains for the working class. Having a larger consistent socialist party would encourage membership, and the pooling of sources would aid education and propaganda. A viable left-wing party would encourage trade unions to affiliate, allowing educated revolutionaries greater access to working people and raising socialist consciousness.

Labour is a lost cause, we need to unite into a UK socialist party so we stand a chance to become a real movement for change.

Sam_b

30th July 2008, 22:05

The SP and SWP are both Trotskyist Socialist parties. Yet they are two different parties who refuse to unite.

Wrong. The SWP and CWI organise in Solidarity, Scotland's Socialist Movement (www.solidarityscotland.org (http://www.solidarityscotland.org))

I do take issue with the idea that H-L-V-S stating that socialist parties are 'as distorted and divided as Christianity'. This thread has turned into an interesting discussion of tactics and how socialists should fight imperialism. We're still uniting when faced with capitalism at its worst - eg G8, WTO etc; but it is important to have full and frank debates about the subject at hand - it would be ridiculous for this entire forum to be full of plurality as its not correct.

Sam_b

30th July 2008, 22:26

Anyways, Yehuda I said I would follow-up to your post yesterday, so here it is.

That's funny. Didn't your little Galloway project just burst up? The fact that you pick up some people into your group every now and then on a very low theoretical basis doesn't mean you're making any great achievements. It just means that you're fooling yourselves a bit better than the rest of the British left. The Grantites were in your position not that long ago - look at them now.

I think a distinction has to be made here between the success of a revolutionary party and the success of a broad left electoral alternative. The split really is of little interest to me, as our electoral group in Scotland is still ongoing, but I do believe that mistakes have been made and its our job to learn from them and move on (this is why I still regard the SWP's involvement with the Scottish Socialist Party as being beneficial and a good learning curve). I'm more interested in the way the revolutionary party is being built: and from what I see we have a good solid structure and base in many parts of the UK, increasing membership, and having positive interventions in united fronts and on picket lines.

I'm sorry to hear of your experiences dealing with us within the IST (I think I maybe know what Joseph you're talking about, if you feel able to divulge any more details, please send me a PM). I don't feel that I can personally speak for the parties involved of course, but I am adament that the internationalist outlook of the SWPis a high priority in the party, maintaining close links with broad movements around the world (illustrated by the diverse range of comrades and speakers at Marxism 2008), and having a positive intervention within the IST.

Pogue

30th July 2008, 22:59

I think our first and main aim is a united left. Our message simply does not get across while we're still a number of small groups on the sidelines of politics. Most people don't know the SWP exists, and you only really will if you move in socialist circles anyway.

Devrim

30th July 2008, 23:01

This would happen with any reactionary group. We have to remain vigilant and watch our back. I think that actually this argument illustrates that an ultra-left is just an opportunist afraid of his own opportunism:

Yehuda, I think this is a poor argument. While you can disagree with our positions I think that the idea that we are afraid is quite insulting. We are a communist group in the Middle east. Of the two members of our organisation who post on here, I still have the scars from being tortured as a young man, and Leo's (he is a lot younger) mother also spent a long time being tortured. I would be surprised if there was any member of our organisation who didn't at least have immediate family members who had been tortured, or even killed. I find the insinuation that we are 'afraid of our own opportunism', offensive.

do you think, my friend, that we are about to ask either Hizb Allah or the PKK for permission to spread our ideas? We will do it, always making sure to put our members at minimum risk.

No, but I think that Hezbollah are trying to build a broad coalition, and would probably tolerate it whereas the PKK have a reputation for shooting other leftist, and nationalists whether they ask for 'permission' or not.

Devrim

Sam_b

30th July 2008, 23:25

Our message simply does not get across while we're still a number of small groups on the sidelines of politics. Most people don't know the SWP exists, and you only really will if you move in socialist circles anyway.

We don't just join together in order to get more members, especially when there are very serious ideological divisions within the organisations. How would the left benefit from the amalgamation of a group advocating socialism through the ballot box and a revolutionary organisation, for example?

The only reason the left often stays so small is because there is a lack of activity and organisation.

politics student

30th July 2008, 23:41

We don't just join together in order to get more members, especially when there are very serious ideological divisions within the organisations. How would the left benefit from the amalgamation of a group advocating socialism through the ballot box and a revolutionary organisation, for example?

The only reason the left often stays so small is because there is a lack of activity and organisation.

We also have a major issue of anti socialist and anti communist propaganda.

Also add the poor state of education with people too lazy to pick up a book now a days to teach themselves something.

We need to unite to become a mobile movement able to break down a lot of misinformation and educate the proletarians.

Sam_b

30th July 2008, 23:49

How do we unite in a model which completely ignores and downplays ideological divisions?

politics student

30th July 2008, 23:53

How do we unite in a model which completely ignores and downplays ideological divisions?

hmmm we would have to downplay ideology and push forward goals/principles.
Saying that it would be almost impossible.

