A Jew free holocaust and "white socialists?"

[Devrim]

"They[The BNP] deny the holocaust where thousands of LGBT people, trade unionists and disabled people were slaughtered."

Aren't they missing somebody out? :confused:

Which organisation do you think this statement comes from?

Devrim

[Devrim]

And which organisation's senior members are now talking about 'white socialists'?


If white socialists had been elected in 2006 in Newham and Tower Hamlets (as they very nearly were) then the balance of forces and level of politics in those areas would have been raised.

Devrim

[TC]

That would be the Zionist AWL putting out sectarian propaganda about anti-imperialists?

[Devrim]

No, it has been reprinted on the AWL's site I believe, but that isn't the original source.

Devrim

[Holden Caulfield]

SWP by any chance? they wouldnt want to piss off their Islamist friends,
am i right?

[Holden Caulfield]

SWP again?
:lol:

[bcbm]

SWP. Here's the whole bit:

http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=3210

[TC]

The AWL attributed it to someone in SWSS the original quote can't be located on the internet...or possibly anywhere.

[bcbm]

Merged the two threads as they both deal with the same party.

[Devrim]

The AWL attributed it to someone in SWSS the original quote can't be located on the internet...or possibly anywhere.

The text is here:
http://www.workersliberty.org/system/files/attachment-0001.jpeg

Devrim

[BobKKKindle$]

SWP by any chance? they wouldnt want to piss off their Islamist friends, Holden, I know you don't support the SWP, and have serious problems with our stance on anti-imperialist movements in the Middle East, but that comment is out of order. "Islamism" is a complex phenomenon and although there are definitely some fundamentalists who claim that the Holocaust was a myth, it is totally wrong to imply that all or even most Islamists are anti-semitic and want to obscure the deaths of 6 million Jews. Whether we like it or not, there are large numbers of workers in Arab states who have given electoral support to Islamist parties and may even see themselves as Islamists, partly due to the failure of leftist parties to develop strong links with the working class in these countries. In Egypt, for example, the Muslim Brotherhood is one of the most successful political organizations, as shown by the fact that they recently organized mass protests involving thousands of working people against the bombing of Gaza. In Algeria, the Islamic Salvation Front won the first round of the country's first multi-party elections in 1991. Socialists need to present a nuanced understanding of Islamism in terms of its material origins as an ideology and the role Islamist organizations have to play in fighting against imperialism, and not make sweeping statements.

-------

Anyways, I don't really see the point of this thread. Someone in the SWP made a silly mistake which should have been corrected, and now an irrelevant pro-imperialist organization is trying to use our mistake to imply that we are secretly anti-semitic and deny the Holocaust. Devrim, as someone involved in an even more irrelevant political current, is trying to use the mistake for the same purpose. Lindsey German's comment was intended to convey an important argument concerning the relationship between leading figures within the Muslim community and RESPECT as a political project - using the term "white" or any other term which refers to the colour of someone's skin can always make people feel uncomfortable and even arouse suspicions of racism, and arguably German should have been more careful in the way she expressed herself, but the underlying point was valid and certainly not prejudiced in any way.

[Devrim]

Anyways, I don't really see the point of this thread. Someone in the SWP made a silly mistake which should have been corrected, and now an irrelevant pro-imperialist organization is trying to use our mistake to imply that we are secretly anti-semitic and deny the Holocaust. Devirm, as someone involved in an even more irrelevant political current, is trying to use the mistake for the same purpose.

Actually, I don't think that the SWP is anti-Semitic. It is a pretty shocking mistake though. How could something like this happen?

Personally, I find German's comments much more disturbing.


Anyways, I don't really see the point of this thread.

But then you always say this when people talk about the SWP. Don't you think people should know what they say.

Devrim

[bcbm]

made a silly mistake

I really don't think missing the fact that 6 million Jews were killed in the holocaust is a "silly mistake," nor do I find only referencing "thousands" of deaths in the holocaust to be one either. That just isn't something you just screw up on.

[Holden Caulfield]

and the role Islamist organizations have to play in fighting against imperialism
in the UK? the SWP is, domestically, a pro-Islamic group perhaps more so than they are a pro-working class group,

the fact they missed out the Jewish victims is because a large amount of prejudice stands against the Israel, generalised to Jews in general, in the Islamic community, and the opportunists they are they simply missed this out. They're not anti-semites, they are opportunists.

I love the fact Devrim posted these here, i think the general mood in this forum is simply wonderful

[BobKKKindle$]

Actually, I don't think that the SWP is anti-Semitic. It is a pretty shocking mistake though. How could something like this happen?There are two potential explanations for this. Firstly, there's the possibility that the SWP is secretly an anti-semitic organizations which seeks to deny the Holocaust. If this is the case, then we should expect to find other forms of supporting evidence - for example, a lack of articles in our publications on the Holocaust, other anti-semitic remarks, and so on. In fact, the complete reverse is true - Socialist Review ran a lengthy article on how Marxists should approach the Holocaust and how the Holocaust relates to the current situation in Palestine in our May issue of this year. Based on this, we can safely assume that the SWP is not secretly anti-semitic - unless our critics have evidence to the contrary. The second explanation is that the person responsible for creating the leaflet made a silly mistake. Admittedly, this seems incredible - but the possibility remains, and this seems by far the most credible explanation.


the fact they missed out the Jewish victims is because a large amount of prejudice stands against the Israel, generalised to Jews in general, in the Islamic community, and the opportunists they are they simply missed this out. They're not anti-semites, they are opportunists.I don't know about "prejudice" against Israel - the SWP opposes Israel as a state which currently maintains a brutal system of occupation and is responsible for depriving the Palestinian people of their basic rights, including freedom of movement, and freedom of political association. It is absurd to assume that just because a political organization adopts a principled position on Israel and the question of national liberation in general they must automatically be prejudiced towards Jewish people in Britain or any other country, and your suggestion that anti-semitism is widespread in Muslim communities is grossly misinformed, and frankly, the most prejudiced remark made so far in this thread. Your accusation of opportunism on an issue relating to questions of race relations and ethnic identity is also incredibly ironic, given that the CWI section in Scotland voted against an open-borders immigration policy because it ignored "the very real fears of the white working class", ignoring the fact that all immigration controls are by their very nature racist, in order to appeal to the insecurities of white workers.


in the UK? the SWP is, domestically, a pro-Islamic group perhaps more so than they are a pro-working class group,

Any evidence for this inane and cliched accusation? The only reason you and other critics of the SWP keep making this remark is the fact that we are the only organization with a consistent record of opposition to government-sponsored islamophobia inside Britain and the imperialist oppression of Arab countries overseas.

[bcbm]

No third, in-between option?:rolleyes:

[Holden Caulfield]

that the person responsible for creating the leaflet made a silly mistake
can the SWP not mobalise a few of its, self asserted, thousands strong membership to proof read and edit things?

[spartan]

Whether we like it or not, there are large numbers of workers in Arab states who have given electoral support to Islamist parties and may even see themselves as Islamists, partly due to the failure of leftist parties to develop strong links with the working class in these countries.

Millions of working class people gave their support to the Nazis (the KPD even went as far as calling them 'working class comrades' and wouldn't merge with the SPD to form a united anti-Fascist front due to Stalin's social fascism shite dividing the far-left from the more electorally successful moderate left), millions of working class people give their vote to what we would consider reactionary parties all the time in elections so I don't really understand what point you are trying to make here?

