Britain - End the Zionist slaughter in Gaza!

[Magdalen]

London

Tuesday 30th December - Thursday 1st January, 2-4pm

Emergency Protest

Israeli Embassy, Kensington High Street
Nearest Tube - Kensington High Street (Turn right out of tube station and walk along the main road.)

Thursday 1st January, 4-5.30pm

Emergency Picket - Victory to the Intifada!

Marks & Spencer, Oxford Street (http://www.revolutionarycommunist.org/vti/m-and-s.html)
Nearest Tube - Marble Arch

Friday 2nd January, 2-4pm

Emergency Protest - Call for Egypt to open the border immediately!

Egyptian Embassy, 26 South Street

Saturday 3rd January, 12.30pm

Demonstration & Rally

Embankment, by Embankment Tube Station

Saturday 3rd January, 6pm

Public Meeting - Hands off Gaza! Victory to the Intifada! (Organised by the CPGB-ML)

Upstairs at the Lucas Arms, 245a Grey's Inn Road

Bristol

Tuesday 30th December - Friday 2nd January, 5-6pm

Emergency Protest

Opposite the Hippodrome

Saturday 3rd January, 2pm

Emergency Protest

Opposite the Hippodrome

Cardiff

Tuesday 30th December, 12-1pm

Emergency Protest

outside Cardiff Market/St John's Church, the Hayes

Shrewsbury

Saturday 3rd January, 2pm

Gaza Peace Vigil

The Square, Shrewsbury Town Centre

Nottingham

Tuesday 30th December, 12 noon

Emergency Protest

Market Square

Southampton

Tuesday 30th December, 12-2pm

Emergency Protest

West Quay Entrance, High Street

Portsmouth

Saturday 3rd January, 11am

Emergency Protest

Guildhall Square

Hull

Saturday 3rd January, 11am

Emergency Protest

Queen Victoria Square

Newcastle

Saturday 3rd January, 12 noon-2pm

Emergency Protest

Grey's Monument

Edinburgh

Tuesday 30th December, 7.30pm

Emergency Meeting to build Scottish solidarity with Gaza

Augustine United Church Centre, King George IV Bridge

Saturday 3rd January, 12 noon

Demonstration & Rally

Foot of the Mound, Princes Street

Glasgow

Tuesday 30th December, 7.30pm

Emergency Meeting to build Scottish solidarity with Gaza

Friends Meeting House, Elmbank Crescent (Near Kings Theatre)

Saturday 3rd January, 12 noon

Emergency Picket

Lloyds TSB, St Vincent Street

Saturday 3rd January, 2pm

Demonstration & Rally

Blytheswood Square

Dundee

Tuesday 30th January, 3pm

Candlelit Vigil - Light 300 candles for the people of Palestine

City Square

[Pogue]

Any estimates on numbers for the parliament square demo? Who was it called by/who is involved? SWP?

[bellyscratch]

Well the one in Newcastle is being organised by Palestinian Solidarity Campaign, Stop the War Coalition and University Friends of Palestine

Details on the Newcastle protest are
Grey's Monument, Saturday 3rd January, 12 noon-2pm

[Magdalen]

Well the one in Newcastle is being organised by Palestinian Solidarity Campaign, Stop the War Coalition and University Friends of Palestine

Details on the Newcastle protest are
Grey's Monument, Saturday 3rd January, 12 noon-2pm

Thanks, I'll add that to the list.

[Pogue]

The London demo is starting at 12;30 at embankmenet by the embankment tube station now.

[Magdalen]

The London demo is starting at 12;30 at embankmenet by the embankment tube station now.

Fixed. Added corrected details of Bristol demo too. Added details of CPGB-ML meeting in London Saturday evening.

Will anyone here be going on the demo in Glasgow this Saturday?

[Magdalen]

http://www.revolutionarycommunist.org/images/newsimages/VTI%20picket%20010109.JPG

This photograph was taken yesterday at the picket of Marks & Spencer in Oxford Street, London.

[benhur]

http://www.revolutionarycommunist.org/images/newsimages/VTI%20picket%20010109.JPG

This photograph was taken yesterday at the picket of Marks & Spencer in Oxford Street, London.

Hope no one takes this the wrong way, but these people take to the streets to protest these things. Fine. If only they take to the streets to also protest the barbaric treatment meted out to women, other issues like terrorism etc., they might gain more sympathy.
EDIT: Just for the record, I sympathize with Muslims and others who're victims of war, imperialism etc. But I don't see the reason to go out of the way to support radical elements that often use this as an excuse to push their reactionary agenda.

[Sam_b]

If only they take to the streets to also protest the barbaric treatment meted out to women, other issues like terrorism etc., they might gain more sympathy.


1. You have no real understanding of anti-imperialism in this sense. There's a plethora of threads kicking about concerning the subject, especially with regards to the question of women. But what i'm thinking is are you merely taking the uneducated line about Islam being inherently 'more oppressive' to women than any other system, and missing the question of female liberation from patriarchy as being as much as a struggle against capitalism? Because if you're going to raise the veil argument its already been destroyed.

2. Terrorism? What terrorism is this, apart from language of the right? The Palestinian people are under siege and have every right to defend themselves. This opinion reeks of first world chauvenism.

I hope to see all the Glasgwegian comrades on the demo today! Victory to the Intifada!

[Post-Something]

I'm so annoyed that I haven't been able to make it to anything lately. I've been stuck in Aberdeen and nothing happens there whatsoever. It would be my first priority if I was in Glasgow. Hopefully there will be something to do when I come back at least...

[benhur]

1. You have no real understanding of anti-imperialism in this sense. There's a plethora of threads kicking about concerning the subject, especially with regards to the question of women. But what i'm thinking is are you merely taking the uneducated line about Islam being inherently 'more oppressive' to women than any other system, and missing the question of female liberation from patriarchy as being as much as a struggle against capitalism?

In Islamic societies, women, non-Muslims and homosexuals are targeted BECAUSE they're women, non-Muslims, homosexuals.:( In capitalism, the exploitation of women doesn't take place in isolation, it's part of the very mechanism to exploit labor, in which women are also caught. Obviously, there's a difference.

Besides, in an exploitative capitalist society, women can go to school, work, drive, drink, date, wear anything they want, do anything they want, hardly similar to the Islamic world. Not that I am defending capitalism, but just pointing out that we must recognize the varying degrees of exploitation.


2. Terrorism? What terrorism is this, apart from language of the right? The Palestinian people are under siege and have every right to defend themselves. This opinion reeks of first world chauvenism.You can replace the word terrorism with any other, the fact remains. Many attacks (by fundamentalist Muslims) on civilians have taken place throughout the world, and I've never seen these people come out and protest. But they come in huge numbers to protest Danish cartoons.:crying: Am I the only one feeling offended by this, that some people consider cartoons to be more important than the human lives that are being lost (so much so hundreds protest the former, but remain silent on the latter)?

From all this, it's obvious that fundamentalists cannot be allies of socialists. As a socialist, I sympathize with other socialists. I just don't see why I must shed tears for religious bigots. These religious bigots take all our help to dislodge existing governments, only to turn against us, as has happened in Iran and other countries. So why trust religious people?:confused:

And if anyone still feels that I am being anti-Muslim, they can f**k off. I am all for defending Muslims, as opposed to supporting fundamentalist religious groups that are exploiting the Muslim plight for their own advantage.

[BobKKKindle$]

In Islamic societies, women, non-Muslims and homosexuals are targeted BECAUSE they're women, non-Muslims, homosexuals.You seem to be suggesting that in all societies where the majority of the population holds Muslim beliefs, the groups you mentioned are subject to total repression and have absolutely no opportunities for participation in public life, in contrast to western states. Although it could be argued that conservatism and repression are more pervasive in Muslim societies, we should also be aware that there are some respects in which women could actually be seen as more liberated than elsewhere - Iran, for example, is widely seen as a theocratic state, and associated with the oppression of women, and yet Iran also has the highest female participation rate for higher education in the entire world, at around 60% of the total student population. In Palestine, women make up a large share of Hamas membership, and women who have been elected as MPs and are now part of the government in Gaza have used their positions to draw attention to issues that women are currently facing, such as honour killings and high rates of unemployment, in order to combine the struggle against Israeli occupation with a struggle against patriarchal oppression. This shows that the status of women in Muslim societies is a more complex issue than you may have been led to believe based on how women living in these societies are presented in the western media. However, neither I nor Sam_b are suggesting that we should ever give uncritical support to an anti-imperialist movement which supports discrimination against women just because they are fighting against imperialism - rather, we should openly criticize all movements, but at the same sime recognize that the struggles these movements are engaged in are progressive because they strike at the heart of the capitalist system and have the potential to remove existing barriers to class struggle, both in countries suffering under the yoke of imperialism, and in imperialist states.


Many attacks (by fundamentalist Muslims) on civilians have taken place throughout the world, and I've never seen these people come out and protest. But they come in huge numbers to protest Danish cartoons.Islamic fundamentalism does not command widespread support amongst the Muslim working class, and contrary to what you suggest, Muslim workers have on many occasions protested against terrorist attacks carried out in the name of Islam. For example, Iran was the first country to hold a candle-lit vigil after the 9/11 attacks, as covered here (http://www.time.com/time/europe/photoessays/vigil/)

In the future, do some reading before you make silly comments. Also, stop using emoticons, it makes you seem even more immature.

[Mister X]

End the reactionary rule of Hamas as well! That would be one of my slogans.
I opened a thread about it here
http://www.revleft.com/vb/futility-terrorism-and-t98360/index.html

but no one seems to care. Pity.

[benhur]

Bob,

There's a wonderful thing called 'paragraph.' Use it once in a while (along with your common sense:), of course), it makes for pleasant reading!

Some questions, so you can clear things up. Do you support these movements, because you believe they're progressive, or simply because they're fighting Israel/US? If the latter, you're no different from capitalists who 'used' Muslim states to fight Soviet Union etc. Do you have so little respect for Muslims that you want to use them? I am not saying you do, but just wondering.

If the former, you haven't provided any evidence as to why you think they're progressive. Far from it, you admit they're more repressive than western societies. Then why would you defend groups/movements that have no socialist goals at all, and instead, harp on religion and superstition all too often? How's that gonna help us?


Iran was the first country to hold a candle-lit vigil after the 9/11 attacks, as covered here (http://www.time.com/time/europe/photoessays/vigil/)

Funny, I also remember Iran wiping out communists.



In the future, do some reading before you make silly comments. Also, stop using emoticons, it makes you seem even more immature.

:D;):lol:

[bellyscratch]

Just got back from the Newcastle protest and it went very well! There's supposed to be another protest in Middlesbrough next Saturday too hopefully :)

[Sam_b]

I'll upload some of my photos from the 2,000 strong Glasgow protest in a minute. But first i'll engage with Benhur's complete drivel.