We would need to promote ideological debate within the party rather than allow it to directly influence policies.

Sam_b

30th July 2008, 23:58

hmmm we would have to downplay ideology

than allow it to directly influence policies.

Sorry, but I find that completely unacceptable.

Pogue

31st July 2008, 02:11

Gah, dam theoretical games, we're in the buisness of trying to help people escape poverty and oppresion, not debate about party lines and theory!

Sam_b

31st July 2008, 02:18

I don't understand how you can escape poverty and oppression without a strategy. Can you elaborate?

Pogue

31st July 2008, 02:36

I mean I don't like excessive theoretical nit picking. It doesn't take several decades to create a theory for solving these problems.

Die Neue Zeit

31st July 2008, 02:48

^^^ If you're interested in my work, PM me for your e-mail. :)

Pogue

31st July 2008, 02:57

What does your work address?

Die Neue Zeit

31st July 2008, 03:07

A lot of things (you've got a PM outlining the details)...

Yehuda Stern

31st July 2008, 06:48

I think a distinction has to be made here between the success of a revolutionary party and the success of a broad left electoral alternative.You're avoiding the question, though. Respect has been the SWP's main focus for the last years and its main recruitment ground. Its failure is, without a single doubt, a blow to your organization. To shrug it off as meaningless is to avoid reality, as opportunists often like to do to ignore the fact that their opportunism has caught up with them.

As for our (not "my") experience with the IST, I do not expect you to believe my anecdote on its own. But the whole thing is documented and I can get proof easily enough. What was important for me was to contradict your ridiculous claim that internationalism is held in high regard by the SWP.

I find the insinuation that we are 'afraid of our own opportunism', offensive.You are confusing two different things: I do not think you are afraid of fighting, but I think that on some level, you fear as an organization that you will capitulate to the nationalist groups and that this is your main argument against working in them.

(and, friend, let's not be so sensitive - a while back you insinuated that I am a Great Power racist because of my support for military fronts, when I am an anti-Zionist Jew in Israel with enough to be afraid about, never mind other comrades and their past)

No, but I think that Hezbollah are trying to build a broad coalition, and would probably tolerate it whereas the PKK have a reputation for shooting other leftist, and nationalists whether they ask for 'permission' or not.We would not be part of any such coalition - we oppose any political or organizational unity with these elements. We only support a military front. As for the PKK - let them come.

Pogue

31st July 2008, 13:51

The fact is, we need to break down these ideological divisions that aren't really divisions at all. And why can't the parties simply unite, and strive for revolution and the ballot box? It seems insane that they'd say, stand idly why the Tory's or BNP were getting votes when we have a socialist alternative. If we spend ages striving for a revolution, in that time the BNP could gain electoral support and proceed on their manic path of destroying freedom and democracy and trying to get rid of anyone who is not white and British.

Gold Against The Soul

31st July 2008, 14:37

I was wondering what my fellow comrades thought of these parties, with Labour completely dropping socialism in the form of New Labour I am searching for a revolutionary socialist party, both seem rather similar so I have requested further information from both.

Have any of you had any dealings/membership/views on those parties? :confused:

I'm in the Socialist Party. The main reason I joined was because of the fact that the SP has historically got some concrete results in Britain. The anti-poll tax federation/mass non-payment of the poll tax and the influence on Liverpool council in the mid 80s, being two prime examples. I was also impressed that all their elected officials took/take a workers wage and the fact that they have a large working class base.

It is true to say that maybe the SP isn't that great on International issues but I believe everyone has to try and win the small battles where they live in the here and now: within their workplace and community. There is not much I could physically do about Iraq, for example. So this isn't something I'm greatly bothered by.

Sam_b

1st August 2008, 00:34

You're avoiding the question, though. Respect has been the SWP's main focus for the last years and its main recruitment ground

Firstly, i'd say that it wasn't the main focus of the comrade sin England and Wales: i'd say that our united front and TU work is just as if not more important. And again, thats just in England and Wales.

Its failure is, without a single doubt, a blow to your organization.

Absolutely.

To shrug it off as meaningless is to avoid reality, as opportunists often like to do to ignore the fact that their opportunism has caught up with them.

Well, no. I was making a distinction between the success of the SWP as a revolutionary party and RESPECT as an electoral coalition. To completely base your reasoning that the SWP is on a downturn solely behind the division in an electoral alternative is a distinct case in being selective in the use of facts, which has been used for years by groups opposing the SWP. What I am saying is that our interventions in united fronts is successful, our membership is increasing and we are getting people politicised. If you have any concrete proofs that this is not occourring, then by all means say them, rather than falling back on opportunist arguments.

As for our (not "my") experience with the IST, I do not expect you to believe my anecdote on its own. But the whole thing is documented and I can get proof easily enough. What was important for me was to contradict your ridiculous claim that internationalism is held in high regard by the SWP.