Just because working class Arabs support reactionary political movements that doesn't mean we in Britain should have to as well (and even descend to their anti-semitism to boot).

I mean it would be liking an Arab socialist party giving it's support to the British Conservative party due to the fact that it has the support of millions of British working class people!

[BobKKKindle$]

I mean it would be liking an Arab socialist party giving it's support to the British Conservative party due to the fact that it has the support of millions of British working class peopleYou've completely missed the point. Holden originally suggested that the SWP had deliberately chosen to obscure the deaths of Jews during the Holocaust because the SWP is a party which seeks to appeal to Islamism. The implication of this statement is that Islamists deny the Holocaust and oppose the public commemoration of Jewish victims. This is not only factually inaccurate, due to the complex nature of Islamism as a contemporary political phenomenon, it is also prejudiced, because if we accept Holden's assertion that Islamists are anti-semites, then we must also accept that anti-semitism is widespread amongst the proletariat of Arab states, given that Islamist organizations such as the Muslim Brotherhood command extensive support in the Arab world. The SWP obviously does not support Islamism in any part of the world - but Holden's statement was still reactionary.

In any case, your comparison is wrong. Islamist organizations may be reactionary in some areas as they frequently express regressive views on the role of women as well as the moral legitimacy of homosexuality, but they are still progressive in their capacity as movements fighting against imperialist domination, and as sources of popular mobilization. By contrast, the Conservative Party is part of the bourgeois political apparatus, and supports British imperialism in the same way as the Labour Party. The Conservative Party has never supported any struggle against imperialism and is complicit in the scapegoating of immigrants and restrictions on civil liberties.


No third, in-between option?Not until you or someone else puts forward concrete evidence to support your accusation of anti-semitism.


can the SWP not mobalise a few of its, self asserted, thousands strong membership to proof read and edit things? We probably should have been more careful - no-one is claiming that the SWP is devoid of blame. However, the policy on migration controls mentioned in my previous post cannot be attributed to a mistake - the policy was adopted by the Scottish CWI (confusingly known as the International Socialists, incidentally) through a process of open discussion and democratic voting. If the Scottish CWI is a democratic organization, then its policy on immigration controls - that controls are legitimate and can be used to limit the numbers of prospective migrants allowed to enter the UK in order to defend the privileges of British workers - reflects the opinion of the party membership. What does this say about the politics of the Scottish CWI and the CWI as a whole? The Socialist Party (UK) report (http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/2007/512/index.html?id=pp2261.htm) on the Solidarity conference points out that:

SWP members also argued against an amendment that called for the scrapping of the Immigration and Asylum Act and all other racist laws. They preferred to advocate that Solidarity should adopt a slogan of "open borders"

The same report goes on to assert that our policy sets up "artificial barriers to working-class people joining the socialist movement". The CWI fails to recognize that the role of a vanguard party is not simply to reflect the most dominant views of the proletariat as a class, but to adopt a consistently revolutionary position, and defeat reactionary ideas through a process of intervention in mass struggles combined with propaganda. The SWP upheld a progressive position on immigration - the CWI accepted the prevailing attitude against immigrants and by doing so implicitly accepting the notion that British workers are entitled to special privileged beyond the reach of other workers. Internationalism?

[bcbm]

we must also accept that anti-semitism is widespread amongst the proletariat of Arab states, given that Islamist organizations such as the Muslim Brotherhood command extensive support in the Arab worldBecause, as we all know, racism is typically not common amongst the proletariat in any country.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4554986.stm
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/3991?&condense_comments=false
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3136059.stm



Not until you or someone else puts forward concrete evidence to support your accusation of anti-semitism.

Once again, I don't think omitting millions of deaths, Jewish or otherwise, is a "silly mistake." This is deliberate. Maybe the author had ulterior motives of some sort, but it still suggests some level of anti-semitic thought on at least their part. How has the SWP addressed this?

[Devrim]

Your accusation of opportunism on an issue relating to questions of race relations and ethnic identity is also incredibly ironic, given that the CWI section in Scotland voted against an open-borders immigration policy because it ignored "the very real fears of the white working class", ignoring the fact that all immigration controls are by their very nature racist, in order to appeal to the insecurities of white workers.

This thread isn't about the CWI. The fact that the CWI may adopt chauvinist policies is not a defence of the SWP's actions.


...and your suggestion that anti-semitism is widespread in Muslim communities is grossly misinformed, and frankly, the most prejudiced remark made so far in this thread.

Nor is accusing others of prejudice a defence of the SWP's actions.

So let's look at what is actually being said by SWP members, and try to concentrate on the point at hand;


There are two potential explanations for this. Firstly, there's the possibility that the SWP is secretly an anti-Semitic organizations which seeks to deny the Holocaust. If this is the case, then we should expect to find other forms of supporting evidence - for example, a lack of articles in our publications on the Holocaust, other anti-Semitic remarks, and so on. In fact, the complete reverse is true - Socialist Review ran a lengthy article on how Marxists should approach the Holocaust and how the Holocaust relates to the current situation in Palestine in our May issue of this year. Based on this, we can safely assume that the SWP is not secretly anti-semitic - unless our critics have evidence to the contrary. The second explanation is that the person responsible for creating the leaflet made a silly mistake. Admittedly, this seems incredible - but the possibility remains, and this seems by far the most credible explanation.

I don't believe either of these two explanations. I don't think that the SWP is an overtly anti-Semitic organisation. Nor do I believe that this is just a 'silly mistake'.

To assume that it was merely a 'silly mistake' implies that the writer of the leaflet was completely ignorant of recent European history, but also that the proof reader was. It also implies that no member, who had the limited historical knowledge necessary to notice that something was wrong here, read the leaflet before it was distributed. In short we either accept that the Derbyshire branch of the SWP is completly composed of morons, or that this is not a 'silly mistake'.

In short, although we all know that the level of political development and internal education within the SWP is extremely low, this would be ridiculous.

That leaves us looking for an alternative explanation. In my opinion, until a more convincing one comes up, Holden's is the most credible:


the fact they missed out the Jewish victims is because a large amount of prejudice stands against the Israel, generalised to Jews in general, in the Islamic community, and the opportunists they are they simply missed this out. They're not anti-semites, they are opportunists.

I think that it is highly possible that SWP members thought like this. I can imagine them doing this in order not to alienate potential Islamic allies. It is the most logical explanation, and until I see a better one, I think that it is the most likely. The alternative would be to either assume that the SWP as a whole is an anti-Semitic organisation or that the Derbyshire branch is completly composed of morons.

And Bob comes back at this:


your suggestion that anti-semitism is widespread in Muslim communities is grossly misinformed, and frankly, the most prejudiced remark made so far in this thread.

First, on an abstract level to make this proposition it is not neccesary to believe that 'anti-semitism is widespread in Muslim communities', but only to believe that those writing the leaflet believed it to be so.

However, in my opinion, anti-Semitism* is much more acceptable and widespread within Muslim communities. BCBM's links give examples from Egypt. Anyone, who is able to read the Arab press though could quickly find half a dozen examples from the majority of countries in the region.