[I also take great pleasure in writing this wearing my Hezbollah scarf].

Firstly, Benhur takes a ridiculously first-world chauvenist and bourgeois view of the Middle East, playing into the language of the far-right when addressing 'Muslim society' and the like. This is painted and entrenched into a view that everyone who is Muslim in this society is inherently anti-women, anti-LGBT and so on. No distinction is made at all as to those who are ruled and those who are being ruled. One could equally make a statement that because George Bush is Christian, that every Christian is a racist, capitalist, mysogenist......which is of course laughable. The whole idea of talknig of Iran 'wiping out communists' is said with absolutely no hint of irony, or recollection of the disaterous policy of McCarthyism in America either. This says a lot.

Benhur also doesn't seem to think that organisations that are fighting back against murderous regimes and unspeakable oppression from imperialist powers are progressive. Surely fightig against imperialism is progressive in itself? Or would he rather prefer for the populations of the West Bank, of Gaza, of Lebanon, of Iraq to condemn these organisations and sit back and die as US/Israeli/British planes flatten their communities and cut off their supplies? The fact that ordinary working people are taking part in the fightback and calling themselves Hamas or Hezbollah or whatever says something here. Look at Jihad Al-Bina or 'construction struggle', Hezbollah's contruction wing that is rebuilding people's houses, rebuilding roads and allowing medical and aid supplies to get through, and somehow this is not 'progressive'.

Such a view holds absolutely no understanding for the material conditions of where we're talking of. Its all fine and well to talk of only supporting secular and socialist groups in the Middle East when the person writing is not in danger of being shelled any minute when this is happeneing to hundreds and thousands every day. If you were in that position what do you do: do you try to organise socialist groups while doing nothing to combat the aerial bombardments? Do you reject the resistance movement and sit back and die? Or do you fight back? For me the choice is clear here. Building of the left in the Middle East right now is going hand-in-hand with working against the biggest problem right now, and that is what socialists are doing - building the clas struggle where possible whilst uniting under the anti-imperialist movements and organising the resistance to the destruction of their homes, families and lives.

Not for one minute are the anti-imperialists on here syaing that we give unconditional support to Islamist groups. On the contrary, to Hamas, Hezbollah, the Iraqi resistance we give our unconditional critical support to them in the fight against imperialism. Would we do this where imperialism is not a threat? Of course not. The fact of the matter is we oppose the genocide that is happening in Gaza and the West Bank and we give our support to the Palestinian people who democratically elected Hamas to govern and we respect their choice. Their mass support is everywhere to the extent that the people of Gaza are Hamas and are the people who will resist the Israeli forces and they have every right to resist their illegal and murderous occuption.

It saddens me that some so-called 'socialists' would call for the 'end of the reactionary rule of Hamas' where they are the democratically elected voice of the Palestinian people: this is chauvenism at its worst. As Trotsky said 'socialism needs democracy like the human body needs oxygen' and yet some socialists are in favour of going against the democratic voices of Palestine, a country being crippled by imperialist forces! The mind boggles.

The demos today were an excellent show of solidarity with the Palestinian people. Our struggle is their struggle: we are all Palestinians.

[Sam_b]

Photos from today in Glasgow:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v647/Sam_b/03012009006.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v647/Sam_b/03012009003.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v647/Sam_b/03012009005.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v647/Sam_b/03012009004.jpg

[Pogue]

London was fantastic, we did well.

[BobKKKindle$]

Some questions, so you can clear things up. Do you support these movements, because you believe they're progressive, or simply because they're fighting Israel/US?The fact that these movements are fighting against imperialism is what makes them progressive from the viewpoint of the global proletariat. It is not the place of socialists living inside the imperialist bloc to tell people suffering under the yoke of imperialism conducted by our own governments that they should be deprived of their right to resist occupation and establish independent states just because the movements which have arisen from their struggles do not correspond to our abstract ideological and moral expectations. In an ideal world, the fight against imperialism would be led by socialist organizations offering complete and genuine equality to all oppressed groups including women, but in reality, and partly due to the historic failure of the radical left to acknowledge the right to self-determination as a progressive demand, this is not the case, and instead movements exhibiting a mixture of progressive and reactionary ideas have taken the leading role, and command popular support.

However, instead of adopting an idealistic position and refusing to give support until socialist organizations have taken the place of these movements, revolutionary socialists recognize that workers are always going to resist occupation by whatever means necessary due to the human and economic costs of imperialism, and so we support and fight alongside all anti-imperialist movements, even when we have ideological disagreements. The SWP does not limit our position of support to movements fighting against a narrow section of the imperialist bloc as we were one of the only socialist organizations to give military support to the Mujahideen during the Afghan-Soviet conflict, despite the former's association with the USA and fundamentalist ideology. The SWP continues to give support to the Iraqi resistance and Hamas today, in contrast to the rest of the left, with the exception of a small number of other groups, such as the RCG.

As Sam_b has already pointed out, the presentation of movements such as Hamas in the media suggests that a clear distinction can be drawn between these movements and the general population, such that, when Israel or any other imperialist states uses military force, they do so with the intention of fighting against these movements, and specifically the leadership, and not ordinary civilians. In reality, this distinction does not exist. Hamas is a mass political movement which unites multiple sections of Palestinian society and maintains popular support by providing various services such as access to education, and repairing damaged houses. Revealing the mass character of these movements and fighting against misrepresentations spread by pro-imperialist interests is an important political task for revolutionary socialists living inside the imperialist bloc.


Funny, I also remember Iran wiping out communists.This is a separate issue. In your previous post you revealed your prejudices by asserting that Muslims have never protested against fundamentalism. The source provided in my post proved you wrong.

[Devrim]

Such a view holds absolutely no understanding for the material conditions of where we're talking of. Its all fine and well to talk of only supporting secular and socialist groups in the Middle East when the person writing is not in danger of being shelled any minute when this is happeneing to hundreds and thousands every day.

This is moralising, pure and simple. The poster you are arguing against is not wrong because he doesn't live in the Middle East. Neither do you, and neither are you wrong because of it.


If you were in that position what do you do: do you try to organise socialist groups while doing nothing to combat the aerial bombardments? Do you reject the resistance movement and sit back and die? Or do you fight back?

I would say that joining in with the resistance greatly increases the chance of people dying. I would go as far as to say that the survival chance are much slimmer for untrained workers attacking trained Israeli troops than for people hiding in their basements.


The SWP does not limit our position of support to movements fighting against a narrow section of the imperialist bloc as we were one of the only socialist organizations to give military support to the Mujahideen during the Afghan-Soviet conflict, despite the former's association with the USA and fundamentalist ideology.

Remember this is Trotskyist jargon. It means that they did not give military support, but gave political support.


The SWP continues to give support to the Iraqi resistance and Hamas today, in contrast to the rest of the left, with the exception of a small number of other groups, such as the RCG.

Again, this is political support.

Devrim

[Zurdito]

would say that joining in with the resistance greatly increases the chance of people dying. I would go as far as to say that the survival chance are much slimmer for untrained workers attacking trained Israeli troops than for people hiding in their basements.

maybe, but if it is the state of seige and the current onslaught that is killing them, then you can argue that this is a false argument, as it gives them the choice only of a slow death or an immediate death.






Quote:
Originally Posted by BK
The SWP continues to give support to the Iraqi resistance and Hamas today, in contrast to the rest of the left,



This "in contrast to the left" is not really true, at least unless you have a very eurocentric wordlview.

[Wanted Man]

Hope no one takes this the wrong way, but these people take to the streets to protest these things. Fine. If only they take to the streets to also protest the barbaric treatment meted out to women, other issues like terrorism etc., they might gain more sympathy.
EDIT: Just for the record, I sympathize with Muslims and others who're victims of war, imperialism etc. But I don't see the reason to go out of the way to support radical elements that often use this as an excuse to push their reactionary agenda.
What exactly is the problem, ben? That there is a woman with a veil in the picture? Will they get your approval if they exclude all muslims from their actions and add "we also oppose muslims" on their banner?

[Patchd]

Got back from the protest outside the Israeli embassy at about 8pm. Wrote a little bit on the demo and the protest, absolutely appalled at the SWP/Stop the War stewards who were attempting to "calm us down" in support for the police.

Keep in mind that I wrote this for a leftist alliance forum for a game, where a number of the members are also RL activists, so its a lot less "official sounding".


The actual demo started off at around 12:30pm from Embankment tube station, and got to Trafalgar square later. There were mainly Islamists, with chanting in favour of Hezbollah, and Hamas, with prayer mats set out in Trafalgar square. The left turnout was abysmal, it could have been the cold, it could have been because its during university holidays and everyone else is back at home, but I really thought the turnout would be much higher.

From what I could see, there were Socialist Party-CWI, Socialist Workers Party, International Bolshevik Tendency, the Sparts, a few stragglers here and there, and all in all, found about 5 anarchists, one of whom is in the new Liberty & Solidarity split from the AFed. I was sad to not find any IWW or AFed lot around and about. Good turnout though, although it was full of reformism and Islamism. Got to Trafalgar square and didn't think standing in the cold was worth listening to some Labour party tendency, so I fucked off to the nearby pub, which I have to say does a wonderful bitter. Was planning to go home, as I thought the protest would be the same; no action all word.

Luckily for me however, I got on the wrong direction on the tube, so I decided to head to the protest instead of bothering to get off. A lot from the demo I think walked to the embassy, through Hyde Park, or from South Kensington station, I got off at High Street Kensington, a lot of people from the demo around and about.

As I got to the Israeli embassy quite early, I was able to get a front line by the railings. With Islamist chanting to my left and back, and "FREE FREE PALESTINE" to my right, the protest had got underway. There were a lot of police there, although numbers increased as the protest developed. Started out with chanting, I managed to borrow a loudspeaker and got a bloc around to chant "1, 2, 3, 4, Occupation no more, 5, 6, 7, 8, Smash the Israeli state"...I don't think they noticed the libertarian communist sentiment to the chant but hey ho.

We got a lot more pissed off as the police provoked us, began taunting the police back, and occasionally we'd all stir up cos someone hit a pig with a stick and we had to grab him or her back from being grabbed and arrested byt he pigs.

The stewards, which were part of the Stop the War Coalition, a reformist front group for the Socialist Workers Party, were talking to the police and helping them calm down the situation. I remembered being told, "we're here for a peaceful protest against Israel, your fight isn't with the police today, its with Israel" ...which prompted me thinking, why then are the police in front of me with their batons and riot shields out blocking me from "Israel", or at least their embassy. Another show of scabbing from the SWP, well done you ****s.