Then let's see the proof. But, to be more honest, lets see proof that the SWPs internationalism is non-existant and that the party does not play a fighting role in the IST.

There is not much I could physically do about Iraq, for example

Get involved with Stop the War?

Devrim

1st August 2008, 04:57

We would not be part of any such coalition - we oppose any political or organizational unity with these elements. We only support a military front.

This is something that I always marvel about with the Trotskyists. The idea that they can give a certain king of support, but not political support. Membership of a military front is exactly the type of support that Hezbollah want.

You are confusing two different things: I do not think you are afraid of fighting, but I think that on some level, you fear as an organization that you will capitulate to the nationalist groups and that this is your main argument against working in them.

It is not the 'main argument'. It is not that we think that these sort of movements are led by 'bad people'. We don't think these movements have anything to offer the working class.

(and, friend, let's not be so sensitive - a while back you insinuated that I am a Great Power racist because of my support for military fronts, when I am an anti-Zionist Jew in Israel with enough to be afraid about, never mind other comrades and their past)

I think you will find that was probably, Leo. He is young and brash. I don't think you are 'a Great Power racist' (I imagine he said chauvinist). I completely disagree with your politics on the national question, but I don't think that it means I need to throw insults at you.

Devrim

Yehuda Stern

1st August 2008, 12:12

Sam:

I was making a distinction between the success of the SWP as a revolutionary party and RESPECT as an electoral coalition.

I don't think the distinction really exists in your case. You've placed all your bets on Galloway and Respect and you failed. It's possible that you have gained new members, but I would bet you've lost as much. I know that three important comrades of yours dropped out of the SWP to join up with Galloway. Now your London Mayor candidate boasts that her campaign will strengthen the Livingstone campaign. Things are not looking good. It looks that, like many left groups that claim to be growing, you are merely a 'revolving door' membership-type group. But of course, I have no concrete evidence, as I am not in Britain. I can only interpret.

rather than falling back on opportunist arguments.

What "opportunist arguments" have I made?

Then let's see the proof. But, to be more honest, lets see proof that the SWPs internationalism is non-existant and that the party does not play a fighting role in the IST.

You, and anyone else who wants to see our exchanges with the IST, is more than welcome to PM me with his e-mail. I will send all of you the information I have.

As far as your internationalism goes, I think it's easy to show that the SWP is not an internationalist organization. This is illustrated by some of your historical positions, such as your neutralist position on the Korean War and in the Malvinas War, in place of support for a defeat for the imperialist side. About the IST, that's trickier, because other than the exchanges which I have described, I have never had any touch with that organization, and none of us know its machinations. I'm certain, however, that I
would not be impressed.

Devrim:

This is something that I always marvel about with the Trotskyists. The idea that they can give a certain king of support, but not political support.

This isn't a Trotskyist idea. Marx, Engels, Lenin, all had this idea as well - we can, in any given situation, give military but not political support. Thus Marx and Engels gave military support to the Polish and Irish aristocrats and catholic reactionaries in their fight against Russia and Britain, respectively. Lenin supported Kerensky, the reactionary SR, against the white guard attack. I think that since it is a fact that Marxists historically gave military support to some organizations, the opportunist conclusion from your argument is that sometimes Marxists give political support to reactionaries, which is definitely wrong.

It is not the 'main argument'. It is not that we think that these sort of movements are led by 'bad people'. We don't think these movements have anything to offer the working class.

Neither do we - it's not what they offer the working class, but what they offer us. When we are small, these groups give us an opening to join the mass struggles and reach social layers that we many not be able to reach on our own. I was arguing that your fear, conscious or not, was that you will not be able to resist the urge to capitulate politically to these groups, and that this in fact is what is behind your refusal to give military support to these groups.

Faction2008

1st August 2008, 13:10

These are some things I found written on the Socialist party website were:

Since Tony Blair came to power the wealth of the top 1% had doubled from £355 billion to £797

That is more than has been spent on health, housing and education combined over the last five years.

But on the other hand last year Britain's 54 billionaires paid an average of 0.12% of their income in taxes.

In Stoke, BNP councillors voted in favour of a dramatic rise in council tax equal to almost double inflation.

Meanwhile many ordinary people no longer bother to phone the police when they are burgled, because they know that nothing will be done.

If they paid even the measly 40% tax that New Labour asks for £50 billion would have found its way into the states coffers.Instead they paid just £14.7 million in tax.

If this is all true it's truly shocking.

disobey

1st August 2008, 14:24

Socialism, anti-imperialism, stop the war, trade unionism, etc. Things which are fundamental which they all have in common.
No divisions which can justify the splits and sectarianism we see at the moment.