Statistics support this:


According to the Pew Global Attitudes Project (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pew_Global_Attitudes_Project) released on August 14, 2005, high percentages of the populations of six Muslim-majority countries have negative views of Jews. To a questionnaire asking respondents to give their views of members of various religions along a spectrum from "very favorable" to "very unfavorable," 60% of Turks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkey), 88% of Moroccans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morocco), 99% of Lebanese (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebanon) Muslims and 100% of Jordanians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordan) checked either "somewhat unfavorable" or "very unfavorable" for Jews.[163] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-semitism#cite_note-162)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-semitism#Middle_East

Let's just take a closer look:


Most of the Europeans surveyed by Pew continue to hold favorable opinions of Jews and, compared with other regions of the world, Europeans remain relatively tolerant. For instance, anti-Jewish sentiments are almost universal in the three Arab nations surveyed—95% or more in Lebanon, Jordan and Egypt say they have an unfavorable opinion of Jews.


THE STARKEST example of increasingly anti-Jewish views is Spain, where negative ratings have more than doubled since 2005, rising from 21% to 46%—by far the highest negative percentage among the European nations included in Pew’s 2008 survey.


In Britain, however, anti-Jewish views are relatively rare. Consistently, fewer than 10% of the British express a negative opinion of Jews.

So, I think we have established that there is more anti-Semitic feeling in Middle Eastern countries than in Western Europe. What then about Muslims in the West:


negative attitudes toward Jews are common among European Muslims. Six-in-ten Spanish Muslims held negative views of Jews, as did 47% of Muslims in Britain and 44% in Germany.

So what this report seems to be saying is that anti-Jewish sentiment in the Muslim community is neraly five times higher than amongst the general population.

Source:http://nationalinterest.org/Article.aspx?id=20124

To conclude here, what Holden says turns out to be absolutely true. Yet Bob calls it prejudice. Personally, I find Bob's attitude towards Muslims patronising and distateful, but that is not really the point here. It does lead to some very bizarre conclusions though:


This is not only factually inaccurate, due to the complex nature of Islamism as a contemporary political phenomenon, it is also prejudiced, because if we accept Holden's assertion that Islamists are anti-semites, then we must also accept that anti-semitism is widespread amongst the proletariat of Arab states, given that Islamist organizations such as the Muslim Brotherhood command extensive support in the Arab world.

Bob says this as if he finds it hard to believe that 'anti-semitism is widespread amongst the proletariat of Arab states'. It is almost as if he somehow believes that those nice little brown people whom he loves so dearly could never do anything as shocking as hating the Jews. For those of us who live in the real world, it is quite obvious that 'anti-semitism is widespread amongst the proletariat of Arab states'. Whether we like it or not it is true, and communists have to start with reality not fantisies.

So until someone in the SWP explains what was going on, I will continue to believe that it was a case of shocking oppurtunism as I can see no other credible reason for it.

Devrim


*Or something very like it. I am not even sure that it is anti-Semitism in the traditional European sense. However, it has picked up many of its features.

[Dimentio]

Trotsky, I know you don't support the NSDAP, and have serious problems with our stance on anti-imperialist movements in Germany, but that comment is out of order. "National Socialism" is a complex phenomenon and although there are definitely some fundamentalists who claim that the world is controlled by international Jewry, it is totally wrong to imply that all or even most National Socialists are anti-semitic and want to support the deportation of German Jews. Whether we like it or not, there are large numbers of workers in Germany who have given electoral support to NSDAP and may even see themselves as national socialists, partly due to the failure of leftist parties to develop strong links with the working class in the country. In Bavaria, for example, the NSDAP is one of the most successful political organizations, as shown by the fact that they recently organized mass protests involving thousands of working people against the occupation of Ruhr. In 1932, the NSDAP won the first round of the country's presidential electiion. Socialists need to present a nuanced understanding of National Socialism in terms of its material origins as an ideology and the role natioanl socialist organizations have to play in fighting against imperialism, and not make sweeping statements.

I don't really like double standards.

[Hit The North]

No third, in-between option?:rolleyes:

Yes, those tricksters at AWL have been playing with the new photoshop they got for xmas.


bcbm
Once again, I don't think omitting millions of deaths, Jewish or otherwise, is a "silly mistake." This is deliberate.Except you have not a shred of evidence for this assertion but your own prejudices.

The SWP nor the UAF have any interest in denying the true crimes of the Nazis. On the UAF website it clearly states:


The BNP denies the Holocaust
Six million Jewish people were murdered in the Nazi Holocaust. In total over 15 million Jews, trade unionists, gypsies, Slavs, black, lesbian, gay and disabled people were murdered as a result of Nazi Germany’s murderous policies. Nick Griffin was convicted for inciting racial hatred after a BNP magazine he published denied the reality of the Holocaust.
http://www.uaf.org.uk/theBNP.asp

[Devrim]

Yes, those tricksters at AWL have been playing with the new photoshop they got for xmas.

So are you actually saying that this leaflet wasn't produced by the UAF at all, and was totally fabricated by the AWL?

Devrim

[bcbm]

Except you have not a shred of evidence for this assertion but your own prejudices.

I suppose there are worse prejudices than believing that you don't simply "forget" that six million Jews were murdered in the holocaust.

[Pogue]

This was complacent and unfortunate but it doesn't make Lindsey or the SWP racist. They're clearly not reactionary or racist, they just made a mistake.

[Devrim]

This was complacent and unfortunate but it doesn't make Lindsey or the SWP racist. They're clearly not reactionary or racist, they just made a mistake.

HLVS, Lindsey German is a leading member of the SWP. I don't think that the SWP or German in particular are racists. However, with the comments about the holocaust, what sort of mistake do you think it was? Do you think that the writer didn't know that millions of Jews were killed in the holocaust? Do you think that the proof reader had no idea either? Or do you think that perhaps 'Holden' is right and it was a piece of gross oportunism?

As for Lindsey German's comments, which haven't really been discussed yet, I think they reflect the views that start to come out when you involve yourselves in ethnic politics.

Devrim

[Pogue]

You mean you think they'd go as far as partial holocaust denial in order to appease anti-semites in their coalition, fully aware of the lefts views on holocaust denial/nazism?

[Devrim]

You mean you think they'd go as far as partial holocaust denial in order to appease anti-semites in their coalition, fully aware of the lefts views on holocaust denial/nazism?

As an organisation? Definitely not, I think that the national leadership of the SWP have much more political sense than that. Could it possibly happen at a local level? Yes, it seems to me to be the most likely explanation here.

I think the SWP is deeply opportunistic, and I could imagine its members doing something like this.

I think that you can see the tendencies that might lead towards it on these boards. SWP supporters have gone from, rightly, defending Muslims against racism to actually defending Islam.

Devrim

[Pogue]

As an organisation? Definitely not, I think that the national leadership of the SWP have much more political sense than that. Could it possibly happen at a local level? Yes, it seems to me to be the most likely explanation here.

I think the SWP is deeply opportunistic, and I could imagine its members doing something like this.

I think that you can see the tendencies that might lead towards it on these boards. SWP supporters have gone from, rightly, defending Muslims against racism to actually defending Islam.

Devrim

Links justifying the last claim? And is it even such a crime? Many people interpret Islam in a tolerant and progressive manner.

[Devrim]

Links justifying the last claim?

There are lots of them. I can't be bothered to look for them. Rosa claiming that Islam wasn't anti-gay was a good one.


And is it even such a crime? Many people interpret Islam in a tolerant and progressive manner.

As socialists we believe that religion is reactionary. It is not about whether there is a 'tolerant' Islam or not. It is certainly not progressive in any way that a socialist could understand the word.

SWP supporters went from defending Muslims to defending Islam.

