CWI critique on SWP published

[Q]

The Socialist Party of England and Wales (http://www.socialistworld.net/eng/2008/11/07newpua.html) published a critique on the policies of the SWP in the UK in the form of a book.

You can buy it here (http://socialistparty.org.uk/books/thatbookframe.htm?bkno=342&order=23648&cat=0&nextten=1&findword=0&sortby=). It only costs 6 pounds + shipping costs.

I'll be getting my copy on Socialism 2008 (http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/events/Socialism_2008) in London :cool:

When the book gets published for online view, I'll update this post.

[BobKKKindle$]

Hey, I'm going to Socialism 08 with Holden tomorrow! Meet up?

[Q]

Hey, I'm going to Socialism 08 with Holden tomorrow! Meet up?

Cool :D
I'm coming with the Dutch delegation and we arrive early (like 4 or 5 am). So yeah, I have a whole morning of free time :lol:

[Holden Caulfield]

I'll be getting my copy on Socialism 2008 (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/events/Socialism_2008) in London :cool:

so am i, so is bob

[bolchevique]

good luck with your petit war with swp, but I think there are more interestings thing than debating with one organization which represents the o.oo7% of the left in electoral terms

[Pogue]

Ah, its good to see such a neccesary and important book has finally been published!

The value of a book from one Trotskyist group criticising another is clearly what is needed right now, and has untold value and use for everyone in the world! The paths this books publication opens up are exciting and progressive! Fantastic!

Its clear to see the pubilshers of this book have the best interests of the socialist movement at heart, that they'd spend time and money creating and selling a book from one small Trotskyist platformist party in the United Kingdom criticising another small Trotskyist platformist party in the United Kingdom! Fantastic!

I wholly reccomend that the Trotskyists of the UK buy this book so they can be told by Trotskyists how bad Trotskyists are! Brilliant!

[Holden Caulfield]

it is a critique intended for those who already know about the left, it outlines what the differences are between the two largest socialist parties in the UK.

perhaps it shouldn't be available to buy outside of the party event (during which the SWP have been invited to debate at) but it isn't petty sectarianism

[The Feral Underclass]

I'm going too.

[Holden Caulfield]

I'm going too.

really!?!?
i hope this isn't some mean joke

[Pogue]

it is a critique intended for those who already know about the left, it outlines what the differences are between the two largest socialist parties in the UK.

perhaps it shouldn't be available to buy outside of the party event (during which the SWP have been invited to debate at) but it isn't petty sectarianism

And thus shows how the mentality the party leaders have is completely wrong. Why would you waste time, money and brain power making a book which will only appeal to members of the British leftist ghetto which dedicates its pages to slagging off a party which to everyone except the members of the parties themselves are completely identical in all but name. What percentage of the vote do you get, collectively?

[iloveche]

dddd

[Random Precision]

I agree with HLVS. The SWP has its problems. Those problems at least do not include publishing critiques of the SP or other left groups in book form.

Plus members of both groups seem to be doing really well by working together in Scotland. I don't see what's the point of this.

[Holden Caulfield]

And thus shows how the mentality the party leaders have is completely wrong. Why would you waste time, money and brain power making a book which will only appeal to members of the British leftist ghetto which dedicates its pages to slagging off a party which to everyone except the members of the parties themselves are completely identical in all but name. What percentage of the vote do you get, collectively?

thats a stupid argument, tbh, you should have stuck with the sectarian thing.

[Pogue]

thats a stupid argument, tbh, you should have stuck with the sectarian thing.

When the truth hard, its best to resort to poo pooing my argument rather than responding to it. I think its because deep down, everyone knows theres nojustification for writing such a book.

[Holden Caulfield]

And thus shows how the mentality the party leaders have is completely wrong. Why would you waste time, money and brain power making a book which will only appeal to members of the British leftist ghetto which dedicates its pages to slagging off a party which to everyone except the members of the parties themselves are completely identical in all but name. What percentage of the vote do you get, collectively?

well then i answer thusly:

Anti-Dühring,

[AutomaticMan]

Can someone summarise exactly what is up with the SWP?
I'm relatively new to revolutionary politics, and have done a few stalls and am considering joining, so.. what are the issues then?

p.s. Don't tell me to buy the book, I'm wondering /now/. kthx.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Automatic Man, don't let this put you off. The CWI is just jealous.

[Random Precision]

If you've actually read that, I doubt you would be comparing the problems created by the SWP to those created by Eugen Duhring.