Luckily for the group though, some young Islamists got angry, and began picking up metal railings penning us in and throwing them at the cops. Here we go, this was when it got fun, we chucked all the barriers around us at the cops by the end, and managed to gain the whole street and get near enough to the gates of the embassy. Riots were called in, with their horses and all, and started hemming us in, a lot of people had begun leaving by now, which is fair enough because we had been there for a few hours, riots moved in closer, and refused to let the rest of us leave. I went to see what the commotion was about round the back, and when I got there saw about 5 riot coppers blocking our way out, so we got some people and started to harass em, forcing them back a bit, and then the riots came round that way and charged us, whacking a few people in the way...dicks. We were running around a bit, and had to get out the way of a charge, I managed to duck a copper's baton lol, but yeh...fun day, and definitely a show of strength in solidarity with the workers in Palestine, and hopefully also a show of whats to come thanks to the economic shitstorm thats round the corner.

All in all, everyone was out or arrested by half 8 pm. The pigs only let out 6 at a time for a long while after they had completely penned us in. An aching, tiring, yet fun day.

Shame about the lack of revolutionary groups, but still; ALL COPPERS ARE BASTARDS!

Some photos from earlier on before me phone died out on me, not much was going on, which gave me time to take 3 photos lol

http://img74.imageshack.us/img74/1810/image010wh1.jpg
http://img74.imageshack.us/img74/1825/image011po1.jpg
http://img160.imageshack.us/img160/7440/image012sc1.jpg

The FIT team were out in force tonight too.

[Sam_b]

Stop the War coalition, a reformist front group for the Socialist Workers Party

Prove these lies.

You have absolutely no idea of how protests seem to work either. Do you think the Stop the War stewards wanted the demo to be less militant? Unfortunately, the stewards have to appear to be 'stewarding' or everyone who organised the demo gets arrested. Stewards are primarily there as communication between the protesters and the cops, and vice-versa. So no, the sterards were not 'scabbing', and you are an idiot.

[Devrim]

maybe, but if it is the state of seige and the current onslaught that is killing them, then you can argue that this is a false argument, as it gives them the choice only of a slow death or an immediate death.

It was in reply to this argument:


If you were in that position what do you do: do you try to organise socialist groups while doing nothing to combat the aerial bombardments? Do you reject the resistance movement and sit back and die? Or do you fight back?

The argument suggests that 'fighting back' is an alternative to 'sitting back and dying'. I merely point out that it is more likely to cause death.

Devrim

[Patchd]

You have absolutely no idea of how protests seem to work either. Do you think the Stop the War stewards wanted the demo to be less militant? Unfortunately, the stewards have to appear to be 'stewarding' or everyone who organised the demo gets arrested. Stewards are primarily there as communication between the protesters and the cops, and vice-versa. So no, the sterards were not 'scabbing', and you are an idiot.
Oh fuck off, they were there telling me that this was a peaceful demo, while not that far away from me, people were being hit with batons. They were going around pushing back the crowd that was veering towards the police.


Unfortunately, the stewards have to appear to be 'stewarding' or everyone who organised the demo gets arrested.
"Do you think the Stop the War stewards wanted the demo to be less militant?"

Getting arrested, I'm afraid that happens sometimes, you know, if you actually confront capitalism in a militant fashion. Sometimes when you do it peacefully too, surprising huh? Of course we don't want people arrested, but if they are there, and angry, and are willing to confront the state militantly, to get in the way and attempt a complete calming down of the situation (which is what it very much looked like) so "people won't get arrested" is a load of balls, we took the risk of arrest when the cops started getting hit with sticks and the fences started getting thrown at them.

...so yes, I think the StWC did want a "peaceful" demo, and wanted to screw over any militancy which might take the spotlight away from them. Your org pretty much screwed over militant direct action for "peace". Get real, I don't need to prove it much further, your party's association with Respect a few years back was the most evident. Direct Debit first, "revolution" second, amirite? :thumbup1::lol:

[Sam_b]

:rolleyes: Stop the War isn't there to 'confront capitalism'. But then its typical for a sctarian like yourself to want STW banned by the police from holding any other demos, eh? Do what you like on demos - more power to you. But don't for a second try to implicate people and organisations who do not wish to be arrested for it. The people I know that organised the Glasgow demo have been up for the past four days getting it sorted (it looked like for a while the police were going to refuse to permit it) and nobody on that demo wanted them to be arrested. You don't like it? Then go and organise your own demo and resistance and stop sniding at Stop the War for the failings of your own movement.



Stop the War coalition, a reformist front group for the Socialist Workers Party


Now fancy proving these lies? Or did your other anarchist buddies tell you to say that?

[Patchd]

:rolleyes: Stop the War isn't there to 'confront capitalism'.
As "revolutionaries" they should have still been taking a militant role, if it isn't there to "confront capitalism", then I take it that;

"1. The aim of the Coalition should be very simple: to stop the war currently declared by the United States and its allies against 'terrorism'."

...right, so which part of this meant that they would oppose angry young (and old) protestors from conducting militant actions?


But then its typical for a sctarian like yourself to want STW banned by the police from holding any other demos, eh?

Yes, I explicitly said that...where?:confused:
I don't want the police to "ban" any party, I want it to be the responsibility of the working class to decide that for themselves, and while we don't have control of society, we should do that militantly.

And sectarian? Fair enough, I don't have a big problem with most other Trotskyist organisations. But I don't care if I'm being sectarian against a party or popular front that tries to calm down a perfectly good militant protest, even one which they may have organised.


Do what you like on demos - more power to you. But don't for a second try to implicate people and organisations who do not wish to be arrested for it.

...they can leave at any time, and in fact, many people remained, until they got too cold or bored at the lack of action. Don't like militant action? Don't call for protests or demos which are likely to lead to some shit.


You don't like it? Then go and organise your own demo and resistance and stop sniding at Stop the War for the failings of your own movement.
Rather than the betrayal by yours? Don't call yourselves revolutionaries and then work with an organisation that doesn't realise capitalism as the main enemy and works with the state to keep the peace.

[Sam_b]

As "revolutionaries" they should have still been taking a militant role, if it isn't there to "confront capitalism", then I take it that;

Stop the War isn't a revolutionary organisation. Not all its members are socialist/communist/anarchist. You misunderstand its politics.


...right, so which part of this meant that they would oppose angry young (and old) protestors from conducting militant actions?

The Glasgow demo had a militant nature. That was good, and what we wanted.


Yes, I explicitly said that...where?
I don't want the police to "ban" any party, I want it to be the responsibility of the working class to decide that for themselves, and while we don't have control of society, we should do that militantly.

If the stewards on an organised demo don't adhere to the police then organisations subsequent marches are banned by police. Also, the organisations are liable for heavy fines. I wouldn't want Stop the War to go bankrupt as they do a hell of a lot of good work. Yet you somehow are deriding the stewards for being 'scabs'. Not only does it seem you misunderstand the use of the word, but also you don't understand what has to be done in order for such demos to go ahead.


Don't call yourselves revolutionaries and then work with an organisation that doesn't realise capitalism as the main enemy and works with the state to keep the peace.

Again, Stop the War is not an anti-capitalist organisation.

However, i'll ask you for a third time:


Stop the War coalition, a reformist front group for the Socialist Workers Party

fancy proving these lies?

[benhur]

The fact that these movements are fighting against imperialism is what makes them progressive from the viewpoint of the global proletariat.

Obviously, we seem to have a problem with the definition itself, so further arguments are immaterial in this regard. You're of the view that any group that 'fights' imperialism is progressive, meaning even those like taliban that believes in sharia laws, stoning etc. are progressive. Goes on to show that your definition of the word 'progressive' only makes us look ridiculous. Enough said.


This is a separate issue. In your previous post you revealed your prejudices by asserting that Muslims have never protested against fundamentalism. The source provided in my post proved you wrong.

You provided one link, and that proves me wrong, wow!:D Did it ever occur to you that there are hundreds of links on google/youtube, which also show the opposite, namely muslims shouting and showing banners that read: islam will rule the world, death to non-muslims etc. etc.? So what good is your so-called refutation?

[Sam_b]

Benhur, fancy taking up some of my arguments yet? I feel i've broken down your analysis pretty effieciently in the previous page.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

There were at least 50,000 on the march, which was excellent given the fact that it was only announced three days earlier.

Comrades can see my pictures of the London demonstration here:

http://flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/

[They are in reverse order.]

Here's one of a tiny section of the march looking west toward the Houses of Parliament along the Embankment:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3054/3166066062_16f72002db_b.jpg

Here are some others:

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1395/3165246999_ebdecc1a0c_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3192/3166088222_cffcb97623_b.jpg

[Devrim]

This is a separate issue. In your previous post you revealed your prejudices by asserting that Muslims have never protested against fundamentalism. The source provided in my post proved you wrong.You provided one link, and that proves me wrong, wow!:D Did it ever occur to you that there are hundreds of links on google/youtube, which also show the opposite, namely muslims shouting and showing banners that read: islam will rule the world, death to non-muslims etc. etc.? So what good is your so-called refutation?

It is difficult to know where to start with this, so I will start with some facts. About two and a half years ago, there were massive demonstrations in Turkey* against fundamentalism and in defence of secularism:


The Republic Protests (Turkish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_language): Cumhuriyet Mitingleri) were a series of peaceful mass rallies that took place in Turkey (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkey) in the spring of 2007 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007) in support of the Kemalist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kemalist_ideology) ideal of state secularism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_secularism).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protect_your_Republic_Protest_(Turkey)

Of course there are always disagreements about numbers at demonstrations, but it was claimed that there were 2,000,000 in İzmir, 1,500,000 in Ankara, and 1,000,000 in İstanbul**.

'Benhur' seems to be suggesting that all people from a Muslim*** background are reactionaries. To be quite honest, this is an absolutely reactionary position itself that starts from the premise that between 1 and 1.8 billion people are reactionary religious fanatics. To be quite honest, If I thought about a quarter of the world were right wing fanatics for whom there was no hope, it wouldn't leave me very optomistic about the prospects for socialism.

If you like I could give many more examples of Muslims protesting against fundementalism though I hope that four and a half million people last year will prove that it can happen on occasion.

Devrim

*My mentioning of these demonstrations does not imply support for them. It merely mentions that they happened. In fact they were manipulated by the nationalist agenda.
**These are the highest figures I have seen and are disputed. Nevertheless there must have been a lot of people there for these claims to even be made.
***I use the word Muslim differently from many people on here. I use it to mean somebody who believes (one who submits), and not someone who happened to be born to parents who believed.

[Wanted Man]

Interesting pictures. There was a demo in Amsterdam as well, although I couldn't attend it myself. Report and pics here: http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2009/01/417106.html

The usual establishment figures who happen to support Palestine were there, including Gretta Duisenberg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gretta_Duisenberg) and Socialist Party MP Harry_van_Bommel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_van_Bommel). Interestingly, even the reformist MP Van Bommel had no qualms with joining the chant: "Intifada, Intifada, Free Palestine!" for which he predictably caught a lot of flak from right-wing media (maybe benhur here can whine about it some more).