Devrim

[ComradeG1967]

It's a fucking stupid mistake, and somebody should apologise. But unless anybody can prove otherwise it should be just seen as that, a bloody AWFUL mistake. This has been going on for months, now.

[Hit The North]

As an organisation? Definitely not, I think that the national leadership of the SWP have much more political sense than that. Could it possibly happen at a local level? Yes, it seems to me to be the most likely explanation here.


So it's not our leadership which is opportunistic, it is our rank and file?

What a heart-felt appraisal of the motives and acumen of rank and file socialists you present.

What a shame we're not as pure as the ideological priesthood your elitist faction represents.

You make me want to be sick with laughter!

[Hit The North]

So are you actually saying that this leaflet wasn't produced by the UAF at all, and was totally fabricated by the AWL?

Devrim

Why, do you know otherwise?

[Devrim]

Why, do you know otherwise?

Is it what you are claiming, Bob? I believe it is genuine.


So it's not our leadership which is opportunistic, it is our rank and file?

No, I think your leadership is deeply opportunistic. I just think they have more sense than that.


What a heart-felt appraisal of the motives and acumen of rank and file socialists you present.

To be honest, I don't think that the rank-and-file of the SWP shows any acumen whatsoever. I think it is to do with the way the SWP recruits and is organised.

I'd like to know what the motives were, but I am quite certain that we won't be told.

Devrim

[Devrim]

It's a fucking stupid mistake, and somebody should apologise. But unless anybody can prove otherwise it should be just seen as that, a bloody AWFUL mistake.

But they are not apologising or explaining. They are screaming at the people who bring it up.


This has been going on for months, now.

It hasn't been discussed on this board before.

Devrim

[Die Neue Zeit]

Millions of working class people gave their support to the Nazis (the KPD even went as far as calling them 'working class comrades' and wouldn't merge with the SPD to form a united anti-Fascist front due to Stalin's social fascism shite dividing the far-left from the more electorally successful moderate left), millions of working class people give their vote to what we would consider reactionary parties all the time in elections so I don't really understand what point you are trying to make here?

Just because working class Arabs support reactionary political movements that doesn't mean we in Britain should have to as well (and even descend to their anti-semitism to boot).

I mean it would be liking an Arab socialist party giving it's support to the British Conservative party due to the fact that it has the support of millions of British working class people!

Spartan, you may be interested in my Economics thread on the potential for secularizing Islamic banking:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/equity-vs-interest-t90921/index.html

If anything else, the recent pandering to Islamists among key elements of the far left is little else than cheap "anti-imperialism" resulting from previous "New Left" failures (emphasis on "culture wars" like the one against sexism). The above part-proposal of mine at least has key economic benefits for workers.

As for "social fascism," be assured that I am working on a section critiquing the very real social fascism inherent in the modern-day "Third Way" (just look at them insidiously chipping away at "basic democratic rights").

[Wanted Man]

It's all speculation as long as the SWP don't explain themselves. But since an explanation evidently won't be forthcoming*, speculation is the only thing available to people who want to try interpreting this. I do find the responses kind of funny: "This thread is not necessary." "Prove that it's not a fake." "The CWI are national chauvinist tossers too" (which is true, of course, but not the point).

In any case, the writer of the leaflet (assuming it's not Photoshopped, right? :laugh:) is evidently a pig-ignorant twat at best, or a political opportunist of massive proportions at worst. Either way, saying that the nazis killed "thousands" and not mentioning the Jews at all is a lot more than just "an honest mistake". This is clear to anyone with even a basic understanding of history. The writer should disappear from public life and live in shame as a hermit.

By the way, I also think it would be damned funny if SWP, CWI, AWL and others were all given flamethrowers and pitted against each other in a battle royale. This German person could be sent in unarmed.

*After all, the SWP is THE vanguard of the working class, so it doesn't need external correction from any kind of ultra-lefts, anarchists, stalinists, etc.

[Hit The North]

*After all, the SWP is THE vanguard of the working class, so it doesn't need external correction from any kind of ultra-lefts, anarchists, stalinists, etc.

We don't claim to be the vanguard of the working class. I think you're confusing us with your own tiny, insignificant sect.

[Devrim]

So Bob, are you saying it was photoshoped by the AWL or not?

Insulting other people is certainly the way to go though. It is much better than answering their questions.

Questions such as;

1) Did the SWP produce this leaflet?
2) If so do they still stand by it?
3) If not have things changed or was it wrong at the time?
4)If it was wrong, how did the 'mistake' happen?

Devrim

[Hit The North]

So Bob, are you saying it was photoshoped by the AWL or not?



I'm certainly not discounting it as a possibility. Unlike your good self who seems to have a touching faith in the AWL's integrity.


Insulting other people is certainly the way to go though. It is much better than answering their questions.
I'll answer questions and I'll answer abuse with my own.


Questions such as;

1) Did the SWP produce this leaflet?
2) If so do they still stand by it?
3) If not have things changed or was it wrong at the time?
4)If it was wrong, how did the 'mistake' happen?

1) I don't know.
2) I doubt it.
3) It is obviously incompetent to omit to mention the fascist murder of millions of innocent people.
4) Your guess is as good as mine (but quite different, I suspect).

Now, whether this leaflet is genuine or not, as I have already pointed out the real UAF position is this:


The BNP denies the Holocaust
Six million Jewish people were murdered in the Nazi Holocaust. In total over 15 million Jews, trade unionists, gypsies, Slavs, black, lesbian, gay and disabled people were murdered as a result of Nazi Germany’s murderous policies. Nick Griffin was convicted for inciting racial hatred after a BNP magazine he published denied the reality of the Holocaust. http://www.uaf.org.uk/theBNP.asp

So far, everyone has failed to acknowledge this.

Finally, so far Devrim, your position seems to be this (correct me if I'm wrong): the omission in the leaflet is the result of a rank and file member of the SWP, or perhaps a local branch of the SWP, deciding to be opportunistic and deliberately omit reference to the slaughter of six million Jews. The implication (by others) is that this was in order to win favour among anti-Semitic Islamists who, it was hoped, could be recruited to the demo.

In order for this allegation to stick, however, someone needs to identify which branch or individual was concerned, and show that this branch was reaching out to anti-Semites in the Muslim community.

Failing this, a slur is a slur is a slur.

[Leo]

I'm certainly not discounting it as a possibility.This is paranoid. Even if they thought of doing anything as such, doing something as such would be quite foolish, since it would have been instantly proven wrong by the SWP. This would have caused a horrible scandal for AWL.


So far, everyone has failed to acknowledge this.Everyone acknowledged that SWP itself is not an anti-semitic organization.


In order for this allegation to stickI'm sorry, but in order for it not to stick, the SWP has to explain the situation. Since this doesn't seem likely as the SWP tends not to "bother" or "lower itself" to giving account of it's actions and just goes into this very aggressive-agnosticist (!) attitude when asked and ignoring the issue officially; regardless of it's truth this speculative but the so for most reasonable explanation is going to stick.

In other terms you fellas are doing your best for it to stick.

[Forward Union]

I suspect this is another example of pandering to religious bigotry for political points.

Notice my use of words. I am not saying that's objective truth, but I find it very hard to believe that


a) The auther forgot about the Jewish slaughter as part of the holocaust
b) Didn't think it was as important as the trade unionists
c) Doesn't believe that Jews were killed in the holocaust
d) Thinks that the BNP acknowlege the death of 6million jews but not the political dissidents.