Which brings me to my new book:

The Somewhat Partially Completely Fabricated History of the Socialist Alliance

Chapter One

Once upon a time there were many socialist parties, and they decided to get together to create an alliance and hopefully a new worker's party. Hence, the Socialist Alliance was born. And things were good, and the people rejoiced.

But then one day the SWP decided that they wanted control, and furthermore had the power to veto all decision making as they had the majority vote, and the others were sidelined and unhappy. The SWP had new friends now; an alliance with "Respect". The SWP "Respected" the Socialist Alliance so much infact, it was destroyed, decimated, utterly and completely, and the left were made a laughing stock. And the people no longer rejoiced - apart from George Galloway, who had always been a ****.

Chapter Two

"Fifteen years fighting for socialist unity"

And so the SWP continueth their great crusade against the capitalists whilst leaving a trail of destruction behind on the tattered remains of the left. Mr Galloway then decided to act like a twat, again and again, and created a split with the SWP, because they would not allow him to drink champagne from the belly buttons of beautiful, voluptuous lebanese women at the Marxism festival in 2007.

"After the Bush-Blair war in Iraq, the SWP majority abandoned the SA for Respect and closed the SA down. However a significant minority did not accept this. In November 2005 the SA was relaunched at the London conference."

To this end, the SWP decided to forge ahead and create a new alliance, The Inter-not-so-national Socio-fashyst Uber-Alliance, with the following members:

SWP

And the people rejoiced, again.

The End.

Sam_b

1st August 2008, 22:43

You've placed all your bets on Galloway and Respect and you failed.

See, its sweeping generalisations like this that show you have precious little understanding of the SWP.

Now your London Mayor candidate boasts that her campaign will strengthen the Livingstone campaign

We encouraged a second vote for Livingstone in order to keep Boris Johnson out. I don't see how this is a bad thing.

What "opportunist arguments" have I made?

Sweeping and biased arguments which don't address points, but which are used in order to tarnish the reputation of the SWP in favour of promoting your supported groups.

I think it's easy to show that the SWP is not an internationalist organization. This is illustrated by some of your historical positions, such as your neutralist position on the Korean War and in the Malvinas War, in place of support for a defeat for the imperialist side

Seeing as the SWP was formed in 1977, I don't see how you can use the Korean war as an example. And despite this, positions change and parties evolve. And how exactly was an Argintinian victory in the Falklands war a defeat for imperialism?

About the IST, that's trickier, because other than the exchanges which I have described, I have never had any touch with that organization, and none of us know its machinations

Which makes me wonder why you approached the SWP about affiliating to the IST rather than the IST itself.

Disobey: When you're ready to address arguments with substance rather than just a completely trollish post, let me know. KTHNX.

disobey

2nd August 2008, 08:17

My apologies for the trolling, however it was with an intent (rather sarcastically) to address what seem to be silly myths banded about the SWP, particularly within other socialist organisations like my own - hence my partially completely fabricated comment.

I'm far to ignorant to really take sides here. You can only truly understand an organisation when you're part of it, and I haven't joined the SWP so I wouldn't know. Maybe I will!

The flowers will grow again.

Sam_b

2nd August 2008, 18:37

Yehuda Stern

3rd August 2008, 17:01

We encouraged a second vote for Livingstone in order to keep Boris Johnson out. I don't see how this is a bad thing.

Right, man. Maybe in the USA we should vote Democrat to keep McCain out. I don't see how that is a bad thing.
The 'lesser evil' sophistry always seems so perfect until one brings out an example like that. Then again, seeing as your former US section is now completely pro-Democrat, maybe I'm giving you too much credit thinking you'd disagree with such a strategy.

Sweeping and biased arguments which don't address points, but which are used in order to tarnish the reputation of the SWP in favour of promoting your supported groups.

So, basically, you have no answer?
And I don't make any arguments in favor of promoting any groups, seeing as there are no groups I support in Britain. I just don't want to allow the SWP to present itself as a Marxist organization, as it might attract some left-minded workers and disorient them.

Seeing as the SWP was formed in 1977, I don't see how you can use the Korean war as an example.

That's great, just great. Does the SWP have no connection with, say, a group called International Socialists? Was that group not the party's predecessor? Is it not downright foolish to claim that I can't use an example from a group's predecessor, even though that group accepts that predecessor's positions?

Pogue

3rd August 2008, 17:12

This is so fucking pointless. What a joke. It's really unbelievable.
I can't believe these arguments exist.
While these fights continue, people die. fascism grows. For fucks sake.

Leo

3rd August 2008, 17:49

This is illustrated by some of your historical positions, such as your neutralist position on the Korean War ... in place of support for a defeat for the imperialist side.

Uh wait, which imperialist side, the American one or the Russian one?

Anyway, SWP really is not "neutralist", they are more disgustingly pro Hamas and Hezbollah than you are. This is an insult to other who you call "neutralists".