Some moron with an Israeli flag showed up, but it found a good use: http://www.dumpert.nl/mediabase/350291/4b73ff56/isra_lische_vlag_tijdens_demonstratie_amsterdam.ht ml

In Antwerp, Belgium, the pigs weren't going to take any shit: anyone planning to go to the square was turned away or arrested, as was anyone with a Palestinian scarf or pro-Palestine banners. Clearly, the free west is also enjoying Israeli-style democracy.

[Marion]

Stop the War coalition, a reformist front group for the Socialist Workers Party


Prove these lies.

I have a very good idea how the STWC used to work in the area I used to live in and it was fairly common knowledge after a couple of years (and seemingly led to a couple of fairly influential people leaving) that the SWP members would vote in a bloc depending on what was discussed at their local meetings. I'm pretty sure that this would have been replicated elsewhere (if SWP members didn't share a view on Iraw what was the point?) but I wouldn't know if it was effective elsewhere or not.

Personally, I don't really care as I don't agree with the SWP or StWC or any of the groups involved in it so I don't really have an axe to grind either way.

[Sam_b]

I have a very good idea how the STWC used to work in the area I used to live in and it was fairly common knowledge after a couple of years (and seemingly led to a couple of fairly influential people leaving) that the SWP members would vote in a bloc depending on what was discussed at their local meetings. I'm pretty sure that this would have been replicated elsewhere (if SWP members didn't share a view on Iraw what was the point?) but I wouldn't know if it was effective elsewhere or not.

That doesn't prove that its a front in any sense of the word. Of course, as SWP members we will vote on what direction we would like to see the organisation go, and we would share the same opinions after a lengthy debate. The CPGB do the same thing.

[welshboy]

Sam_b you're talking mince. Everyone knows that the Splitters and Wreckers Party flood meetings in order to gain control over initiatives like the StWC.
It is also painfully obvious the SWP/StWC stewards are there to contain any militancy shown by the crowd.
The demonstration in Glasgow was NOT militant in the slightest. (I'm not blaming this on the SWP by the way). All demonstrations in Glasgow that are negotiated with the police are neutered from the offset. The demo assembled hidden away marched quickly across a shopping street and then went to a rally hidden away.
There is no need to negotiate with the police at any point, ever. The SWP only do so in order to assume some form of authority over the rest of the demo. They feel that negotiating with the cops gives them some form of legitimacy. Also if their is any militant action from the demonstration they then get to wail "but we'll get arrested!". Tough! You shouldn't have talked to the cops then should you!!!
If you look at Brighton no-one there, not even the Quakers, negotiates with the police. This is due to the Smash-EDO demo's showing that it is not necessary.
Fuck the SWP, the sooner it dies the better for the left.

[Sam_b]

Sam_b you're talking mince. Everyone knows that the Splitters and Wreckers Party flood meetings in order to gain control over initiatives like the StWC

Oh dear...so you're saying that socialist parties shouldn't throw their weight behind anti-war initiatives? Thats really scraping the bottom of the barrel to find reasons that STW is an SWP front.


It is also painfully obvious the SWP/StWC stewards are there to contain any militancy shown by the crowd.

So you think that the stewards should do nothing, resulting in no more Stop the War protests, massive fines for the organisation and arrests of the office bearers? Nice.


The demonstration in Glasgow was NOT militant in the slightest

I disagree. I thought the level of politics on the march and anti-imperialist rehtoric made it much more militant than other demos the city has experienced. Unfortunately groups like STW are going to have to to some degree open dialogues with the police or else we wouldn't be allowed to organise. I'm sure you agree that a 2,000 strong solidarity demo is better than no demo.

[Marion]

I disagree. I thought the level of politics on the march and anti-imperialist rehtoric made it much more militant than other demos the city has experienced. Unfortunately groups like STW are going to have to to some degree open dialogues with the police or else we wouldn't be allowed to organise. I'm sure you agree that a 2,000 strong solidarity demo is better than no demo.

I can't comment on the Glasgow march (having only read an article on Indymedia Scotland about it), but I was at the Edinburgh march and didn't think all that much of it at all. The politics expressed did not seem to be much more than fairly open Palestinian nationalism and, even if you accept that particular viewpoint, some of the chants just did not make sense. I don't really think that "no demo" would have been that much worse as an option and any "militancy" would have been self-indulgent activism at best.

[Sam_b]

I don't really think that "no demo" would have been that much worse as an option and any "militancy" would have been self-indulgent activism at best.

Total nonsense and lazy activism. If anything the demo was a message of solidarity to the Palestinian people and the Palestinian community who live in Scotland.

If you have problems with the militancy on the demo then it is your job to try and make it more so. Simple as that.

[Patchd]

But your stewards try to stop us from making it more militant. I'll reply to the rest of your post from before when I'm not baked.

[Pogue]

Anyone who was at any of the demos will know militancy was high.

[Patchd]

Anyone who was at any of the demos will know militancy was high.
Yeah, exactly, thanks more to the muslim youth, and no thanks to the stewards.

[Pogue]

Yeah, exactly, thanks more to the muslim youth, and no thanks to the stewards.

What in your opinion did the stewards do wrong?

[Sam_b]

What in your opinion did the stewards do wrong?

Exactly the question. Does Palachinov want Stop the War organised protests to stop becuase there are no stewards?

Like it or not. there needs to be stewarding at these events, and yes it is to appease the police because otherwise they will be shut down. Stop the War have got hundreds and thousands to march in the streets in the past few years, which is more than any autonomous action has.

[Magdalen]

Total nonsense and lazy activism. If anything the demo was a message of solidarity to the Palestinian people and the Palestinian community who live in Scotland.

If you have problems with the militancy on the demo then it is your job to try and make it more so. Simple as that.

The rally at the end was a joke, it took place in an empty square, in the middle of nowhere, and was dominated by voices totally unrepresentative of the make-up of the protest and out of sync with the crowd. There were far too many speeches with far too little militancy, with Labour, SNP and Lib Dem politicians given pride of place to pronounce their hollow calls of condemnation. Mick Napier's speech, which was by far the most militant, calling for complete solidarity with Palestine and naming the Hamas resistance as the real voice of the Palestinian people, was clearly the most popular with the crowd. The Green councillor who called for protests against a the Scottish company involved in the construction of the apartheid wall, and the SWP member who called for 'a new intifada around the world' were also well received.

This clearly demonstrated, to put it simply: people are attracted by militancy, not by the hypocritical representatives of the ruling class. Some of the speeches were ridiculous in their absurdity. The representative of the STUC claimed that her organisation were considering a boycott of Israel, while at the same time announcing without a hint of scorn that STUC representatives would be meeting with Histadrut in Israel to discuss this. Histadrut, the Israeli trade union federation, is actively involved in the construction of settlements in the West Bank, and has been described as the 'executive arm of the Zionist movement'.

Other than a fundraising dinner, no future actions were announced, with the exception of a call for protesters to get themselves to London and Strasbourg for the G20 and NATO summits respectively later this year. This isn't the way to build a movement lads.

[Sam_b]

This clearly demonstrated, to put it simply: people are attracted by militancy, not by the hypocritical representatives of the ruling class. Some of the speeches were ridiculous in their absurdity. The representative of the STUC claimed that her organisation were considering a boycott of Israel, while at the same time announcing without a hint of scorn that STUC representatives would be meeting with Histadrut in Israel to discuss this. Histadrut, the Israeli trade union federation, is actively involved in the construction of settlements in the West Bank, and has been described as the 'executive arm of the Zionist movement'.


I agree.

But future actions were announed (tonight's rally for example, with maybe 200 there), and now there ar eplans for a national demo on Saturday in Edinburgh at 12. Buses will be leaving Glasgow at 10:30 - PM me for details about where the bus will depart etc, which I will have tomorrow.

[Marion]

Total nonsense and lazy activism. If anything the demo was a message of solidarity to the Palestinian people and the Palestinian community who live in Scotland.

If you have problems with the militancy on the demo then it is your job to try and make it more so. Simple as that.

That's where we disagree. If you're interested in vague concepts of "solidarity to the Palestinian people" (namely supporting Palestinian nationalism) and nothing to do with class struggle then fair enough, but I'm not. Given that (and here's where you misunderstand my post), I don't actually have a problem with the existence or not of any "militancy" on the demo as I think its completely meaningless and so have no interest in making the demo more "militant" or not. As stated earlier, I think the call to make the demo more "militant" is merely a sign of the search for "activism" with no coherent analysis behind it.

PS I think a sign of this search for the most "activist" response and the poor politics it leads to is clear in the reference to the positive response to Mick Napier's comments about Hamas.

[Pogue]

Exactly the question. Does Palachinov want Stop the War organised protests to stop becuase there are no stewards?

Like it or not. there needs to be stewarding at these events, and yes it is to appease the police because otherwise they will be shut down. Stop the War have got hundreds and thousands to march in the streets in the past few years, which is more than any autonomous action has.

It was me who posted that not Palachinov, your quote says Palachinov.

[Magdalen]

I agree.

But future actions were announed (tonight's rally for example, with maybe 200 there), and now there are plans for a national demo on Saturday in Edinburgh at 12. Buses will be leaving Glasgow at 10:30 - PM me for details about where the bus will depart etc, which I will have tomorrow.

There's very little going through in Dundee at the moment. There's been talk of a march in Dundee on Saturday, but it's quite possible that will be canceled if there's a national demo on in Edinburgh. 'Tayside for Justice in Palestine', the new campaigning group which has been organised round here, is holding a meeting on Wednesday night, so hopefully that should shed some light as to what is actually going on.

[Pogue]

I agree.

But future actions were announed (tonight's rally for example, with maybe 200 there), and now there ar eplans for a national demo on Saturday in Edinburgh at 12. Buses will be leaving Glasgow at 10:30 - PM me for details about where the bus will depart etc, which I will have tomorrow.

Sam come down to London with us, we could have used a hardened revlefter on saturday past, not that we didnt do exceedingly well but you know, the more the merrier :D

Come on, its only about 8 hours by train!

[Sam_b]

Sam come down to London with us, we could have used a hardened revlefter on saturday past, not that we didnt do exceedingly well but you know, the more the merrier http://www.revleft.com/vb/britain-end-zionist-p1324463/revleft/smilies/biggrin.gif

Come on, its only about 8 hours by train!

Funny that, I was due to be going down to London for SWP conference, but i've decided to stay and build the Edinburgh demo. Stop the War's gonna be all hands on deck, and with many SWP comrades having to go to conference we'll need people up here as well.

Maybe next time ;)


I think a sign of this search for the most "activist" response and the poor politics it leads to is clear in the reference to the positive response to Mick Napier's comments about Hamas

Mick Napier's politics are generally pish, but on Hamas he was spot on. Do you disagree with the Palestinian people's right to democratically elect Hamas, and to fight back against occupation?