The other, far more plausable (but not certain) answer is that it was omited (not denied) in order to avoid debate with the more extreme elements of the islamic community with which they liase. This is backed up by similar actions and statements of the SWP including refusing to organise with sex workers.

So you can see hopefully why I've made this assumption

[Devrim]

I'm certainly not discounting it as a possibility. Unlike your good self who seems to have a touching faith in the AWL's integrity.

Is that the AWL's integrity compared to the SWP's because my opinion of their integrity is very low. I think that trying to imply that this group invented this on photoshop to smear the SWP is a good example of that sort of integrity. You produce a leaflet, somebody criticises you over it, and then you imply that they produced it themsleves just to criticse you. That doesn't show much integrity, does it?

However, the reason that I believe that it is real is because Martin Smith accepted it was so:


This week Martin Smith, general secretary of the SWP, said he regretted the omission. "We condemn the Holocaust. We had placards which said ‘never again' and showed images from the Holocaust.

Source:http://www.thejc.com/articles/shoah-leaflet-refers-gays-not-jews


Now, whether this leaflet is genuine or not, as I have already pointed out the real UAF position is this:...

...So far, everyone has failed to acknowledge this.

I know what the position of the UAF is, and have acknowledged that I don't think that they are anti-Semities. You, however, haven't even acknowledged that the doccument is real and, whether knowingly or unknowingly, are constantly making misleading implications that it is not.


Finally, so far Devrim, your position seems to be this (correct me if I'm wrong): the omission in the leaflet is the result of a rank and file member of the SWP, or perhaps a local branch of the SWP, deciding to be opportunistic and deliberately omit reference to the slaughter of six million Jews. The implication (by others) is that this was in order to win favour among anti-Semitic Islamists who, it was hoped, could be recruited to the demo.

As 'WM' said if people don't explain themselves people will speculate.

As I wrote earlier:


I think that it is highly possible that SWP members thought like this. I can imagine them doing this in order not to alienate potential Islamic allies. It is the most logical explanation, and until I see a better one, I think that it is the most likely. The alternative would be to either assume that the SWP as a whole is an anti-Semitic organisation or that the Derbyshire branch is completly composed of morons.

To me it seems the most reasonable explanation. If a member or supporter of the SWP would care to put forward another one, I would be more than willing to listen to it. However, I would take it with more than a pinch of salt given that one of the main arguments by one of their members here has been to imply they didn't even produce the leaflet.


In order for this allegation to stick, however, someone needs to identify which branch or individual was concerned, and show that this branch was reaching out to anti-Semites in the Muslim community.

I believe that the branch concerned is Derbyshire. However as you know this would be nearly impossible to show. It doesn't mean that it is not true, nor that it is. In my opinion it remains the most reasonable explanation.

Devrim

[Wanted Man]

We don't claim to be the vanguard of the working class. I think you're confusing us with your own tiny, insignificant sect.
Obviously. Luckily, the far left in the Netherlands is doing so well that my tiny, insignificant sect has nothing to contribute, anyway.


I'll answer questions and I'll answer abuse with my own.
Where did I abuse you? I abused the author of the leaflet (whom I mistakenly confused with Lindsey German herself, but the controversy about her was of a different nature) and I made fun of the hilarious accusations from people who haven't read their own party's apology, linked by Devrim. I don't need or want to insult you.

Oh, and I made fun of the involved groups, all of which have nationalist, sectarian and chauvinist deviations of their own. I honestly think they deserve each other. In that statement, I did make the mistake regarding "that German person", it should read: "the author of the leaflet". A dumb mistake, but not as big as saying that the nazis "killed thousands" and failing to mention the Jews at all. So I think I'm excused for that one.

All in all, this thread is an interesting display of the kind of defense mechanism that people show whenever criticism is made. The "poor auld SWP", as someone once put it.

[Mister X]

It is clearly evident that this is too big to be a mistake. The most likely explanation is hat people said earlier. It was pure opportunism in order not to offend their Anti-Semitic allies. The International Socialists and the SWP are deeply opportunistic organizations everywhere they go. In Toronto and in Chicago they made an anti-war coalition and they basically recruited everyone even though they were not remotely socialist. It was not done on an anti-capitalist basis so they ended up having an anti-socialist faction in their own organization which eventually collapsed.
The SWP is bankrupt and the barking of its members only makes the situation worse.
Please if you are a member of the SWP responding to this thread stop humiliating yourselves and your organization by barking at everyone who raises a point or a questiona and answer genuinely.

[Hit The North]

All in all, this thread is an interesting display of the kind of defense mechanism that people show whenever criticism is made. The "poor auld SWP", as someone once put it.

But an understandable mechanism, you'll agree. We have one member (Devrim) who's sole contribution appears to be dredging up any embarrassing titbit of scandal around the SWP. He then starts a thread demanding that members of the SWP - none of whom have any direct knowledge or experience of the incident - give answers.

When a number of comrades offer tentative explanations, they are brushed aside by the usual gang of sectarian naysayers, in favour of the most damning (but no less unproven) possible explanations.

The thread then descends into inevitable bickering. But what should we do, roll over like dogs and hope that the Holy Mother of Pure Communism, Devrim, tickles our bellies? :lol:

[Leo]

We have one member (Devrim) who's sole contribution appears to be dredging up any embarrassing titbit of scandal around the SWP.

I think this is exactly what Wanted Man was talking about.

When you say Devrim's "sole contribution appears to be dredging up any embarrassing titbit of scandal around the SWP" anyone who knows him from this board knows that it's quite clearly not true and that he makes lots of other posts. Someone who is new to the website would look up his posts and see it's clearly not true.

You guys, as a result, make yourself look quite ridiculous.


He then starts a thread demanding that members of the SWP - none of whom have any direct knowledge or experience of the incident - give answers.

Everyone who posted in this thread asked for answers. In an organization with even the slightest seriousness, members would at least have asked and tried to find out about them to be able to present them by now.


When a number of comrades offer tentative explanations

Saying "oh it's just a mistake, no big deal!" is not really an explanation.

[Bilan]

I can't really see how this would be a simple mistake?
Forgetting Jews in the Holocaust, alone, is completely fucking insane. I just can't fathom how stupid those who wrote the article, your editors, and whoever else, really are.
I mean fuck.

And the reason people are calling it opportunist is because, what planet were you on to make a mistake as big as this?
That is like forgetting the proletariat in a communist revolution. It's fucking absurd.

And the way SWP members are dancing around this, calling it 'sectarian', or whatever: Grow up.

[Devrim]

But an understandable mechanism, you'll agree. We have one member (Devrim) who's sole contribution appears to be dredging up any embarrassing titbit of scandal around the SWP.

As Leo mentions anyone can look at my tracker and see that I take part in lots of discussions on here, but then this line is not about answering any questions, but about questioning the integrity of the questioners.


When a number of comrades offer tentative explanations, they are brushed aside by the usual gang of sectarian naysayers, in favour of the most damning (but no less unproven) possible explanations.

The answers that have been offered are
1) You shouldn't talk about it.
2) It was a fake produced by the AWL.
3) It was a mistake.

I think it has been shown that it was produced by the SWP, and not by the AWL. The other two are not explanations. If the SWP members or supporters do have an explanation I, for one, would like to hear it. Until it is forthcoming I, and others, will continue to believe what seems to me and many others as the most probable explanation.

Instead of offereing explanations SWP members and supporters have thrown slurs and insults at others.