Sam_b

3rd August 2008, 18:32

Right, man. Maybe in the USA we should vote Democrat to keep McCain out. I don't see how that is a bad thing

Your sniding comparison fails because it simply doesn't correlate. McCain or Obama will make absolutely no change for the American working class, that is clear. But look at the disgusting number of anti-working class measures already instigated by Johnson, not to mention his casual racism and xenophobia, and staunch opposition to immigration and multiculturalism. Do you not agree that this time last year things were better under Livingstone? What would your second choice have been? Voting for Livingstone as a second choice to try and stop the BNP getting further representation, bad call you think?

So, basically, you have no answer?

If you can't fail to see a difference between RESPECT and the SWP, thats your own problem. I've outlined the vast difference and you choose not to listen to it, then start crying about having 'no answers'. Kinda showing your true colours now eh :rolleyes:

That's great, just great. Does the SWP have no connection with, say, a group called International Socialists? Was that group not the party's predecessor? Is it not downright foolish to claim that I can't use an example from a group's predecessor, even though that group accepts that predecessor's positions?

True, but why couldn't you have been a bit clearer? And as anti-imperialists, we don't support it, whether it be Russian or American.

So, i'll ask you again, how exactly would an Argentinian victory in the Falklands war be a defeat for imperialism? And for that matter, the same question with regards to the Korean war?

Throw your toys out the pram about the SWP all you like, but when it comes to the real issues at hand, you simply have no substance.

This is so fucking pointless. What a joke. It's really unbelievable.
I can't believe these arguments exist.
While these fights continue, people die. fascism grows. For fucks sake.

When you come down off your pedestal and organise, and when you sort out your theory with regards to internal debate in the left, then you can make such criticsm. Otherwise it rings hollow.

disobey

3rd August 2008, 22:46

Maybe that was me too eager to 'jump the gun' there comrade: I'm not going to lie about our organisation, and I think that legitimate criticsm and debate can be levelled at it, but more often than not its petty sectarian swipes. I apologise if I was maybe a bit aggressive towards you there.

What organisation are you a member of yourself? :)

Socialist Party UK. Some of my comrades have negative views of the SWP, of course I cannot say they are warranted with my limited knowledge. Perhaps the hatchet has not been buried yet. Originally I wanted to join the SWP but sort of ended up in the SP instead. There is a feeling of isolation I must admit -- the left feels totally fragmented.

The far right may be lunatics and violent idiots, but at least they can all scrape their knuckles together - and get beaten up together by Antifa. :) Solidarity in ignorance should be their slogan!

Pogue

3rd August 2008, 22:51

My theory on 'internal debates' is that they're always stupid arguments which always lead to ridiculous splits. Like the SWP and Respect. Like what happened to the Socialist Alliance. I'll stay on my pedestal because I think what the parties are doing, or failing to do, (refusing to unite, continuing to divide) is terrible and is pathetic and is excactly what deters people like me from getting involved in the far left. Its why I've been active (demonstrations and organising) yet I've never joined an established party, because theres so many and they have stupid arguments.

Sam_b

4th August 2008, 00:35

Socialist Party UK. Some of my comrades have negative views of the SWP, of course I cannot say they are warranted with my limited knowledge. Perhaps the hatchet has not been buried yet. Originally I wanted to join the SWP but sort of ended up in the SP instead. There is a feeling of isolation I must admit -- the left feels totally fragmented.

I have disagreements with some aspects of the SP, but your international section works well with us up in Scotland so unity and all that :). Both camps teamed up excellently for the recent electoral activity in Glasgow East.

Yehuda Stern

4th August 2008, 09:30

While these fights continue, people die. fascism grows. For fucks sake.

Look pal, just because you're some sort of Socialist Alliance die-hard, doesn't mean that people on this board who take their politics seriously shouldn't discuss them. Maybe you're the one acting ridiculous, did you ever think about that? Maybe it's pointless to make political blocs with organizations you don't agree with on anything just to elect some left reformist to mayor?

Uh wait, which imperialist side, the American one or the Russian one?

I don't believe the Russian role was that decisive in the Korean war. In Afghanistan, for example, I would've supported a defeat for the Russians, but not in Korea or Vietnam.

This is an insult to other who you call "neutralists".

Sue me.

look at the disgusting number of anti-working class measures already instigated by Johnson, not to mention his casual racism and xenophobia, and staunch opposition to immigration and multiculturalism. Do you not agree that this time last year things were better under Livingstone? What would your second choice have been? Voting for Livingstone as a second choice to try and stop the BNP getting further representation, bad call you think?

So I guess you SWPers are just getting back to your roots of supporting the Labour party lefts. What you people haven't learned is that many Labour governments are actually worse for the workers than they Tory governments, and are always at least just as bad. So no, I don't agree things were better, and I would not have voted for Livingstone. As for the BNP, we all know fascism isn't a real threat at the moment. If it were, maybe talking about a united front would make some sense. Right now, the best way to deal with them is the old way: "acquainting their heads with the pavement."