[welshboy]

I disagree with Hamas shutting down colleges, firing female teachers and petrol bombing internet cafe's.
The SWP's support for Hamas is disgusting.

[Sam_b]

I disagree with Hamas shutting down colleges, firing female teachers and petrol bombing internet cafe's.

So do I. Whats your point?

[welshboy]

oops, just to correct.
Hamas expelled female students. There's very fucking progressive eh Sam?

[welshboy]

The point is your party supports this group.

[Devrim]

The point is your party supports this group.

Don't worry, it is only critical unconditional military support, which translated from Trotskyist speak means political support.

Devrim

[welshboy]

Ah right, that's OK then. :D

[Magdalen]

oops, just to correct.
Hamas expelled female students. There's very fucking progressive eh Sam?

I've met a female Hamas councillor from Nablus in the West Bank, who was adamant about the importance of education for the Palestinian people. Can you provide some evidence of these allegations?

[Sam_b]

I think its a lot more 'progressive' that Welshboy seems to support imperialism over the Palestinian people's right to defence.

[welshboy]

Where exactly do I support imperialism?
I love the way that criticising sexist, homophobic organisations makes me a supporter of imperialism. You have no answer to my criticism so like all of your kind you rerteat to hissing that your detractors are somehow supporting imperialism/zionism.
You sicken me.

Can't find sources atm with regards to the expelling of female students.
Though it happened at a number of places including Al-Azhar university back at the end of last March. I'll hopefully have sources, most likely in Arabic, once the power is more regular in sothern Gaza.

[bellyscratch]

Funny that, I was due to be going down to London for SWP conference, but i've decided to stay and build the Edinburgh demo. Stop the War's gonna be all hands on deck, and with many SWP comrades having to go to conference we'll need people up here as well.

Maybe next time

Right, so the SWP conference is on the same day as the national demo? This has made some things make sense now! I'd rather not expand on this as I want to make sure I get my facts right, but theres been something dodgy going on in my area I think.

[Sam_b]

Where exactly do I support imperialism?
I love the way that criticising sexist, homophobic organisations makes me a supporter of imperialism. You have no answer to my criticism so like all of your kind you rerteat to hissing that your detractors are somehow supporting imperialism/zionism.
You sicken me.

How else to explain the fact that you are first to criticise one of the vehicles that the Palestinian people ar eusing to resist, without once so far criticise Israeli imperialism. So you will criticise Hamas first, and imperialism second.

Do you object to the Palestinians resisting imperialism? Or are you going to criticise them first because they are using Hamas as their banner?

[welshboy]

Oh gtfo Sam.
This is a left wing discussion forum, why the fuck would I criticise Israel here? That would just be empty rhetoric and political masturbation.
It goes without saying that the actions of the state of Israel are disgusting as is the apartheid that it propagates.
Are you really that much of a political imbecile to believe that I actually support Zionism being as I am critical of Hamas? Muppet.
Your narrow analysis of the situation of the middle east is pathetic. State of Israel = Bad means Hamas = Good? Tosh!
I do criticise the Israeli state but see no need to preach to the choir.
I am criticising Hamas and I am criticising the SWP for its uncritical support of them.

[Sam_b]

Question still stands. Are you going to criticise the Palestinian people who are getting massacred and their right to use Hamas as a method of resistance?

[welshboy]

Am I going to criticise mysogyny, anti-semitism and anti-working class activities?
Well yes.

[Patchd]

Question still stands. Are you going to criticise the Palestinian people who are getting massacred and their right to use Hamas as a method of resistance?
This isn't about "rights", its who you side with, Islamic nationalists, the state of Israel, or neither, but instead the working class of both nations against the bourgeoisie of both.

Would I criticise the individual members in Hamas, probably not, there are numerous reasons why they would join Hamas, would I back Hamas as the only alternative in Palestine, no, why would I when our choice isn't limited to Hamas or Israel?

[BobKKKindle$]

Am I going to criticise mysogyny, anti-semitism and anti-working class activities?There is not a single person in the SWP or any other Trotskyist organization who supports everything Hamas does. We recognize that Hamas is not a revolutionary organization despite its mass support base, and so the overthrow of capitalism cannot take place until the Palestinian working class rejects Hamas and creates its own revolutionary party. However, there are two important points to be made. Firstly, the accusations that you and other hostile commentators have made - that Hamas is anti-semitic, that Hamas is completely opposed to the liberation of women with no progressive features or policies whatsoever - are simplistic and fail to acknowledge the reality of political life in Gaza. These issues have already been addressed in other threads. Secondly, and more importantly, the population of Gaza is currently facing an invasion conducted by Israel, a state which has consistently refused to respect the basic rights of the Palestinian people and other peoples throughout the region, backed by the most powerful military giant in the entire world. In this context, do we recognize the right of Palestinians to resist, even if the resistance effort involves Hamas, or do we refuse solidarity because most Palestinians are not dedicated socialists?


would I back Hamas as the only alternative in Palestine,The SWP does not believe that Hamas is the only alternative. It is not our place to tell the people of Gaza how they should organize against Israel - the best we can do is support the resistance effort and call for the creation of a socialist party to take the place of Hamas as the leading section of the resistance.

[Sam_b]

The SWP opposes the Hamas leadership. Our support lies with the Palestinian people who are using Hamas to resist. Like the working class people of Lebanon who mobilised under Hezbollah to defeat the Israelis two years ago. Stop avoiding the question.


Are you going to criticise the Palestinian people who are getting massacred and their right to use Hamas as a method of resistance?

[BobKKKindle$]

A point needs to be made clear here - Trotskyists do not support struggles against national oppressed due to abstract moral principles which are entirely divorced from the material conditions and experiences of the working class. Instead, our position is based strategic analysis, in particular the need to overcome ideological barriers which impede the development of class consciousness by turning workers of different countries against each other. This is addressed in one of my own posts here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1323625&postcount=48) and in greater detail in this essay:

Alex Callinicos - Marxism and the National Question (http://www.marxists.de/theory/callinicos/natquest.htm)

[Marion]

Secondly, and more importantly, the population of Gaza is currently facing an invasion conducted by Israel, a state which has consistently refused to respect the basic rights of the Palestinian people and other peoples throughout the region, backed by the most powerful military giant in the entire world. In this context, do we recognize the right of Palestinians to resist, even if the resistance effort involves Hamas, or do we refuse solidarity because most Palestinians are not dedicated socialists?

The main point is that the most important "solidarity" is not simply tailgating whatever crap some of the Palestinian people choose to support but being critical about the options open to the Palestinian working class. Palestinians may well have some recognised right to resist in international law but that does not automatically mean the form of this resistance is appropriate.


The SWP does not believe that Hamas is the only alternative. It is not our place to tell the people of Gaza how they should organize against Israel - the best we can do is support the resistance effort and call for the creation of a socialist party to take the place of Hamas as the leading section of the resistance.

Of course it is our place to tell people of Gaza how we feel they should organise (although I wouldn't be talking about organising "against Israel" - not a very good choice of words I think). It doesn't necessarily mean we're always correct or that we can't learn something from struggles elsewhere, but it certainly means that we shouldn't tailgate any nonsense in the idea of anti-imperialism.

[welshboy]

I have shown, and do show solidarity with all oppressed working class people.
To uncritically support either secular or non-secular organisations is not productive and leads to forming the most unhealthy of associations with the shadyest of organisations. As we have seen with the SWP cosying up to mysogynyst and anti-semitic groups. It also leads to complete political retardation when, as has been displayed adequately on this board, people begin to equate criticism of mysogyny and anti-semitism as either pro-imperialist or islamaphobic.
It is perfectly possible to stand and act in solidarity with the Palestinian people without supporting bourgeousie political parties that act as the oppressor of those they claim to be liberating.
Or would the SWP claim that Anarchists against the wall are supporting imperialism or that Jews for a Just Peace are propagating zionism?
What about the secular agents of resistance in Palestine? Are they islamaphobic? Propping up imperialism or spreading zionism?
I've said it before and I'll say it again, muppets.

[Devrim]

Welshboy, I think that there is an important point hidden in amongst the SWP's comments:


A point needs to be made clear here - Trotskyists do not support struggles against national oppressed due to abstract moral principles which are entirely divorced from the material conditions and experiences of the working class.

It seems to me that your opposition to HAMAS rests on the idea that it is 'sexist and homophobic', which it undoubtedly is by the way. I don't think that this is at the crux of the problem. Does this mean that if the national struggle in Gaza was led by a less 'sexist and homophobic' organisation then you would support it? If for example Fatah had, by some accident of history, ended up in control of Gaza, or if this attack had been taking place against the West Bank, would you have then supported the Fatah led resistance?

The communist left does not support Fatah, nor the resistance. We understand that many feel uncomfortable supporting such reactionary organisations as HAMAS. That, however, is not the reason that we take this position. We reject national movements because they call on workers to abandon their own independent positions, and mobelise workers to kill other working class people in the name of national defence.

For us, this is not some interesting little part of socialist theory. In our opinion those who are calling on the working class to die in defence of Palestine are exactly as reactionary as those supporting the Israeli's right to protect themselves from terrorists. It is a rejection of class politics in the name of calling for workers do die for the nation.

To conclude, we don't reject HAMAS because they are 'homophobic'. We reject them because they are playing there part in dragging the working class into imperialist slaughter.

Devrim

[Devrim]

Question still stands. Are you going to criticise the Palestinian people who are getting massacred and their right to use Hamas as a method of resistance?

I will answer the question. Firstly for socialists it is certainly not a question of 'national rights'. It is an utterly bourgeois concept. It is an idea which has its roots in the bourgeois revolutions, and was further developed by US foreign policy. The fact that it still held resonance within the communist movement is a testament to the strength of the influence of bourgeois ideology upon it.

Again with the question of 'their right to use Hamas as a method of resistance'. Their 'rights' are not a question that concern socialists. Hamas is the leading force in the resistance in Gaza, and many workers are turning to it. We will leave the bleating about whether they have a right to do this or not to the liberals.

Secondly for us as socialists it is not a question of what the Palestinian people do. As a human being one feels empathy with all of the victims of the Israeli attack on Gaza. As socialists we are concered with the working class. There is very little talk of the working class on this thread, and even less of it is coming from the SWP. That is understandable. The working class is imensly weak in Gaza, so much so that, in our opinion, in struggles to exert itself in any political way whatsoever.

There can be different responses to this weakness. The firstone chosen by our current is to recognise it, to realise that the working class is not in a position to assert itself in Israel and Palestine today. It is not capable of acting in its own interests.

The response of the leftists is different. They see that there is some great heroic struggle going on here. They see, in the rallying of workers to the calls of national defence, some great victory.

We don't. We see so-called socialsts calling on workers to die on behalf of the nation. We saw this with social democracy in 1914, and Trotskyism in 1940. Undoubtedly we will see it again, which does not, however, make it any less shameful.