The thread then descends into inevitable bickering. But what should we do, roll over like dogs and hope that the Holy Mother of Pure Communism, Devrim, tickles our bellies? :lol:

The thread descends in to bickering because members and supporters of the SWP prefer bickering, insults, and slurs to addressing the issues, nothing more, nothing less.

Devrim

[communard resolution]

Okay, if I were to play devil's advocate I would say that the original sentence may have been "they[The BNP] deny the holocaust where millions of Jews and Roma and thousands of LGBT people, trade unionists and disabled people were slaughtered." Then, in the process of editing, part of the sentence went missing.

I think this might be the case since I don't believe anyone in their right mind would expect to get away with just "thousands of deaths" in regards to the Holocaust... unless they're Ernst Zundel himself. Any schoolkid knows it was more than that.

If it's not a mistake, then this is deeply worrying. One of my pals is member of the SWP and will be attending my New Years Eve party tonight. I expect he'll be deeply offended at charges of 'opportunistic anti-semitism' and the like, but I'm nevertheless curious what he has to say about this incident.

EDIT: Another thought - if it was my goal was to appeal to an apparently 'reactionary Islamist' target group, would I mention "LGTB people" first?

[Devrim]

EDIT: Another thought - if it was my goal was to appeal to an apparently 'reactionary Islamist' target group, would I mention "LGTB people" first?

Reasonable point, but then I don't think it has been suggested that these people are smart political operators.

Devrim

[Hit The North]

Thanks Nero, for providing a little common sense to this debate.

The only way the accusation of opportunism can stick is if the assumption that it was designed to appeal to reactionary Islamic elements is proven. No one here has offered such evidence. As you point out, there is also the inconsistency of including Lesbians, Gays, Transsexuals in the list which would be even more abhorrent to reactionary Islamists. In fact, this inconsistency is so ludicrous that the idea that the composer of the leaflet was a moron and this was produced carelessly, gains in explanatory power. If this was a conspiracy of individuals to opportunistically slant the text to appeal to reactionaries, then the inconsistency would have been glaringly obvious to anyone of moderate intelligence when the strategy was being discussed. And contrary to Devrim's opinion of our membership, we do have a few comrades with average intelligence.

So I think the "cock-up theory" of politics should be applied here. This was a stupid mistake which reflects badly on my organisation. Anyone who has been studying the SWP in the last few years (as Devrim has) who would then doubt our ability to inflict such embarrassment on ourselves is being disingenuous. We've been doing a fair bit of that recently. :(

Of course, comrades should be aware that for Devrim, any opposition to Fascism, whatever the rectitude of the leaflet, is rank opportunism, anyway.

[Hit The North]

Reasonable point, but then I don't think it has been suggested that these people are smart political operators.

Devrim

And yet you still refuse to consider that it was a mistake.

[Devrim]

So I think the "cock-up theory" of politics should be applied here. This was a stupid mistake which reflects badly on my organisation.

Well, yes it does, reflect badly that is. However, it is a mistake doesn't really cover it does it. We could go through other SWP mistakes like calling the police on protesting workers, SWP members of union executives voting in favour of management offer against strike action*.

Are they just mistakes too?

Would you like me to go on recounting similar 'mistakes'?

But back to your points:


And contrary to Devrim's opinion of our membership, we do have a few comrades with average intelligence.

I don't think that people are stupid. I don't think that SWP members are stupid. If you read back I discount this possibility. That is why this statement amazed me! That is why I think it must be shocking oportunism.


Anyone who has been studying the SWP in the last few years (as Devrim has) who would then doubt our ability to inflict such embarrassment on ourselves is being disingenuous. We've been doing a fair bit of that recently. http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies/sad.gif

Really, Bob, you give yourselves too much credit. If I studied you, I would have notice this at the time that it came up, not months later. I don't 'study' the SWP. You just do enough shocking things to make it easy to pick up on a few.


And yet you still refuse to consider that it was a mistake.

What sort of mistake? How on Earth could a mistake like this occur?

Devrim

*I must add here against the party line.

[Hit The North]

Just to reiterate and defend against Devrim's lies: The SWP has never called the police against protesting workers.


Really, Bob, you give yourselves too much credit. If I studied you...

Come now, oh holy one, the first step in conquering an obsession is to recognise that you have it in the first place.

[Pogue]

Of course, comrades should be aware that for Devrim, any opposition to Fascism, whatever the rectitude of the leaflet, is rank opportunism, anyway.


Are you here accusing Devrim of not being opposed to fascism?

[Devrim]

Just to reiterate and defend against Devrim's lies: The SWP has never called the police against protesting workers.

As Bob well knows, a union official who was a member of the SWP (Ireland) called the police to remove hunger striking workers.

I would hope that you would admit this, and that your lies aren't so blatant that everyone needs them to be documented.

So I ask you honestly, did this happen? If you want to claim it didn't I will provide the documentation.


Come now, oh holy one, the first step in conquering an obsession is to recognise that you have it in the first place.

Again this accusation of lies, and the insults completely prove my point that 'members and supporters of the SWP prefer bickering, insults, and slurs to addressing the issues'.

Devrim

[BobKKKindle$]

What sort of mistake? How on Earth could a mistake like this occur?The person who wrote the pamphlet obviously knows that the Holocaust involved the organized massacre of Jews. No-one in this thread has been able to come up with a singe piece of evidence to show that the failure to mention Jews was part of an appeal to reactionary Islamists, and as a previous poster pointed out, there is strong evidence to the contrary. Given the total inadequacy of these explanations, it is entirely possible that the author didn't mention the Jews because it is such an obvious fact that Jewish people were the main victims of the Holocaust. I don't claim any knowledge of psychology, but it is often the case that we forget to mention the most obvious component of an issue or historical event and choose instead to focus on secondary components, which in the case of the Holocaust means other groups which suffered persecution but are not as widely known.


Are you here accusing Devrim of not being opposed to fascism?Actually, Left-Communists refuse to participate in campaigns against fascism within the framework of a capitalist society because they hold the mistaken belief that there are no meaningful differences between a bourgeois-democratic state and a fascist dictatorship, despite the fact that fascism has historically resulted in the complete destruction of all workers organizations, and deprived revolutionaries of the ability to agitate and organize freely.


It is clearly evident that this is too big to be a mistake. The most likely explanation is hat people said earlier. It was pure opportunism in order not to offend their Anti-Semitic alliesIt's not "clearly evident" at all, and so far you and everyone else who has accused the SWP of being opportunistic in this thread have not come up with a single bit of evidence to show that we were trying to appeal to our alleged support base of Islamists in the UK.

[Hit The North]

Are you here accusing Devrim of not being opposed to fascism?

No, I'm arguing that he is opposed to anti-Fascism and views it as opportunism.

[Hit The North]

As Bob well knows, a union official who was a member of the SWP (Ireland) called the police to remove hunger striking workers.


Yes, it is alleged (but not proven) that in his capacity as a union official he called the police out to an incident. This event is then interpreted by Devrim as "The SWP called the police on protesting workers." This is obviously not true. It is a deliberate lie. At no point has the SWP endorsed the decision.

So just to reiterate and defend against Devrim's lies: The SWP has never called the police against protesting workers.

[Devrim]

No, I'm arguing that he is opposed to anti-Fascism and views it as opportunism.

It isn't quite right, but the main point is. I am opposed to 'anti-fascism', and see it as an abandonment of class politics.