If you can't fail to see a difference between RESPECT and the SWP, thats your own problem.

Yeah, uh, only that wasn't the question. You were saying I made opportunist arguments. I asked which. You did not answer me. I take this latest reply as more evidence that you have basically made a nonsense argument that you can't back up.

So, i'll ask you again, how exactly would an Argentinian victory in the Falklands war be a defeat for imperialism? And for that matter, the same question with regards to the Korean war?

How? In that a victory would go to a third world country against an imperialist state. That's all a Leninist needs.

Throw your toys out the pram about the SWP all you like, but when it comes to the real issues at hand, you simply have no substance.

I think that we see, in the end, that fancy phrases notwithstanding, that sentence actually describes your group and your politics, not ours.

disobey

4th August 2008, 10:17

I have disagreements with some aspects of the SP, but your international section works well with us up in Scotland so unity and all that :). Both camps teamed up excellently for the recent electoral activity in Glasgow East.

I'd forgotten about that -- good times!

Sam_b

4th August 2008, 22:47

Big fucking LOL.

So I guess you SWPers are just getting back to your roots of supporting the Labour party lefts.

Our history comes from the RCP before the IS and SWP. So don't you go telling me where our tendencies roots are.

As for the BNP, we all know fascism isn't a real threat at the moment.

A ridiculous point which shows your poor analysis from the very start. Tell the people of Barking and Dagenam that the BNP aren't a huge threat, where they are the second largest party on the council and representatives have been making threats to schools and students for putting on LMHR events. Tell that to the people of Stoke who saw the BNP's vote march up, and look all set to win the mayoral election next year. The BNP were fifth in the London elections, got their most high-profile representation to date, and almost won two seats.

If it were, maybe talking about a united front would make some sense

This is why we organise in Unite Against Fascism and Love Music Hate Racism.

You were saying I made opportunist arguments. I asked which. You did not answer me

I said it was opportunistic on your tendencies part to make ridiculous sectarian arguments attempting to tarnish the SWP rather than make legitimate criticisms. But then any answer wouldn't be good enough for you here, would it?

In that a victory would go to a third world country against an imperialist state

A military junta with imperialist ideas beating an established imperialist country?

I think that we see, in the end, that fancy phrases notwithstanding, that sentence actually describes your group and your politics, not ours.

NO ITS YOU! ITS YOU!!!! No wonder your tendency has been rejected by the majority of class conscious workers.

Die Neue Zeit

5th August 2008, 00:32

In Afghanistan, for example, I would've supported a defeat for the Russians, but not in Korea or Vietnam.

Despite your claims of not being a Cliffite, your position here indicates otherwise (with a touch of sectarianism).

Yehuda Stern

5th August 2008, 13:26

Despite your claims of not being a Cliffite, your position here indicates otherwise

Despite your claims of not being a Kautskyite, that picture in your avatar tells a different story.
Since when does having a similar position to some tendency on one question equal being a part of that tendency?

(with a touch of sectarianism).

Is 'sectarianism' an actual thing that you mean, or is it just a knee-jerk reaction meant to cover up that you have no idea what you're talking about?

Our history comes from the RCP before the IS and SWP. So don't you go telling me where our tendencies roots are.

Well, the IS was in Labour for quite some time. In elections to mayor in London you support Ken Livingstone. Am I just imagining this support for left reformists?

A ridiculous point which shows your poor analysis from the very start...

That a fascist group makes gains does not mean it's about to come to power. Historically fascism comes to power only if in a revolutionary situation the workers fail to take power.

I said it was opportunistic on your tendencies part to make ridiculous sectarian arguments attempting to tarnish the SWP rather than make legitimate criticisms

But you did not say which arguments were 'opportunistic,' 'sectarian,' or - this is new - 'ridiculous.' So I'll stay with the impression that you're just throwing words around.

A military junta with imperialist ideas beating an established imperialist country?

Yes. Imperialist ideas (whatever that is) do not equal an imperialist country.

Pogue

5th August 2008, 13:45

I don't understand why any of these arguments matter.

Sam_b

5th August 2008, 18:47

In elections to mayor in London you support Ken Livingstone

Incorrect. We supported Lindsey German.

That a fascist group makes gains does not mean it's about to come to power

So a group only becomes a threat when it comes to power? :rolleyes:

Yes. Imperialist ideas (whatever that is) do not equal an imperialist country.

The analysis that a country with a desire to start a capmaign of imperialism defeats another is some sort of progressive step, a position that will further the cause of workers, is ridiculous.

Yehuda Stern

5th August 2008, 19:08

The analysis that a country with a desire to start a capmaign of imperialism defeats another is some sort of progressive step, a position that will further the cause of workers, is ridiculous.

My friend, this is the classical position of Marxism, an ideology which, in its true form, I am sure your organization finds to be completely ridiculous.