Are we going to 'criticise' the Palestinian people? No, not at all. We are not even trying to address the Palestinian people. The people who we want to address are Palestinian workers. To them we say; You have no interest in dying for your bosses.

The international statement our our current of this issue can be found here:
http://en.internationalism.org/icconline/2009/01/gaza

Devrim

[welshboy]

I agree with you Devrim, my criticism is not entirely based around Hamas being homophobic, sexist and anti-semitic. I oppose all calls for the working class to organise in ways that deny its international nature and set our class against one another.
I am criticising the SWP here for their move closer and closer to supporting out and out antisemitism and Islamic fundamentalism. Hamas is both of these things and the swappies support for them is vile for these reasons amongst others.
For the record I do not support secular nationalism any more than I support non-secular nationalism, zionism or imperialism.

[Devrim]

I am criticising the SWP here for their move closer and closer to supporting out and out antisemitism and Islamic fundamentalism. Hamas is both of these things and the swappies support for them is vile for these reasons amongst others.

Yes, I agree. It is despicable.

Devrim

[Sam_b]

Where has the SWP uncritically supported Hamas?
And we have prominent members of Jews for A Just Peace in our organisation, so don't pull that card.

At the end of the day, you don't support the Palestinian people's use of organisations to resist. That is despicable and plays into the hands of imperialism. Well done.

[Devrim]

At the end of the day, you don't support the Palestinian people's use of organisations to resist. That is despicable and plays into the hands of imperialism. Well done.

Again, no mention of class. What is this amorphous 'people'? I thought that Marxists believed that society was divided into different classes, and that they had fundamentally opposed interests. It appears that Sam believes that the this is not the case, and that there are interests of the Palestinian 'people'. Actually, we are all aware what the interests of the 'people' or the national community are. They are always those of the ruling class.

What advantage does firing rockets at Israel bring to Palestinian workers? What advantage do workers gain from being killed in the streets by the Israeli army?

This is a massacre. There is no class response possible in Gaza because the working class is too weak to make any response.

Imperialism does not mean the foreign policy of the US, or Israel. It is a world system, and the Palestinians are being used as pawns by local powers. There can be no defeat of imperialism in Gaza. The only thing that can defeat imperialism is the working class struggling for its own interests.

The most that the leftists even hope for in Gaza is a slight change in the balance of power in the Middle East. Even worse though, they are lying to themselves as they must know in their hearts that this is not going to happen.

The only way that an independent Palestinian state can come about is as part of a major redivision of imperialist power, and that, at the moment, is not on the agenda.

...And even if it were on the agenda, it could only be so as a puppet of some imperialist power.

And the left tell workers that they should die for this.

Devrim

[welshboy]

Where? In that 20p shit rag you were punting on Sunday.
Still not got a decent response to my criticisms no?

[Devrim]

Where has the SWP uncritically supported Hamas?


Whether support is 'critical' or 'uncritical' only matters to Trotskyists, mainly because they are embarrassed about what anti-working class reactionaries they support and want to distance themselves a little from them.

Support is support.

Devrim

[Pogue]

Funny that, I was due to be going down to London for SWP conference, but i've decided to stay and build the Edinburgh demo. Stop the War's gonna be all hands on deck, and with many SWP comrades having to go to conference we'll need people up here as well.

Maybe next time ;)



Mick Napier's politics are generally pish, but on Hamas he was spot on. Do you disagree with the Palestinian people's right to democratically elect Hamas, and to fight back against occupation?

When the revolution happens come down here in the recently acquired working class train network then. Devrim can come too, on Proletairlines from Turkey, and we can collectively throw our anarchist, Trotskyist and Left-Communist bricks at the windows of the pig station in the class war, then go sit down and argue about whose right later. :D

[BobKKKindle$]

You seem to be missing the most important point here, Devrim. In almost every country which has faced attack by an imperialist power, workers have fought as part of anti-imperialist movements such as Hamas, not necessarily because they are under the influence of nationalist ideology and fail to acknowledge their own class interests as being separate from those of the bourgeoisie and other classes, but because imperialism always strikes at the interests of workers in the most destructive and violent way possible - the embargo against Gaza has resulted in high rates of unemployment, shortages of basic items such as food, and a range of other social and economic problems which have already been discussed elsewhere. The most recent invasion has already led to the deaths of large numbers of civilians, many of whom were hiding in buildings they thought would not be targeted by the Israeli military, such that "hiding" is not an option. Given this situation, combined with the historic suffering of the Palestinian people at the hands of the Israeli state, and popular support for the invasion within Israel, it is unlikely that calls for fraternization will be listened to, and consequently the workers of Palestine are resisting, as they have done for many years.

The most important fact we have to be aware of is that there is a resistance struggle in Gaza, and workers are participating in the resistance. How should socialists respond to this reality? If socialists refuse to support the resistance effort and fight alongside anti-imperialist movements on the grounds that it will lead to needless bloodshed and divide the working class on the basis of nationality, Palestinians are still going to resist, for the reasons described above, but because there is no socialist organization willing to take up the fight and recognize their right to resist imperialism, they will be more likely to turn to movements which reflect the class interests of the bourgeoisie and promote reactionary ideas - such as Hamas. For this reason, socialists inside Palestine must, in order to gain working class support, be part of the resistance, and promote the right of the Palestinian people to determine their own future. At the same time, if socialists inside Israel refuse to support the resistance effort, regardless of whether it is led by Hamas or any other movement, there will be no way to break the national chauvinism of Jewish workers, and so an international class struggle encompassing the whole of the Levant will remain impossible, as Jewish workers will still be ideologically tied to the Israeli state.

[welshboy]

So you support Hamas why?

[Sam_b]

Where? In that 20p shit rag you were punting on Sunday.
Still not got a decent response to my criticisms no?

The second sentence is important here. The fact is you have no real argument accept for veiled accusations of the SWP being antisemitic that, let's be honest, you have no nerve to actually overtly say.

Show me exactly where the SWP has said that it offers uncritical support to Hamas. We have never said the future post-imperialism lies with Hamas. By saying that we, the SWP, give uncritical support to Hamas you have to justify this statement. You haven't.

You have also never actually given any concrete analysis of the situation in regards to a different strategy for the Palestinian working class and resistance. We will not as first-world people tell the Palestinian workers and peasants how to conduct their resistance as that is first world chauvenism of the worst kind. You say some words, unsubstanciated, about 'secular groups'. Name these groups and tell me what they are doing right with the resistance where Hamas is doing wrong, and then give analysis as to why these groups have no support among the Palestinian people (that is, unless you believe the Palestinian people to all be 'fundamentalists'.

Once you have answered these questions rather than giving ridiculous shock-statements about the SWP (which also show that you negate the wider movement, exceptionally sectarian and completely unconvincing - indeed opportunistic in cicumstances where you should be giving support to the Palestinian cause), then I will say you actually have a point. Because right now no argument is on the table, except for my question to yourself that you have never answered.

[Killfacer]

What exactly is the problem, ben? That there is a woman with a veil in the picture? Will they get your approval if they exclude all muslims from their actions and add "we also oppose muslims" on their banner?

Unless your saying that all muslims treat women poorly and are barbaric then this doesn't make much sense.

[Pogue]

The second sentence is important here. The fact is you have no real argument accept for veiled accusations of the SWP being antisemitic that, let's be honest, you have no nerve to actually overtly say.

Show me exactly where the SWP has said that it offers uncritical support to Hamas. We have never said the future post-imperialism lies with Hamas. By saying that we, the SWP, give uncritical support to Hamas you have to justify this statement. You haven't.

You have also never actually given any concrete analysis of the situation in regards to a different strategy for the Palestinian working class and resistance. We will not as first-world people tell the Palestinian workers and peasants how to conduct their resistance as that is first world chauvenism of the worst kind. You say some words, unsubstanciated, about 'secular groups'. Name these groups and tell me what they are doing right with the resistance where Hamas is doing wrong, and then give analysis as to why these groups have no support among the Palestinian people (that is, unless you believe the Palestinian people to all be 'fundamentalists'.

Once you have answered these questions rather than giving ridiculous shock-statements about the SWP (which also show that you negate the wider movement, exceptionally sectarian and completely unconvincing - indeed opportunistic in cicumstances where you should be giving support to the Palestinian cause), then I will say you actually have a point. Because right now no argument is on the table, except for my question to yourself that you have never answered.

Sam B makes the most important point here. Although I'm not a fan of Hamas or national liberation, there exists no one else fighting for the Palestinians.

[BobKKKindle$]

So you support Hamas why?

Once again, and as Sam_b has already pointed out several times, the SWP does not give uncritical support to Hamas. We give military support to Hamas as the leading section of the resistance movement, which means we support the movement when it confronts the military apparatus of the Israeli state, and recognize that there is currently no realistic alternative for workers who are getting their houses and schools bombed by Israel, but we have never suggested that Hamas is capable of overthrowing capitalism in Gaza or any other part of the world, and we are fully aware of the fact that Hamas is a bourgeois organization, because it reflects the class interests of an aspirant bourgeoisie.


Unless your saying that all muslims treat women poorly and are barbaric then this doesn't make much sense.

Are you suggesting that a Muslim woman choosing to wear the Hijab constitutes treating women poorly?

[welshboy]

Once again, and as Sam_b has already pointed out several times, the SWP does not give uncritical support to Hamas. We give military support to Hamas as the leading section of the resistance movement, which means we support the movement when it confronts the military apparatus of the Israeli state, and recognize that there is currently no realistic alternative for workers who are getting their houses and schools bombed by Israel, but we have never suggested that Hamas is capable of overthrowing capitalism in Gaza or any other part of the world, and we are fully aware of the fact that Hamas is a bourgeois organization, because it reflects the class interests of an aspirant bourgeoisie.



Are you suggesting that a Muslim woman choosing to wear the Hijab constitutes treating women poorly?

A friend of mine who has done lots of work with Palestinians both in and out of Palestine did guffaw as they read over my shoulder. :D They also said that when their friend from Raffah comes across, hopefully, in the next month or so they will be having serious words with you lot for supporting their oppressors.

Note: The above was passed on from another comrade who is in the room with me.

I was just laughing at the idea of the SWP'er I know actually fighting in a conflict.

[Sam_b]

The Palestinian members in our party would probably disagree. Now respond to my post if you have any argument apart from your intolerance to the SWP.

[BobKKKindle$]

They also said that when their friend from Raffah comes across, hopefully, in the next month or so they will be having serious words with you lot for supporting their oppressors.

Evidently the majority of Palestinians living in the Gaza strip do not view Hamas as "their oppressors", because they were democratically elected through an electoral procedure which gained the authentication of external observers, and despite the attempts of Israeli to punish Gaza for supporting a political movement which is not corrupt and does not obey every single command issued by the Israelis in the same way as Fatah, Hamas has been able to sustain popular support, with an approval rating of 60%, and is likely to gain even greater support as a result of the current conflict. Now, prove that the SWP gives uncritical support to Hamas, and is anti-semitic, or shut up.