Yes, it is alleged (but not proven) that in his capacity as a union official he called the police out to an incident.

It is well proven. Are you suggesting it is not true, Bob?


This event is then interpreted by Devrim as "The SWP called the police on protesting workers." This is obviously not true.

Look at what I actually said:


We could go through other SWP mistakes like calling the police on protesting workers, SWP members of union executives voting in favour of management offer against strike action*.

Of course this refers to a member of an organisation, not the organisation itself.

Is it true though, Bob,? Did a member of the SWP call the police on protesting workers or not? Yes or no?


It is a deliberate lie. At no point has the SWP endorsed the decision.

But then I didn't claim that they did. I used it as an example of SWP mistakes. Considering your comments earlier in the thread about the AWL, I am quite surprised that you have the cheek to call anyone a liar.


So just to reiterate and defend against Devrim's lies: The SWP has never called the police against protesting workers.

Answer the question Yes or No, Bob, Did a member of the SWP Ireland call the Police against protesting workers?

Possibly another interesting question would be whether this sort of person is still in the party.

However, Bob, your posts seem to be more successful than mine in that you are totally managing to avoid any discussion of the issue, well done.

Devrim

[Devrim]

It's not "clearly evident" at all, and so far you and everyone else who has accused the SWP of being opportunistic in this thread have not come up with a single bit of evidence to show that we were trying to appeal to our alleged support base of Islamists in the UK.

And you despite the fact that unlike Bob (the builder) you are trying to address the issue have not come up with any sort of explanation about how such a huge mistake could happen.

Devrim

[Dimentio]

I don't know so much about the SWP. What I found most fun was when Bobkindles started to defend islamists.

[Pogue]

I don't know so much about the SWP. What I found most fun was when Bobkindles started to defend islamists.

Although I don't support Islamism I think the SWP should be praised for their staunch defence of Muslims, seeing as its very much common in Britain today to hear anti-Muslim abuse from many people. Obviously though if the SWP start abandoning socialist/progressive viewpoints in order to appeal to certain members of the coalition who are reactionary in some of their views (i.e. like a few radical traiditional Muslims who hate gay people) then its not good.

[Hit The North]

Of course this refers to a member of an organisation, not the organisation itself.


At best your statement was ambiguous, but I'm happy that you agree that the SWP did nothing of the sort.


Is it true though, Bob,? Did a member of the SWP call the police on protesting workers or not? Yes or no?


If you have evidence that it was this particular individual who called the police or someone else called them on his orders, then I'll have to agree. Produce the evidence.


However, Bob, your posts seem to be more successful than mine in that are totally managing to avoid any discussion of the issue, well done.


I've addressed the issue of the possible explanations for the appalling omission from the leaflet and have come to the conclusion that there is not enough evidence to suggest opportunism as the motivating factor. You don't like my conclusion? Tough shit.

[TC]

There are two potential explanations for this. Firstly, there's the possibility that the SWP is secretly an anti-semitic organizations which seeks to deny the Holocaust. If this is the case, then we should expect to find other forms of supporting evidence - for example, a lack of articles in our publications on the Holocaust, other anti-semitic remarks, and so on. In fact, the complete reverse is true - Socialist Review ran a lengthy article on how Marxists should approach the Holocaust and how the Holocaust relates to the current situation in Palestine in our May issue of this year. Based on this, we can safely assume that the SWP is not secretly anti-semitic - unless our critics have evidence to the contrary. The second explanation is that the person responsible for creating the leaflet made a silly mistake. Admittedly, this seems incredible - but the possibility remains, and this seems by far the most credible explanation.

The idea that the SWP is in any way anti-semitic is nothing more than a politically expedient attempt to score points against a better organized better run rival, especially on the part of the AWL which truely does have certain institutional racist tendencies (though most of its members are not racist, it is functionally racist against palestinians).


That said, I think understanding it only as a silly mistake is a bit overgenerous.

Just as its clearly a bad faith accusation to play this line up (which was after all written by some SWSS student for a leaflet, not voted on after hours of careful deliberation over the exact phrasing in the SWP party congress for publication on their website and theoretical journal).

Someone could have accidentally hit 'backspace' three times :rolleyes:...but to ommit 'Jews' or 'Jewish people' from a short list of the "thousands" slaughtered in the holocaust, especially when speaking of an anti-semitic organization (the BNP), does seem ridiculous to me. The fact is that the Jewish victims were the most numerous and well known.

If i had to honestly guess in good faith, I'd guess the individual writing the piece is actually more sympathetic on some level to "LGBT" people and "trade unionists" and has engaged in at least subconcious historical revisionism in talking about "the holocaust where thousands of LGBT people, trade unionists and disabled people were slaughtered" rather than "the holocaust where millions of Jewish, gay, catholic, Slavic, Roma... were slaughtered."

Its not hard for me to imagine that the person who wrote it, on some level, wanted to tie the holocaust into 'lgbt' and 'trade unionist' struggles that they're engaged in today because right now those are more sympathetic and relevant victims. This isn't necessarily anti-semitic in that, Jews as a demographic group simply aren't relevant 'victims' today and the holocaust fixation like 9/11 fixation is often an attempt by imperialists to reframe political issues in their own favor. However it is implicitly historically revisionist because Jews were both in fact and in popular understanding the principle victims of the holocaust, at least to the extent that one considers the holocaust to constitute the nazi death camps (if you think of 'the holocaust' as including all Nazi systematic murder of civilians then, Soviet civilians of every religion, nationality and ethnicity were the priciple victims).

They also, incidentally, ommitted the first victims of the holocaust: "Stalinist" Communists and Social Democrat cadre, another set of people that, its not hard to imagine, are not the prefered victims to publicize for a lot of SWP members.

[Devrim]

At best your statement was ambiguous, but I'm happy that you agree that the SWP did nothing of the sort.

Well yes, organisations don't do things. Human beings do. In that those human beings are members of an organisation, the organisation is responsible. Or doesn't the SWP have any sort of collective responsibility? Maybe he was calling the cops in some sort of personal capacity?


If you have evidence that it was this particular individual who called the police or someone else called them on his orders, then I'll have to agree. Produce the evidence.

The individual concerned was Jimmy Kelly. There is a thread about it here on RevLeft: http://www.revleft.com/vb/swp-member-sends-t75236/index.html?highlight=Gordon+McNeill+Madan+Gupta
Of course Bob is aware of all this because he is there at the end of the thread demanding 'evidence' like some amateur lawyer despite the facts being openly presented.


I've addressed the issue of the possible explanations for the appalling omission from the leaflet and have come to the conclusion that there is not enough evidence to suggest opportunism as the motivating factor. You don't like my conclusion? Tough shit.

So why did it happen? How did it happen? You have offered no explanations whatsoever. If the SWP were a revolutionary working class party*, it would have a duty to explain things like this openly.

Until the SWP offers an explanation, I completely understand why people make what is the most logical conclusion. I have never claimed that there was anything but circumstantial evidence for this.

The complete dishonest shown by SWP members in this thread in trying to imply that it wasn't even an SWP leaflet and had been created merely to smear them, doean't lead me to think the best of them.

You don't like my conclusion? ...Well tell us what happened.

Devrim

*I don't believe that it is.

[Devrim]

Although I don't support Islamism I think the SWP should be praised for their staunch defence of Muslims, seeing as its very much common in Britain today to hear anti-Muslim abuse from many people. Obviously though if the SWP start abandoning socialist/progressive viewpoints in order to appeal to certain members of the coalition who are reactionary in some of their views (i.e. like a few radical traiditional Muslims who hate gay people) then its not good.