[Wanted Man]

p.s. Don't tell me to buy the book, I'm wondering /now/. kthx.
Is making money not the whole point? :p

Seriously though, I also wonder about the wisdom of this. Do the parties never have a serious exchange of thought on a face-to-face level? Apparently not, if they need to publish 'critiques' in book form.


good luck with your petit war with swp, but I think there are more interestings thing than debating with one organization which represents the o.oo7% of the left in electoral terms
Indeed, at least Labour have 40.7% of the electorate. Besides selling the country out to capital and initiating an imperialist war, they are all-around swell guys, and parasitic entryism will surely bring them back to the fold. :rolleyes:

[Revy]

I am a fan of the SP in the UK. However, not all CWI parties are without problems. Socialist Alternative in the US endorsed Nader directly contradicting the position of other CWI groups (to build independent socialist campaigns). Has anything been said about this?

[chegitz guevara]

Yay, more sectarianism!

[Yehuda Stern]

No, AutomaticMan, don't let political criticism put you off from joining the SWP! That would be sectarian*!

Oh and, if the SWP is 0.007% of the left in Britain, then what is the IMT - 0.001%? 0.0001%? Probably no more than 0.00035%, as the IMT Brit section is probably less than 1/20 the size of the SWP. It is understandable, though, that the IMT would much prefer to win over people who support Labour and Chavez and not people who consider themselves to be anti-imperialists or Marxists.

By the way, I do dread what the CWI criticizes the SWP for. Not that there's lack of material for that, but it's likely to be something along the lines of "they're too pro-Muslim" or that sort of trash.

*In SWP-speak, this word means "anyone who criticizes the SWP."

[Coggeh]

I am a fan of the SP in the UK. However, not all CWI parties are without problems. Socialist Alternative in the US endorsed Nader directly contradicting the position of other CWI groups (to build independent socialist campaigns). Has anything been said about this?
A lot has been said about this , and I'm in the Irish section and agree with supporting Nader , the tactic was to build a campaign around Nader to provide an alternative to vote for the two parties of big business . I don't see any problem with it tbh .

[Sam_b]

If this book is as good as the Irish CWI's "Against the politics of the Socialist Workers Party" its going to be a right laugh.

[Tower of Bebel]

What's wrong with criticism?

[Holden Caulfield]

What's wrong with criticism?
truth hurts?

[Sam_b]

I didn't say there was. However, the CWI failed last time and they will probably fail again.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

YS:


No, AutomaticMan, don't let political criticism put you off from joining the SWP! That would be sectarian*!

Perhaps NHIA can explain why I received two warning points for using this word, but YS gets none for using it nearly as often?


*In SWP-speak, this word means "anyone who criticizes the SWP."

In fact it is used of parties/sects/groups/individuals who go in for point-scoring against other parties/sects/groups/individuals (and who have a track record of doing the same), whether or not this is against the SWP.

Another point worth noting is that those who fall into this category seldom recognise/admit they are being sectarian (such as in the individual I am presently criticising), but are very quick to point a grubby finger at everyone else.

[redguard2009]

I heard that CWI said the SWP has small penises.

Fight fight fight!

[Wanted Man]

I heard that CWI said the SWP has small penises.

Fight fight fight!
I heard that the SWP said that the CWI would never have the balls to go through with publicising their criticism! :ohmy:


A lot has been said about this , and I'm in the Irish section and agree with supporting Nader , the tactic was to build a campaign around Nader to provide an alternative to vote for the two parties of big business . I don't see any problem with it tbh .
Well, it worked out well, didn't it?

[Bilan]

Automatic Man, don't let this put you off. The CWI is just jealous.

Solid argument against the critique.
I'm not sure what they have to be jealous of either?

[Yehuda Stern]

Perhaps NHIA can explain why I received two warning points for using this word, but YS gets none for using it nearly as often?

It probably has something to do with the fact that while I use the term in its real meaning, you use it to refer to anyone who criticizes the SWP at all. Didn't you read the original post? I thought I was the one who was blind.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

YS:


It probably has something to do with the fact that while I use the term in its real meaning, you use it to refer to anyone who criticizes the SWP at all. Didn't you read the original post? I thought I was the one who was blind.

In other words: you don't know -- as usual.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

SACT-as-was:


Solid argument against the critique.
I'm not sure what they have to be jealous of either?