And what is this idealistic way of putting things - a "campaign" of imperialism? Is imperialism a policy that a nation suddenly decides to take up, or is it a stage of development of a capitalist country? Can third world nations in our times become imperialist, of their own volition or at all? Do you not think that such a proposition contradicts Lenin's theory of the imperialist epoch as well as the theory of permanent revolution?

Gold Against The Soul

5th August 2008, 19:27

I'll stay on my pedestal because I think what the parties are doing, or failing to do, (refusing to unite, continuing to divide) is terrible and is pathetic and is excactly what deters people like me from getting involved in the far left. Its why I've been active (demonstrations and organising) yet I've never joined an established party, because theres so many and they have stupid arguments.

You appear to have gone full circle in the space of 5 pages! On Page 1 you were saying: "get involved in as many groups as possible and strive for unity amongst the parties, I'd say. They all have the same ideas". Now all that seems to have turned into a reason for not joining any of them? :confused:

To be fair, I reckon you were right the first time around. Except, most parties don't allow dual membership. So join one and argue your point within the party.

Gold Against The Soul

5th August 2008, 19:28

Incorrect. We supported Lindsey German.

Did you call for a 2nd pref for him though? Or am I getting you mixed up with Galloway's lot?

Sam_b

5th August 2008, 20:56

Did you call for a 2nd pref for him though? Or am I getting you mixed up with Galloway's lot?

Yes, as a tactical vote to keep out the BNP and Boris.

My friend, this is the classical position of Marxism, an ideology which, in its true form, I am sure your organization finds to be completely ridiculous.

Big fucking lol, troll.

And what is this idealistic way of putting things - a "campaign" of imperialism? Is imperialism a policy that a nation suddenly decides to take up, or is it a stage of development of a capitalist country? Can third world nations in our times become imperialist, of their own volition or at all? Do you not think that such a proposition contradicts Lenin's theory of the imperialist epoch as well as the theory of permanent revolution?

As Lenin said "Its special character is threefold: imperialism is (I) monopoly capitalism; (2) Parasitic, or decaying capitalism; (3) Moribund capitalism.

Firstly, explain to me why Argentina doesn't fit into this, and secondly, answer to the call that an Argentinian victory would not be any more progressive to workers than a British one.

Yehuda Stern

6th August 2008, 15:51

Me, a troll? That's nice. Maybe the troll is the one who avoids my questions, hmm?

Sam_b

6th August 2008, 17:37

Me, a troll? That's nice. Maybe the troll is the one who avoids my questions, hmm?

Thats a bit rich coming from someone who has conveniently stopped engaging on our London election tactic, after horrifically saying the BNP aren't a threat....

Highlight what questions you'd like me to answer then. I think i've dealt with everything here.

Yehuda Stern

6th August 2008, 22:55

I've asked what opportunist arguments I have made. You've replied that I have made sweeping sectarian arguments or whatnot. That does not count as an answer.

I do not, by the way, have any problem continuing on the BNP / election issue - as I said, it's a fact that you are supporting Ken Livingstone in effect, and using the BNP as an excuse, even though you know very well that they have no chance of coming to power through an election yet.

redarmyfaction38

6th August 2008, 23:42

Sam_b

9th August 2008, 18:25

I've asked what opportunist arguments I have made. You've replied that I have made sweeping sectarian arguments or whatnot. That does not count as an answer.

Or is it just your incompetancy? When practically you're entire argument has evolved around RESPECT and Georgre Galloway, without addressing any real points of a revolutionary party, I call it as petty mudslinging.

I do not, by the way, have any problem continuing on the BNP / election issue - as I said, it's a fact that you are supporting Ken Livingstone in effect, and using the BNP as an excuse, even though you know very well that they have no chance of coming to power through an election yet.

Your reply is an insult to every person who has felt the brunt of the BNP's verbal and physical assualt, and to every antifascist who is fighting against the increasing spreasd of the BNP. The fact you see an organisation as a threat only if they come to power through bourgeois democratic means shows you to be ignorant and sweeping in your analysis.

Pogue

11th August 2008, 00:37

I said you should all join all parties and strive for unity, but its looking hopeless. But I note I contradicted myself, sorry for any confusion :)

I think we should strive for unity amongst all parties, but at the moment I'm not joining any because its a waste of time.

AutomaticMan

11th August 2008, 01:01

Interesting thread, besides all the stupid bickering (note: not the intellectual debate, I mean the bickering). I've thought about joining a socialist group in the UK, and people from the SWP are often doing stalls and stuff in Manchester; I usually like what they have to say, and I like the newspaper too. Mainly, it's just great to see people doing something and getting active, instead of just debating about it. I don't really know where I stand, so I guess I'll have to go chat with one of the people doing the stalls when I next see them, get a feel for the organisation and all.