[welshboy]

Welsh's friend and AF comrade posting using his account


Are you suggesting that a Muslim woman choosing to wear the Hijab constitutes treating women poorly?

No. But throwing stones at women for not wearing it is. And thats what I *saw* when I was in the Gaza Strip in 2003. In addition I was friends with two women in Rafah who were intimidated into taking the veil at the start of the al aqsa intifada, who are politically progressive, secular women and would remove it if they were not on the streets. Another Palestinian friend who lives in Rafah had his studies brought to a sudden end when Hamas took over his college (a science and technology college in the south of the Gaza Strip) and sacked his teacher. He told me that all the female students were expelled and that this happened in Gaza City too.

Hamas firebombed internet cafes this year. They previously had destroyed the cinema in Gaza City. All in all my friend, a progressive and partisan (he left PFLP a year ago for "being the same as the rest - not really caring about Palestinians, just wanting power for themselves") young man, who's life was already fucked by the occupation hates Hamas as a close second to the IDF. This is a not uncommon view.

As for saying "SWP give miltary support to Hamas" - are you nuts? You're claiming this, on a public forum! Either you're an idiot who meant something different from what you're saying, an idiot who doesn't realise the possible repurcussions (ffs, whatever the rights and wrongs of Hamas if you're doing shit this illegal keep it secret!) or you're a liar.

Oh, and I was a SWPee for 9 months back in 2000 before I saw the error of my ways.

[Devrim]

As for saying "SWP give miltary support to Hamas" - are you nuts? You're claiming this, on a public forum! Either you're an idiot who meant something different from what you're saying, an idiot who doesn't realise the possible repurcussions (ffs, whatever the rights and wrongs of Hamas if you're doing shit this illegal keep it secret!) or you're a liar.

The Trotskyist version of 'military support' doesn't actually mean military support. It means that they give political support to their military actions.

Yes, it is an absurd term.

Devrim

[welshboy]

Welsh's friend again.


Evidently the majority of Palestinians living in the Gaza strip do not view Hamas as "their oppressors", because they were democratically elected through an electoral procedure which gained the authentication of external observers, and despite the attempts of Israeli to punish Gaza for supporting a political movement which is not corrupt and does not obey every single command issued by the Israelis in the same way as Fatah, Hamas has been able to sustain popular support, with an approval rating of 60%, and is likely to gain even greater support as a result of the current conflict. Now, prove that the SWP gives uncritical support to Hamas, and is anti-semitic, or shut up.

LULZ!!! So the Labour Party are not oppressing us either because we elected them? OMG, have the SWP really sunk to this level of reformism that you think a party "democratically elected" is fine by us? :laugh:

[Devrim]

When the revolution happens come down here in the recently acquired working class train network then. Devrim can come too, on Proletairlines from Turkey, and we can collectively throw our anarchist, Trotskyist and Left-Communist bricks at the windows of the pig station in the class war, then go sit down and argue about whose right later. :D

Thank you for the invite, HLVS.

Devrim

[Marion]

Evidently the majority of Palestinians living in the Gaza strip do not view Hamas as "their oppressors", because they were democratically elected through an electoral procedure which gained the authentication of external observers, and despite the attempts of Israeli to punish Gaza for supporting a political movement which is not corrupt and does not obey every single command issued by the Israelis in the same way as Fatah, Hamas has been able to sustain popular support, with an approval rating of 60%, and is likely to gain even greater support as a result of the current conflict. Now, prove that the SWP gives uncritical support to Hamas, and is anti-semitic, or shut up.

Evidently the majority of people in Britain (and even the working class) do not view capitalism as oppressing them and the approval rating for capitalism would be well over 60% too. So what. Our job is not to go along with everything that either people or the working class think is in their interest at any time.

[BobKKKindle$]

What exactly are you trying to prove? There is nobody in the SWP who believes that Hamas is a consistent champion of social liberation, and we condemn the mistreatment of women in all countries throughout the world, regardless of whether women are being mistreated at the hands of an imperialist force, such as Israel, or a movement which seeks to remove an imperialist occupation and establish its own independent state. The SWP has a history of challenging other leftists who have refused to recognize abuses committed by anti-imperialist movements - in particular, we drew attention to the persecution of Trotskyists by the NLF during the Vietnam War. However, despite the instances of mistreatment you mentioned, we also have to be aware that Hamas is a complex organization in terms of its record on social issues such as the role of women in Muslim society, and arguably there are some ways in which Hamas has improved the position of women since the movement came to power - Hamas currently has six female MPs, and the elected representatives of Hamas have repeatedly tried to adjust laws which currently impose higher punishments on women who have been found guilty of adultery, and prevent women from freely negotiating divorce settlements. In 1999, Hamas openly recognized that women do suffer oppression as women. (Source: Women MPs vow to change face of Hamas (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/feb/18/israel.islam)) Unfortunately, Hamas has not been successful in these efforts, due to the opposition of secular MPs. The fact remains that Hamas is a mass movement which draws its strength from the population of Gaza, due to its role as a provider of social services such as education which would not otherwise be available, and was democratically elected. This does not mean that Hamas is not oppressive, as Hamas is still a movement which reflects the interests of an aspirant bourgeoisie, and continues to support oppressive social policies, but it does show that Hamas is a popular movement. In this context, it would be reactionary to reject the right of Palestinian workers to defend themselves through Hamas, just because Hamas is not a revolutionary party.

The SWP obviously does not give Hamas equipment and financial backing. "Military support" means we support Hamas as a movement fighting against imperialism, but do not extend our support to ideological solidarity.

[Devrim]

You seem to be missing the most important point here, Devrim. In almost every country which has faced attack by an imperialist power, workers have fought as part of anti-imperialist movements such as Hamas,

I think that this is a good example of the strength of bourgeois and nationalist ideology. It is, however, when workers refuse to rally to the idea of national defence that the possibilities of change start to open up.

A good example in the reasonably recent past would be the mass desertions that occurred at the end of the first US Gulf war. US imperialism certainly saw that it was dangerous enough to massacre fleeing deserters.


...not necessarily because they are under the influence of nationalist ideology and fail to acknowledge their own class interests as being separate from those of the bourgeoisie and other classes, but because imperialism always strikes at the interests of workers in the most destructive and violent way possible

This argument has no logical connection between its component parts. Acknowledging that imperialism strikes at the working class does not necessarily imply that national defence is a way to combat this. Generally it is because they are bound to the idea of the nation.


The most recent invasion has already led to the deaths of large numbers of civilians, many of whom were hiding in buildings they thought would not be targeted by the Israeli military, such that "hiding" is not an option.

Is going out on to the streets to be shot an option then. It is very clear that the situation is terrible, that people can not flee, and hiding is difficult. Possibly still safer than going out and attacking the IDF.

Your point implies that you see the working class can gain some advantage from doing so. I don't.


Given this situation, combined with the historic suffering of the Palestinian people at the hands of the Israeli state, and popular support for the invasion within Israel, it is unlikely that calls for fraternization will be listened to,

At the moment this is certainly true. I haven't claimed otherwise. Nor does that preclude the possibility for change.


The most important fact we have to be aware of is that there is a resistance struggle in Gaza, and workers are participating in the resistance.

Which proves what? There are workers participating in the IDF attack too.


How should socialists respond to this reality? If socialists refuse to support the resistance effort and fight alongside anti-imperialist movements on the grounds that it will lead to needless bloodshed and divide the working class on the basis of nationality

And leads to workers dropping class interests, any form of independence, and aligning with the bourgeois.


Palestinians are still going to resist, for the reasons described above, but because there is no socialist organization willing to take up the fight and recognize their right to resist imperialism, they will be more likely to turn to movements which reflect the class interests of the bourgeoisie and promote reactionary ideas - such as Hamas.

They have already. Haven't you noticed? This, however, is a consequence of the weakness within the working class, not its cause.

It is not that the working class is weak because socialist organisations don't exist. Socialist organisations don't exist because the working class is weak.

A real socialist organisation in Palestine can only be built on a rejection of the national struggle, not on competing with various nationalist groups to see who can shed more workers' blood on behalf of the nation.


For this reason, socialists inside Palestine must, in order to gain working class support, be part of the resistance,

How far do you take this argument; join the Labour party? or to stretch it to its absurdity do you join the BNP if that's where workers are?


and promote the right of the Palestinian people to determine their own future.

Back to bourgeois democratic rights again.


At the same time, if socialists inside Israel refuse to support the resistance effort, regardless of whether it is led by Hamas or any other movement, there will be no way to break the national chauvinism of Jewish workers, and so an international class struggle encompassing the whole of the Levant will remain impossible, as Jewish workers will still be ideologically tied to the Israeli state.

This is the most absurd argument. It is not a football match where you have to support one team or the other. Can you really not see that it is possible to oppose the actions of your own state without supporting the other side.

Devrim

[Devrim]

The SWP obviously does not give Hamas equipment and financial backing. "Military support" means we support Hamas as a movement fighting against imperialism, but do not extend our support to ideological solidarity.

This is still as absurd. You give them 'non-ideological' ideological support because we have established that you do not give them any military support.

It is political support pure and simple.

Devrim

[Marion]

Hamas is still a movement which reflects the interests of an aspirant bourgeoisie

Out of interest, is this the official view of the SWP? No mention of it here: http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=16777 but, of course, there might be elsewhere.

Again out of interest, how many current or recent "national liberation" struggles do the SWP not take sides in?

[Pogue]

Thank you for the invite, HLVS.

Devrim

No problem, but you're gonna have to pull your weight and clean the planes toilets, help with cleanup there are no maids in revolutionary society, and if you crash here you're gonna fix the hole in my roof, so bring some overalls :sneaky:

[BobKKKindle$]

Out of interest, is this the official view of the SWP

Yes. The SWP may not have stated this explicitly in the context of the Israeli-Palestine conflict, but it does underpin our analysis of anti-imperialist movements in general, and is derived from Lenin's recognition that a genuine socialist revolution led by the working class in the colonial periphery will always be preceded by a series of nationalist revolts and uprisings which reflect the interests of other classes and the political immaturity of the working class. In 'Marxism and the National Question' (http://www.marxists.de/theory/callinicos/natquest.htm), Alex Callinicos writes that:

"Nationalism is a bourgeois ideology not in the sense that all or even most of its adherents are capitalists but rather in the sense that it always articulates the interests of an actual or aspirant capitalist class."

The SWP has consistently taken the side of the oppressed in all conflicts between imperialist states and oppressed nations. There are conflicts which were seen as anti-imperialist in nature by the rest of the left where the SWP adopted a neutral position by refusing to support either side, but only because we viewed these conflicts as proxy wars between rival imperialists powers, most notably in the case of the Korean War, and not because we deviated from the Trotskyist position on national liberation.