No, you do not seem to be too sure of much...:(

[Bilan]

SACT-as-was:



No, you do not seem to be too sure of much...:(

A peculiar, and certainly, unnecessary personal attack if I ever saw one.
And further, not entirely a solid rebuttal against my question (even if it was rhetorical).
Just what does anyone have to be jealous about, when it comes to the SWP? Let alone the SP-CWI?
From what I've seen and read, the CWI has actual working class revolutionary politics.
When I hear about the SWP, it's becoming advisers to bourgeois politicians.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

SACT-as-was:


A peculiar, and certainly, unnecessary personal attack if I ever saw one.
And further, not entirely a solid rebuttal against my question (even if it was rhetorical).
Just what does anyone have to be jealous about, when it comes to the SWP? Let alone the SP-CWI?
From what I've seen and read, the CWI has actual working class revolutionary politics.
When I hear about the SWP, it's becoming advisers to bourgeois politicians

Then don't post sarcastic comments like this:


Solid argument against the critique.

And this is a lie:


When I hear about the SWP, it's becoming advisers to bourgeois politicians

[bolchevique]

my friend yehuda , you are right we would prefer to win the milions of workers who support the labour and Chavez instead of this pathetic little quarrel among grouplet,althouth I do not deny there are sincere revolutionaries in these group, but it's a little sad to see Taff wrinting a book about swp, when I remember when I attended a meeting in Albert Hall with more 5000 comrades in the 80s and these groups were at the door selling their paper and inviting us to split from the labour to go with them direct to the fiasco, and taff and his followers surprinsinly did it and you can see the result and if we are a small group in Britain , well I can tell you that we are better than when taffist did the turn ,and with the correct ideas and methods we have a splendid future , even a big group with wrong ideas as the POUM in the 30s in Spain can only lead to ta disaster, and we should learn about the bloody lessons of history

[Revy]

RESPECT has divided itself into two, for some odd reasons. I don't live in the UK, so what I know is that one group is allied with Galloway (Respect Renewal) and another is allied with the SWP (Left Alternative/Left List). Now looking at both websites (perhaps a shallow way to judge either group, but I digress), I can easily see that RESPECT Renewal identifies as socialist, while with the Left Alternative that much isn't made clear, only that they're "left".


I don't think RESPECT was ever a good idea, the SWP should have promoted itself. Just my little quasi-sectarian opinion.:D

[Poum_1936]

Despite the better of me, I would be mildly curious to see what Taaffe says. But, my curiosity stays within the bounds of an online article.

But I must say, his efforts would be better directed.

[Bilan]

SACT-as-was:



Then don't post sarcastic comments like this:

It's not exactly worthy of a petty personal attack now, is it?
Was I wrong to say that you're rebuttal was not-even one?
Again, you've not responded or proven anything. You just state as fact "This is wrong", "This is right".
That does not equate to an argument in any way whatsoever.





And this is a lie:


What would you call it then?

[Il-Peres]

I am not a communist but I'm a fan of the SWP. I'm very much into reading critical stuff on socialism and communism but this short preview

This book was written to reach socialists who are aware of the policies of the SWP. This includes SWP members who can still be won to a genuine Marxist approach.
We hope to educate them against the wrong methods of the SWP, which can only prepare further political cul-de-sacs and a weakening of the left in the task of rebuilding the labour movement on socialist and Marxist lines.

that's just plain paternalist and elitist shit. Socialist must dialogue and not try to force their ideas on each other. Being too proud of one's ideals will end up with total failure.

[Hit The North]

The value of a book from one Trotskyist group criticising another is clearly what is needed right now, and has untold value and use for everyone in the world! The paths this books publication opens up are exciting and progressive! Fantastic!




Nice sarcasm, but all genuine criticism should be welcomed between revolutionaries. It is only through critique that Marxism develops. At the moment when the economic crisis is promising to unite socialists with wider layers of the working class, then critique which has the aim of clarification is even more important. Personally, I'm looking forward to reading Taaffe's views when they're published on-line.

On the other hand, the kind of outright lying engaged in by Syndicalisme ou Barbarie in this thread is just petty point scoring sectarian bullshit and benefits no one.



What would you call it then?

See above.


I heard that CWI said the SWP has small penises.


It's worse than that: our female comrades don't have penises at all!

Sexist much? :rolleyes:

[Hit The North]

BTW, I don't see much educational content in this thread so I'm gonna move it to Politics.

[Yehuda Stern]

In other words: you don't know -- as usual.Again, this has to be translated from Rosa-speak to English:


In other words: you have said something that I can't answer, so I'm going to pretend you didn't say it.Way to go!


I am not a communist but I'm a fan of the SWP.That's OK, it's quite normal and consistent with the group which applauded the "death of communism."