Coggeh

11th August 2008, 01:52

Its wrong to join the SP solely for its international links over its party platform. If you're going to make a serious choice here, read up on your theory and see which fits best. For me, the SP do not do nearly enough around the issue of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and their organisation in the occupied six counties takes a completely sectarian attitude towards our comrades over there. Not to mention that their stance on Northern Ireland is unbelievably poor.

A lot of these issues came to a head at te last Solidarity conference (the SP's international tendency, the CWI organises within this in Scotland, as do the SWP) where it became clear that the CWI would not support the Iraqi resistance and also not support calls for an open borders policy on immigration.

Nevertheless, it is important to do your own research rather than depend on whoever contacts you first and rely on this.

I should also put our guys hat into the ring... www.swp.org.uk (http://www.swp.org.uk) www.socialistworker.co.uk (http://www.socialistworker.co.uk) ;)
Your criticizing the CWI for not support radical Islam , just because your fighting imperialism doesn't make you anti-imperialist .

Should we support Iran and north Korea too aye ?

The SWP supported the IRA during the troubles when even militant during the troubles supported and end to all sectarian conflict the unification of catholic and protestant workers against discredited politicians , up until recently the SWP called for a Sinn fein vote and criticized our "sectarian " policies when you then did a flip flop and took our position calling for an end to sectarianism.

Sam_b

11th August 2008, 15:16

Your criticizing the CWI for not support radical Islam , just because your fighting imperialism doesn't make you anti-imperialist .

No, i'm criticising the CWI for not supporting the Iraqi people's right to resist. Read an earlier post of mine in this thread to see why not critically supporting the resistance, Hezbollah etc is wrong.

Should we support Iran and north Korea too aye?

So if the imperialist powers were to attack you wouldn't?

The SWP supported the IRA during the troubles when even militant during the troubles supported and end to all sectarian conflict the unification of catholic and protestant workers against discredited politicians

I believe that the Irish people had a right to resist British imperialist occupation, and we took a line of critical support to the IRA.

up until recently the SWP called for a Sinn fein vote and criticized our "sectarian " policies

Well, if you mean you guys refusing to work with the SWP in a mutal non-aggression pact at the elections? Aye, we should criticise you then.

redarmyfaction38

11th August 2008, 23:02

No, i'm criticising the CWI for not supporting the Iraqi people's right to resist. Read an earlier post of mine in this thread to see why not critically supporting the resistance, Hezbollah etc is wrong.

So if the imperialist powers were to attack you wouldn't?

I believe that the Irish people had a right to resist British imperialist occupation, and we took a line of critical support to the IRA.

Well, if you mean you guys refusing to work with the SWP in a mutal non-aggression pact at the elections? Aye, we should criticise you then.
right. the cwi fully support the iraqi peoples right to resist, what they rightly condemn, just as they did with the ira in ni, is the indiscriminate murder of working class people to further religious or racial or nationalist interests.
militant/the socialist party has been absolutely consistent on this point for the last 30 years.
it is a policy working people understand and agree with.
the swp on the other hand has been an apologist for ANY attack on the imperialist powers despite the intentions of the attackers, despite the class of the victims, it, like the imperialist powers, regards the deaths of ordinary workers as "collateral damage", in its "holy crusade".
as a worker, i've got one thing to say, FUCK OFF, i'm not gonna open letter bombs for you or them.

Sam_b

12th August 2008, 23:35

Redarmyfaction38:

Your line is absolutely ridiculous. Ironic infact, that you take your name and avatar from an organisation that used terror and assassination as a tactic.

the swp on the other hand has been an apologist for ANY attack on the imperialist powers despite the intentions of the attackers, despite the class of the victims, it, like the imperialist powers, regards the deaths of ordinary workers as "collateral damage", in its "holy crusade".

Thats just plain stupid. Its almost as if you're saying an attack against imperialism is a bad thing. The idea is that imperialism must be broken, destroyed: and then we can start fighting for socialism.

If you were in the position of workers in the Middle East, would you actively resist imperialist occupation that was brutally massacaring your friends and family, or would you continue to take this ignorant line of 'holy crusade', that frankly, is in capitalism's interests for you to hold?

Devrim

13th August 2008, 00:15

If you were in the position of workers in the Middle East, would you actively resist imperialist occupation that was brutally massacaring your friends and family, or would you continue to take this ignorant line of 'holy crusade', that frankly, is in capitalism's interests for you to hold?

I am a worker who lives in the Middle East (currently Turkey, formerly Lebanon). I have lost friends, and immediate family members to attacks by nationalists of various types.

I wouldn't fight in the defence of the nation against 'imperialist occupation'.

Interestingly, in the last war in Lebanon many more workers opted to flee than to fight the invasion. In my opinion that is a proletarian response. Albeit from a position of weakness.

Communists historically advocated fraternisation, and desertion.

Devrim