There is a difference between defending Muslims and defending Islam.

Devrim

[benhur]

If it's true that the jews were left out to avoid offending anti-Semites, then one must wonder if such anti-Semites deserve any support or sympathy from leftists (because leftists are supposed to be against all kinds of discrimination.)

[Hit The North]

The complete dishonest shown by SWP members in this thread in trying to imply that it wasn't even an SWP leaflet and had been created merely to smear them, doean't lead me to think the best of them.



You can't tar all members of the SWP for a comment I made - without instruction from the SWP, I have to add, given your difficulty in distinguishing between individuals and organizations :rolleyes:.

Besides, the comment was made rather flippantly, although it remained a third option explanation until you produced evidence otherwise (via the Jewish Chronicle article).

As for your opinion of the SWP, who cares? You have a low, snooty opinion of all socialist organisations which don't meet the narrow strictures of your Left Communist creed.


You don't like my conclusion? ...Well tell us what happened. You've already been told that neither I nor any of the SWP comrades on RevLeft know what happened. We're all speculating - including you.

[Melbourne Lefty]

in the UK? the SWP is, domestically, a pro-Islamic group perhaps more so than they are a pro-working class group,



SWP like a lot of other socialist groups in the west thinks it can make some runs off Islam.

I dont think its too much of a leap to think that they may make ommissions to help shore up a supporter base.

[Devrim]

Of course the SWP are not anti-Semites. I don't believe they are

We have been assured that the SWP don't pander to anti-Semitism:


A relatively large number of people on the demonstration carried Hamas or other Islamist placards and banners. There was some shouting of Allahu akbar, but from what I can gather there were no anti-semitic slogans shouted. Though Weyman Bennett of the SWP’s central committee was heard demanding that Israeli Jews “should go back to where they came from … New York or wherever”

http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/752/marchingforgaza.html

One can only wonder what Bennett was thinking.

Devrim

[BobKKKindle$]

Are you actually serious? Weekly Worker is widely described as "Hello magazine for socialists" because all of its articles consist of lies and slander directed against other left wing organizations which are actually doing things on the ground instead of just sitting back and printing rubbish, without a shred of evidence or explanation, of no relevance whatsoever to working people or the student population. I could just as easily assert that the ICC was handing out leaflets promoting holocaust denial at the same demonstration and my claim would have exactly the same degree of credibility as the article you quoted. One of the recent issues asserted on the front page (complete with a picture of John Rees) that the upcoming SWP conference would lead to the "mother of all splits" on the grounds that our party is incapable of resolving its internal disagreements democratically and yet this absurd prediction has not come to pass - the SWP was able to resolve the issue through reasoned debate and this is why we will remain the largest and most important group on the British left, in stark contrast, to the CPGB, which will, along with the British secton of the ICC, forever remain utterly irrelevant.

[Devrim]

I have had this confirmed by independent sources who I consider to be reliable. People who have read through this thread will see that the SWP response to the 'Jew free holocaust' was to deny that the leaflet existed until it was produced. Then an SWP member suggested that it had been produced by another group to discredit them, until It was pointed out that an SWP central committee member had apologised for it.

People may note that the thing that Bob mentions that the CPGB wrote that was untrue was not a fact but a prediction. When somebody gets a prediction wrong you may criticise their analysis but you can't really call them a liar.

However, Bob has not said that this is not true. He has just tried to discredit the sources, so let's ask the question in a very straight forward manner;

Are you saying Bob that this catagorically did not happen?

Devrim

[Melbourne Lefty]

Though Weyman Bennett of the SWP’s central committee was heard demanding that Israeli Jews “should go back to where they came from … New York or wherever”


I think it may be a while before the SWP lets him speak again...

Just a guess....:lol:

[Devrim]

So as you are not denying this we will assume that it is true. In my opinion it is only a few steps away from calling for ethnic cleansing.

Devrim

[BobKKKindle$]

I don't know if it was certainly true or false because I didn't actually stalk the individual concerned for the whole of the demonstration, but, given WW's reputation for lies and slander, which you seem to have ignored, the onus is on you to prove that it did happen - something you cannot do by repeatedly quoting the article and asserting your case. If you want to believe that a prominent comrade is anti-semitic and wants to purge Britain of all Jews, then that's fine, but no-one in the UK who is at all serious about their politics will listen to you - but you're probably used to that by now.

Incidentally, while this is by no means "evidence of any aort - as noted above, Devirm is the one who needs to get his act together - a google search of "Weyman Bennett" shows that a few unsavory characters seem to believe this story with the same degree of certainty as Devrim...

http://www.democracyforum.co.uk/british-politics-other-parties/56276-weyman-bennet-uaf-swp-demands-jews-leave-britain.html

[Devrim]

I don't know if it was certainly true because I didn't actually stalk the individual concerned for the whole of the demonstration,

But you are very keen to dismiss it as a lie. Again if people look back at through this thread, we see SWP members and supporters suggesting that the original leaflet never existed. When it was shown to have existed, one SWP member claimed that it had been made by the AWL to discredit them. Of course, it was shown that it was a real SWP production by the fact that the a member of the SWP apologised for it.


but, given WW's reputation for lies and slander, which you seem to have ignored,

Please give an example of WW lies. Please remember but that lies does not mean mistaken analysis, but actually saying things that you know to be untrue. It is quite ironic that you accuse them of slander too because that is exactly what this is.


the onus is on you to prove that it did happen - something you cannot do by repeatedly quoting the article and asserting your case.

Well, no Bob it isn't. I would imagine that most people think the onus is on you. I say it happened and you say you 'don't know'. If you want to deny it, say perhaps Bennett makes some statement denying it, then put it up here. Until then the onus is exactly upon you.

Question: Do you catogorically deny that this happened.


If you want to believe that a prominent comrade is anti-semitic and wants to purge Britain of all Jews, then that's fine,

It is not what I said. This is the method of trying to make people's statements uncredible by exagerating them to the point that they seem absurd. It is as typically dishonest as the other methods used on this thread.


Incidentally, while this is by no means "evidence of any aort - as noted above, Devirm is the one who needs to get his act together - a google search of "Weyman Bennett" shows that a few unsavory characters seem to believe this story with the same degree of certainty as Devrim...

Again to me this seems to be a pretty shocking stalinist style smear tactic. Things that are published in newspapers can be discussed by all sorts of people. The implication here is that because these people are discussing the same news article as me I have the same politics as them. The final poster on their says like Bob Kindles he doesn't trust the source. It would be very foolish to try to tar Bob with that.

It does go with the whole attitude displayed by the SWP on this and other treads, which to me seems to be when you are criticised start by smearing the source regardless of whether the allegations are true or not.

Devrim

[Melbourne Lefty]

Incidentally, while this is by no means "evidence of any sort - ...

Then why mention it?:confused:

[Devrim]

Then why mention it?:confused:

Obviously to slander people. It is the guilt by association method. Well used by Stalinists in the past.

It is a pretty tenuous association too.

Devrim

[Melbourne Lefty]

Obviously to slander people. It is the guilt by association method. Well used by Stalinists in the past.

It is a pretty tenuous association too.

Devrim

Most of the people found guilty by association by Stalinists did tend to be rather tenuous in their connections to the "trotskyite-fascist conspiracy".