Edit:


my friend yehuda* , you are right we would prefer to win the milions of workers who support the labour and Chavez instead of this pathetic little quarrel among grouplet,... if we are a small group in Britain , well I can tell you that we are better than when taffist did the turn ,and with the correct ideas and methods we have a splendid future , even a big group with wrong ideas as the POUM in the 30s in Spain can only lead to ta disaster, and we should learn about the bloody lessons of historyIt's going great, I can tell. Whenever any of your groups arrives at any meaningful size comes the inevitable split. That is the price you pay for unprincipled politics, and that is the real "bloody lesson of history." That you are bigger than you were at the time of the split is 1. unproven, 2. not important.

*What's with Grantists always calling people they debate "my friend"? Do they think it's endearing? Or is it just knee-jerk Woodsism?

[bolchevique]

Yehuda compa,you are really touchy, I will call you compañero, In spain we call people from the left compañero,well against all your desire we are far more better in condition in Britain and worldwide ,sorry to let you down

[Herman]

"McSectarianism: Everytime a good time!"

[redguard2009]

Why is making fun of a the size of a male's sexual organ "sexist"? It's not like I can say the SWP women have small vaginas.

[Hit The North]

Why is making fun of a the size of a male's sexual organ "sexist"? It's not like I can say the SWP women have small vaginas.

Well the sexism is in the implication of the statement, "the SWP has small penises", that the SWP is male or consists solely of male members (no pun intended). Meanwhile, why can't you say that SWP women have small vaginas, apart from the fact that it would make little sense as an insult? You could have said they had vaginas like buckets, though, if you really wanted to add insult to injury.

[redguard2009]

Meanwhile, why can't you say that SWP women have small vaginas


the fact that it would make little sense as an insult

Exactly.


You could have said they had vaginas like buckets, though, if you really wanted to add insult to injury.

Besides the fact that that was hilarious, saying their women had vaginas as large as buckets would have been more sexist IMO -- it would be implying that SWP women have sex a lot and are sluts and therefore have large, heavily-used vaginas, which in turn would be some implication that women are not allowed sexual freedom.

Besides, saying they have bucketginas doesn't make sense either -- everyone knows SWP women are butt-ugly and could never get laid in the first place. :laugh:

[Yehuda Stern]

everyone knows SWP women are butt-ugly and could never get laid in the first place.

Sectarian!

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

SOB:


Was I wrong to say that you're rebuttal was not-even one?

Lighten up! It was a joke.


What would you call it then?

A lie?

Can't you read?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

YS:


Sectarian!

Copy cat!


In other words: you have said something that I can't answer, so I'm going to pretend you didn't say it.

On the contrary, I did not ignore it, otherwise you would not have been able to respond.

Moreover, your 'reply' confirms that you do not know, as I alleged.

[Magdalen]

Let me be clear, I am no supporter of the Socialist Workers Party.

However, the attitude of the CWI/Socialist Party in devoting a large proportion of its scarce resources to producing a pamphlet which serves no purpose other than to attack the SWP reeks of petty sectarianism. In this period, when the racist, imperialist Labour Party still commands the lion's share of working class support, attacking a small Trotskyite organisation which received only 1.4% of votes in the recent London Assembly elections is hardly a priority.

[chegitz guevara]

A lot has been said about this , and I'm in the Irish section and agree with supporting Nader , the tactic was to build a campaign around Nader to provide an alternative to vote for the two parties of big business . I don't see any problem with it tbh .

It promotes illusions in bourgeois politics, that's what the hell is wrong with it! Nader is bourgeois politician who supports the capitalist system (so is Cynthia McKinney).

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

^^^ Don't you think that it is important to have those illusions shattered? [They won't be no matter how much you or I rail against them.]

What better way to do that (in the present circumstances) than to elect a bourgeois politician (like Nader, etc.) who can thus be exposed as full of hot air.

In the meantime, the two party deadlock in the USA will have been broken (if he, Nader or whoever, is elected).

Of course, you can always abstain. But then you can always join in the struggle too.

[Revy]

^^^ Don't you think that it is important to have those illusions shattered? [They won't be no matter how much you or I rail against them.]

What better way to do that (in the present circumstances) than to elect a bourgeois politician (like Nader, etc.) who can thus be exposed as full of hot air.

In the meantime, the two party deadlock in the USA will have been broken (if he, Nader or whoever, is elected).

Of course, you can always abstain. But then you can always join in the struggle too.

It doesn't make sense. Nader is not socialist. I don't care about the two party system. A multiparty capitalist system doesn't change things. What really matters is building socialist alternatives. THAT is what matters. We can NOT waste time on independent capitalists.

This is a problem here in the US. You have all these groups, that claim to be Trotskyist, that are endorsing capitalists like Nader and McKinney, ignoring, probably on purpose, the socialist candidates that are running.

Nader has an anti-immigrant position, which he has elaborated on quite a few times, including in an interview in a conservative magazine back in 2004 where he attempted to pander to the right-wing. Did the "socialist" groups cease and desist their support of him? Nope. He also has been to known to not be the fairest person to his own workers.

I look at the UK and US sections of the CWI and I see a monumental difference that makes me wonder why Socialist Alternative is even in the CWI. Where is the CWI on this issue? This is supposed to be an international organization I would expect them to care. The UK section is such a good example. But if the UK section was replaced with the US section what would happen? Would the Socialist Party of England and Wales just become a support system for the Green Party? Probably.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Stancel:


It doesn't make sense. Nader is not socialist. I don't care about the two party system. A multiparty capitalist system doesn't change things. What really matters is building socialist alternatives. THAT is what matters. We can NOT waste time on independent capitalists.

1. Did I say he was?

2. I absolutely agree that it is important to build a socialist alternative, but since that is not on the cards yet, while you are trying to do that, it is also important to break the two-party stranglehold on the US electorate.

[Patchd]

Lol, I forgot about Socialism, and I aint got enough money to go down to London again...although I have enough for booze ;)

[black magick hustla]

^^^ Don't you think that it is important to have those illusions shattered? [They won't be no matter how much you or I rail against them.]

What better way to do that (in the present circumstances) than to elect a bourgeois politician (like Nader, etc.) who can thus be exposed as full of hot air.

In the meantime, the two party deadlock in the USA will have been broken (if he, Nader or whoever, is elected).

Of course, you can always abstain. But then you can always join in the struggle too.

I do not see how this will expose him as "hot air". Bourgeois politicians have always said one thing and claimed allegiance to certain ideas just to do exactly the opposite things, like when an antiwar democrat like WIlson ends up engaging in a War. There is nothing about "struggle" in campaigning for the left wing of capital.

[Junius]

So far as the two party 'deadlock' is concerned, I think focusing on this puts aside the real issue. It is not the fact that there are two parties. It would make no difference if there were three competing parties, or four or five of them. What matters is that they are, from our perspective, the same. Hence, adding another party to the mix really doesn't say much from a class perspective. It would make there seem like there was more choice, but a 'choice' between politicians of the same ilk really isn't much of a choice at all. In Japan the LDP has been in power since '55, minus a few small coalition sharing trips, and recently lost its power in the upper house. Nevertheless, I don't think more 'democracy' is needed. I do think more class struggle is, however.

[Wanted Man]

2. I absolutely agree that it is important to build a socialist alternative, but since that is not on the cards yet, while you are trying to do that, it is also important to break the two-party stranglehold on the US electorate.
Why? Who cares? We have a multi-party system here, are we any better for it? No.

[Yehuda Stern]

In fact, seeing as many SWPers are people honestly attracted to socialist and anti-imperialist ideas, it is of great importance to criticize this group so as not to allow it to demoralize and burn out activists (like Militant did for many people).

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

YS:


In fact, seeing as many SWPers are people honestly attracted to socialist and anti-imperialist ideas, it is of great importance to criticize this group so as not to allow it to demoralize and burn out activists (like Militant did for many people).

Most left groups do this.

So, why you again pick on the SWP is therefore difficult to explain (unless, of course, we use a certain word to describe comrades like you, which word you are allowed to use, but I am not).

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Marmot:


I do not see how this will expose him as "hot air". Bourgeois politicians have always said one thing and claimed allegiance to certain ideas just to do exactly the opposite things, like when an antiwar democrat like WIlson ends up engaging in a War. There is nothing about "struggle" in campaigning for the left wing of capital.

Because hundreds of thousands of left-leaning Americans have illusions in him. I thought that was pretty obvious.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

WM:


Why? Who cares? We have a multi-party system here, are we any better for it? No.

I am sorry, but I fail to understand your point.

[Holden Caulfield]

Bobkindles almost got Lynched at Socialism 08, it was hilarious, ask him about it,

i got my copy of this most controversial publication, :cool:

[Wanted Man]

WM:



I am sorry, but I fail to understand your point.
Why is it important to "break the two-party stranglehold"? Will it be any better if Americans can choose between 6 bourgeois parties, who will then end up breaking election promises in order to form viable coalitions? You fail to understand my point, because you didn't have a point to begin with, you just spouted some kind of pseudo-radical transitional demand, just because there's no meaningful socialist alternative yet.

[Q]

Bobkindles almost got Lynched at Socialism 08, it was hilarious, ask him about it,
What happened? I never got the chance to meet him (or maybe I did and didn't know it was him).


i got my copy of this most controversial publication, :cool:
I've read the pamphlet about halfway through thus far, it's quite a good read taking a lot of examples from practice and analysing on what political basis it comes from.

Did you go to the debate with the SWP guy btw? It really stroke me that after the excellent introduction made by Hannah, the SWP guy (what was his name?) didn't touch any of the raised points and spoke as if he were trying to recruit us :lol:

Also, the Spartacist in the discussion was hilarious :lol:

[Yehuda Stern]

Most left groups do this.

So, why you again pick on the SWP is therefore difficult to explain

Because the SWP is much bigger and even more opportunist than most groups, making the danger of it demoralizing people greater, as well as making the better elements of its membership more interesting to revolutionaries.


(unless, of course, we use a certain word to describe comrades like you, which word you are allowed to use, but I am not).

Something about playing a very small violin comes to mind.

[Pogue]

I am not a communist but I'm a fan of the SWP. I'm very much into reading critical stuff on socialism and communism but this short preview

This book was written to reach socialists who are aware of the policies of the SWP. This includes SWP members who can still be won to a genuine Marxist approach.
We hope to educate them against the wrong methods of the SWP, which can only prepare further political cul-de-sacs and a weakening of the left in the task of rebuilding the labour movement on socialist and Marxist lines.

that's just plain paternalist and elitist shit. Socialist must dialogue and not try to force their ideas on each other. Being too proud of one's ideals will end up with total failure.

The main irony being these two parties both have identical ideals.

[Sam_b]

The main irony being these two parties both have identical ideals

I await your next post analysing how and why the CWI supports the theories of:

1. State Capitalism
2. Deflected Permanent Revolution
3. Permanent Arms Economy
4. Anti-Imperialist support for the Iraqi Resistance.

Didn't think so. I wish you would shut up with your liberal 'why cant we all just get along?' moralising :rolleyes:

[Pogue]

Ok, I'll answer your four points after you tell me how calling for unity amongst the socialist movement is 'liberal' and undesirable.

[Pogue]

By the way Sam B how do I join the SWSS? I sent an email and filled in the form on their website but the website appears to be broken and I received no email reply. Is it because I mentioned I'm an anarchist? Or is there just no one there to reply?

[Sam_b]

how calling for unity amongst the socialist movement is 'liberal' and undesirable.

Well, surely you know that CWI and SWP belong to the same organisation in Scotland?

And more importantly, all you ever post about here is how the left can't unite. The way you portray it is that organisations should put aside serious disagreements on strategy and tactics to (most probably with your reasoning in the past) form some sort of leftwing electoral bloc. This is madness.


By the way Sam B how do I join the SWSS? I sent an email and filled in the form on their website but the website appears to be broken and I received no email reply. Is it because I mentioned I'm an anarchist? Or is there just no one there to reply?

Site is working for me: http://www.swss-nationalsite.moonfruit.com/ . Why not call up the office?

And why would an anarchist want to be part of SWSS? Do you not understand the differences?

[BobKKKindle$]

By the way Sam B how do I join the SWSS? SWSS generally does most of their activity inside universities, but if you're not attending university the best way to get involved with them is to send an email to the student office (avaiable on the main SWP website here (http://www.swp.org.uk/contact.php)) with your location, and within a few days they should be able to give you a person to contact, or may even forward your email to the nearest district organizer so they can contact you directly. Being an anarchist should not be a problem as long as you feel comfortable defending what the SWP stands for, which includes electoral participation and support for anti-imperialist struggles, and you will find that most SWSS groups tend to encompass a range of different viewpoints.

Concerning unity on the left, different left parties should try to pursue shared objectives through the united front which allows each organization to maintain their own political independence as long as they agree on a common set of demands. There is nothing wrong with encouraging debate between groups, as debates allow us to develop our understanding of issues which concern the whole of the left. However, if two groups have meaningful differences on theory and tactics they should not be forced to unify, as an organisation faced with such strong internal divisions would never be able to operate effectively.

[Pogue]

I want to join the SWSS because they're effective on student issues within the NUS from a socialist perspective. Seeing as the SWSS is not the vanguard party of the workers movement I see no problem in joining them. I'm not sectarian anyway >_>

So could you now tell me why calling for a united socialist movement is 'liberal'?

[Enragé]

WHO CARES?!

why is this a three page thread? o0

The worst economic crisis since the 30's is going on, unemployment is going to go through the roof, and all we can talk about is some group *****ing at another group! For fuck sake..

(that said, if it comes online i'll read it, the CWI criticising the leading member of the IST, gotta read that! ^^ ... and probably rip it to shreds)

[Sam_b]

So could you now tell me why calling for a united socialist movement is 'liberal'?

I call you a liberal because you hold ridiculous, out-of-touch and happy-like ideals which are insulting to a number of people here I think: especially since you are not active yourself. You are too idealistic for your own good.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I await your next post analysing how and why the CWI supports the theories of:

1. State Capitalism
2. Deflected Permanent Revolution
3. Permanent Arms Economy
4. Anti-Imperialist support for the Iraqi Resistance.

Didn't think so. I wish you would shut up with your liberal 'why cant we all just get along?' moralising :rolleyes:

The first three theses are NOT principles at all. Why should support for such theses, as opposed to working-class ideological and organizational independence, organizational internationalism, etc. qualify for party membership (principled agreement, programmatic acceptance, financial support, and organizational participation)?


However, if two groups have meaningful differences on theory and tactics they should not be forced to unify, as an organisation faced with such strong internal divisions would never be able to operate effectively.

Theory and tactics aren't as important as basic principles.

[KC]

I'm assuming that this is a sectist move on the CWI's part; to be completely sure, I'd have to read it, which I probably won't (not because it's not worthwhile; just because I have better things to read).

[Sam_b]

The first three theses are NOT principles at all. Why should support for such theses, as opposed to working-class ideological and organizational independence, organizational internationalism, etc. qualify for party membership (principled agreement, programmatic acceptance, financial support, and organizational participation)?

Jacob, I was merely pointing out the theoretical differences between the SWP and CWI. The CWI doesn't share these positions, marking them out as different to ourselves. On the whole, party membership supports these analyses: I don't know anyone in the organisation that does not.

[Die Neue Zeit]

So what's wrong with working with the CWI in the larger, non-frontist organization? I mean, the Irish Republican Socialist Party is organized just like this!

[Q]

The worst economic crisis since the 30's is going on, unemployment is going to go through the roof, and all we can talk about is some group *****ing at another group! For fuck sake..
The point is whether or not the SWP is at all able to organise the working class in these turbulent times. So yeah, I do fucking care and so should you.


I'm assuming that this is a sectist move on the CWI's part; to be completely sure, I'd have to read it, which I probably won't (not because it's not worthwhile; just because I have better things to read).

It's actually a good read, pointing out several key points where the SWP has issues on being a progressive factor in building up an alliance on the left. Although you could say that the frustration against the SWP between the lines is certainly noticeable, I do think this critique is justified and should be discussed.


So what's wrong with working with the CWI in the larger, non-frontist organization? I mean, the Irish Republican Socialist Party is organized just like this!
Like for example in Solidarity in Scotland?

[Pogue]

I call you a liberal because you hold ridiculous, out-of-touch and happy-like ideals which are insulting to a number of people here I think: especially since you are not active yourself. You are too idealistic for your own good.

How arogant are you! I am in fact incredibly active in real life in union activism and the Stop The War coalition as well as a number of other protests to do with the detention of asylum seekers and gay rights. I've attended loads of demonstrations which have the support of the SWP and SP, and by working alongside and talking to these people I've deduced the feud between them is pathetic.

How can I be liberal if I beleive in socialist revolution, direct workers control, direct action, etc? You think its out of touch to believe in a united left, insulting? I think its pathetic of you to listen to the mindless babble of your organisations because you lack the independent thought to think outside of the party line. You'd rather play you're little revolutionary games than effect change, the thing which frustrates both me and other who I've talked to who wonder why it is we have 20 different Trotskyist groups all calling for change while not actualy taking the logical steps to enforce it.

I find it insane that a fellow revolutionary socialist would call me idealistic, when you too call for international co-operation of everyone in the working class to overthrow a system maintained through force and illusion which currently dominates the whole world. Surely we're all idealistic, because we're socialist revolutionaries?

You don't even seem to understand what liberal means. Its a political position, one which I clearly don't hold otherwise why would I call for all the revolutionary socialists groups who agree on the important things to unite in order to make substantial gains in overthrowing capitalism?

Such pathetic and mindless in-fighting is the reason why hardly anyone takes the SWP, SP, etc etc seriously (and no I don't mean fellow ghetto socialists I mean the ordinary people). Because they represent the typical, Life of Brian-esque divisive moronic section of political thought which manages to get nothing done because its too busy trying to create an absolutely pure and pointless line which is free from any supposed flaws, and in the process implodes upon itself because someone else has a different view on some meaningless fact which means nothing to everyone else.

Why are you busy fighting your fellow revolutionary Trotskyist group when, as someone else mentioned here, there are much bigger battles to be won? Stop playing your stupid sectarian games because its wasting time and energy. But no you'll come back with more of your arogant rebutalls about how I know shit etc etc. And then you'll also wonder why it is your still a tiny group incapable of effecting any change.

I also find it ironic you'd call me, an socialist who wants a clear and united revolutionary workers movement because rather than carrying about individual tactics, I want to see some real change - a liberal.

This typical arogance and pointless references to irrelevant facts is why you'll remain a tiny little group selling papers outside Sainsbury's. Take from that what you will.

Call this sectarianism but I don't see it as such because I want all these groups to sort it out and form one group. It seems your content with arguing pathetic semantics about dead Russians because you don't have your priorities right. Moron.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

WM:


Why is it important to "break the two-party stranglehold"? Will it be any better if Americans can choose between 6 bourgeois parties, who will then end up breaking election promises in order to form viable coalitions? You fail to understand my point, because you didn't have a point to begin with, you just spouted some kind of pseudo-radical transitional demand, just because there's no meaningful socialist alternative yet.

1) Because many workers still have illusions in these two parties.

2) It would open up the field for others to take on the argument for socialism in the US.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

YS:


Because the SWP is much bigger and even more opportunist than most groups, making the danger of it demoralizing people greater, as well as making the better elements of its membership more interesting to revolutionaries.

In what way is it "opportunist"?

Or do you just like using tired old jargon for the sake of it?


Something about playing a very small violin comes to mind.

Something about the idea of a violin in a very small mind suggests itself here.

[Holden Caulfield]

anybody who has criticized the SWP is a Zionist

[Hessian Peel]

I take it then that the SP and SWP in Britain and Scotland are just as pathetic as their Irish counterparts?

[Hit The North]

anybody who has criticized the SWP is a Zionist No that's just you. :tt2:

[Holden Caulfield]

we are hizbolla!
we are hizbolla!
we are hizbolla!
we are hizbolla!

[Hessian Peel]

Up the IMT!

[Yehuda Stern]

Or do you just like using tired old jargon for the sake of it?

That's rich, Ms. Sectarian.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Speak for yourself, YS. :(


Up the IMT!

What does the IMT have to do with the cheap slogan "We are Hezbollah"?

[politics student]

I take it then that the SP and SWP in Britain and Scotland are just as pathetic as their Irish counterparts?

Yep.

Amazing how much the left wing parties hate each other when they are so ideologicaly simular.

[Sam_b]

why would I call for all the revolutionary socialists groups who agree on the important things to unite in order to make substantial gains in overthrowing capitalism?


I also find it ironic you'd call me, an socialist who wants a clear and united revolutionary workers movement because rather than carrying about individual tactics, I want to see some real change - a liberal.

Blah, blah, blah. Do you always replicate your same posts every single time? Always the same 'United Socialist Movement' bullshit where we're all supposed to disregard full and honest debate for the sake of your semantics.
You have little idea about how a worker's movement works (an anarchist joining SWSS?) so if you think that I'm a 'moron' then I'm not really that worried.

You're completely moralistic abou the entire movement and thats what makes you a liberal, like it or not.

[Hessian Peel]

What does the IMT have to do with the cheap slogan "We are Hezbollah"?

They're the only decent Trots.

[apathy maybe]

I don't have much to add to this thread, except that it is quite funny, in a pathetic sort of way.

I have to agree that my understanding of the various Trot groups being discussed is that when it comes to principles (as opposed to theory), they basically agree.

This thread should be closed, because it is full of bitter sniping that further encourages people to fight each other, rather then the common enemy (being the capitalists).

Of course, there is room for different organisations, because while they might not differ on principle, there is still lots of room for different tactics.

But don't let the voice of reason dissuade you from jumping down each other's throats...


Most left groups do this [burn out activists].

So, why you again pick on the SWP is therefore difficult to explain (unless, of course, we use a certain word to describe comrades like you, which word you are allowed to use, but I am not).

I would suggest that it isn't all left groups. Merely the Trot ones :p. (More accurately, it isn't just the Trot groups, but they're are often the stereotype for this problem. Maybe because day in day out, no change can be seen happening? I don't know. However, feel good, fun groups have less burn out than sell paper groups. Actually seeing a difference in people's day to day lives is a big reason to keep turning up week in, week out. Maybe Trot groups should turn to charity work? :mellow:)

[Guerrilla22]

Anyone who criticizes the SWP is sectarian, so I've been told.

[Yehuda Stern]

Speak for yourself, YS.

I do. Well, I speak for me and my group, but that's about it.


This thread should be closed, because it is full of bitter sniping that further encourages people to fight each other, rather then the common enemy (being the capitalists).

Please be an opportunist in your own free time instead of trying to silence people who want to criticize other left groups.