Devrim, thanks for the comments, will respond in the morning.

[Sam_b]

LULZ!!! So the Labour Party are not oppressing us either because we elected them? OMG, have the SWP really sunk to this level of reformism that you think a party "democratically elected" is fine by us?

So you're comparing two different electoral systems now, eh? 'lulz' yourself if you're comparing a party that received arouund 25% of the popular vote compared with a party that received 60%. Christ, thats stupid.

And if some other state started bombing Britain would you not support armed resistance against it?

[BobKKKindle$]

And if some other state started bombing Britain would you not support armed resistance against it?

Surely the answer to this question should always be a resounding no? A conflict between an oppressed nation and an imperialist power is not the same as a conflict between rival imperialist blocs over the division of the world, and in the case of the latter we should never give support to our own state, and instead campaign for the transformation of the imperialist war into a civil war between classes. Tony Cliff adopted this position during WW2 - an impressive demonstration of principle, given that he was Jewish. Trying to compare the situation in Palestine at the current time with a hypothetical situation involving Britain is exactly what Israel has been doing since the beginning of the most recent conflict to gain public support and obscure the real issues behind the war - on Newsnight, for example, the Israeli ambassador asked Jeremy Paxman what Britain would do if the population of London was getting attacked by rocket launchers based in Heathrow Airport. Socialists shouldn't analyze anti-imperialist conflicts and war in general in terms of "who started it", i.e. the language of abstract moralism, instead we always seek to take the side of the oppressed, even if Hamas committed the initial act of aggression.

[Hit The North]

Welsh's friend again.

LULZ!!! So the Labour Party are not oppressing us either because we elected them? OMG, have the SWP really sunk to this level of reformism that you think a party "democratically elected" is fine by us? :laugh: The Labour Party doesn't oppress us, it has neither the man-power or weaponry. It's the capitalist state and the bourgeoisie which oppresses us. The Labour Party is just the shop front.

Likewise, the real oppressors of the Palestinians is the Israeli state - a blatant agent of Western Imperialism (in fact its existence relies upon this very fact). The fact that the Palestinians are represented by a clueless bunch of reactionaries is a symptom of the effectiveness of Israeli oppression.

The question of 'military support': it means we support the military defence of the Palestinian people by Hamas against the Israeli state, without committing ourselves to support for their political agenda which is reactionary.


Originally posted by Devrim
We see so-called socialsts calling on workers to die on behalf of the nation.

Where? All I've seen are socialists calling for an end to the Israeli murder of Palestinian workers.

[Sam_b]

Socialists shouldn't analyze anti-imperialist conflicts and war in general in terms of "who started it", i.e. the language of abstract moralism, instead we always seek to take the side of the oppressed, even if Hamas committed the initial act of aggression.

Of course.

I was a bit fast to rush into that analogy, and probably didn't explain it well; but was more coming from the side of rationale of those who are not class conscious. The majority of Palestinians are not viewing this conflict as one of imperialism, but of the immediacy that their families are getting murdered and their reisistance comes from the demand of sovereignity. Thus after imperialist threat has been thwarted building of much more class struggle is started.

But in all honesty that was a crap comparison. I'll withdraw it. It seems that at least some of us here know when we're wrong, eh? ;)

[welshboy]

Will respond tomorrow, am a wee bit tired after getting back from a very long meeting coordinating support for Palestine.
Didn't spot you there Sam_b...

[Marion]

Just wondering how you manage to square helping co-ordinate the protests with the fact I guess you'd pretty much disagree with the rationale behind them (and the fact its clearly a popular front)?

[Marion]

Bobkindles, just read the 'Marxism and the National Question' (http://www.marxists.de/theory/callinicos/natquest.htm) article that you noted - cheers for the reference.

While I disagree with the approach taken (as you know, I'm not in favour of any "national liberation" struggles) I think the following quotes are interesting:


But, at the same time as he envisaged an alliance between communist workers” movements and national liberation movements, Lenin was careful to emphasise that the two movements had different class bases and therefore should not merge

Furthermore, there is the argument that a Stalinist stages approach is wrong (in part) as it suggests that:
During this phase the working class should subordinate its distinctive interests to those of the nationalist coalition and avoid pursuing demands and struggles that might alienate the capitalists and the petty bourgeoisie of small property owners.

Additionally:
The Stalinist stages strategy represented the triumph of nationalism over socialism, and therefore the negation of Lenin’s insistence on working class independence

Its pretty clear that Callinicos is suggesting that in a "national liberation movement that the working class needs to retain distinctive class-based politics. Given this, its difficult to see how the SWP support for the Palestinian military action involves any sort of pushing workers "distinctive interests". Virtually all SWP articles on the likes of Hamas are completely lacking in any class analysis - reflecting both, in my view,the paucity of the SWP analysis and (more interestingly in this case) the reality that working in the wider alliances the SWP (and other Trostkyist groups) gets involved in means subordinating any class-based politics. How do you see the SWP's position on Palestine as involving "working class independence"?

[welshboy]

Just wondering how you manage to square helping co-ordinate the protests with the fact I guess you'd pretty much disagree with the rationale behind them (and the fact its clearly a popular front)?

I do not supprt Hamas, how does that mean I do not support the Palestinian people?
One does not have to support the bourgousie in order to support the Palestinian people. It is necessary for those who oppose both the apartheid of the Israeli state and the anti working class policies of Hamas/Fatah/whoever elese be involved in the mobilisation to support the Palestinian people. Otherwise there is a real danger of the situation in Palestine/Israel appearing polarised. Either you are pro-Hamas or you are pro-Israel. This is wrong and does not represent what is a very complex situation.

With regards to the SWP and anti-semitism. I do not think that the party is anti-semitic I just think that it is guilty of the worst type of political opportunism that has led to it cosying up to Islamic fundamentalists and the anti-working class ideology they represent.
This does not surprise me, it does sicken me.
A hint at another path for the Palestinian peole that does not include potential oppressors, secular or otherwise, is that displayed by the solidarity between the Palestinian popular committees and the Anarchists Against the Wall (http://www.awalls.org/).
The people do not need Hamas, and only a minority voted for them anyway. Assuming that Hamas represent in anyway the will or desire of the Palestinian poele is exactly the same, as my comrade pointed out last night, as saying that the Labour party represents us in the UK or the SNP represents all Scots.

[Devrim]

And if some other state started bombing Britain would you not support armed resistance against it?
Surely the answer to this question should always be a resounding no? A conflict between an oppressed nation and an imperialist power is not the same as a conflict between rival imperialist blocs over the division of the world, and in the case of the latter we should never give support to our own state, and instead campaign for the transformation of the imperialist war into a civil war between classes.

At least Bob Kindles can articulate the politics of his party on this point. There is not a lot to say about Sam's comment. It is pure social chauvinism. It is much worse than the position advocated by Kautsky at the time of the First World War.

Of course, it should also be made clear to anyone who may be confused that this is not the SWP's position. Although the fact that they have members who have no grasp of class positions on such basic questions says a lot about their recruitment policy.

Let's just take a look at what Lenin had to say on this:


Who says: “Socialism is opposed to violence against nations, therefore I defend myself when my country is invaded”, betrays socialism and internationalism, because such a man sees only his own “country”, he puts “his own” bourgeoisie above everything else and does not give a thought to the international connections which make the war an imperialist war and his bourgeoisie a link in the chain of imperialist plunder. The socialist, the revolutionary proletarian, the internalionalist, argues differently. He says: “The character of the war (whether it is reactionary or revolutionary) does not depend on who the attacker was, or in whose country the ’enemy’ is stationed; it depends on what class is waging the war, and on what politics this war is a continuation of. If the war is a reactionary, imperialist war, that is, if it is being waged by two world groups of the imperialist, rapacious, predatory, reactionary bourgeoisie, then every bourgeoisie (even of the smallest country) becomes a participant in the plunder, and my duty as a representative of the revolutionary proletariat is to prepare for the world proletarian revolution as the only escape from the horrors of a world slaughter. I must argue, not from the point of view of ’my’ country (for that is the argument of a wretched, stupid, petty—bourgeois nationalist who does not realise that he is only a plaything in the hands of the imperialist bourgeoisie), but from the point of view of my share in th preparation, in the propaganda, and in the acceleration of the world proletarian revolution. That is what internationalism means, and that is the duty of the internationalist, the revolutionary worker, the genuine socialist.

Devrim

[Devrim]

There are conflicts which were seen as anti-imperialist in nature by the rest of the left where the SWP adopted a neutral position by refusing to support either side, but only because we viewed these conflicts as proxy wars between rival imperialists powers, most notably in the case of the Korean War, and not because we deviated from the Trotskyist position on national liberation.

This comment is interesting as it shows that the Cliff tendency is able to see that national liberation struggles can become 'proxy wars between rival imperialists powers'. The first question is what differentiates the Korean War from the Vietnam war. I would contend that many of war that the SWP see as 'genuine' national liberation wars', for example the struggle in Afghanistan in the 1980s, were in fact 'proxy wars between rival imperialists powers'.

Devrim

[Devrim]

We see so-called socialsts calling on workers to die on behalf of the nation.

Where? All I've seen are socialists calling for an end to the Israeli murder of Palestinian workers.

Bob are you claiming that there is nobody who is calling on workers to join in an armed defence against the IDF? If you are I will provide quotes.

Devrim

[Devrim]

The question of 'military support': it means we support the military defence of the Palestinian people by Hamas against the Israeli state, without committing ourselves to support for their political agenda which is reactionary.

So it isn't military support. It is support of the military, and it goes without saying that it is political support of the military.

Devrim

[Devrim]

A conflict between an oppressed nation and an imperialist power is not the same as a conflict between rival imperialist blocs over the division of the world, and in the case of the latter we should never give support to our own state, and instead campaign for the transformation of the imperialist war into a civil war between classes.

This opens up interesting questions. If we take the example of Turkey, in which of these cases do you think that it is possible for communists to support their own state.

a) A war against the PKK in the South-East of Turkey.
b) A war against the PKK in North Eastern Iraq.
c) A war against Syria
d) A war against Greece
e) A war against the US

The left communist position is not only that we don't support our own state in conflicts between rival imperialist blocks, but that we don't support our own state.

However, I would be interested to know at which point above people think that we should start to support our own state.

Devrim

[Marion]

I do not supprt Hamas, how does that mean I do not support the Palestinian people?
One does not have to support the bourgousie in order to support the Palestinian people. It is necessary for those who oppose both the apartheid of the Israeli state and the anti working class policies of Hamas/Fatah/whoever elese be involved in the mobilisation to support the Palestinian people. Otherwise there is a real danger of the situation in Palestine/Israel appearing polarised. Either you are pro-Hamas or you are pro-Israel. This is wrong and does not represent what is a very complex situation.

Don't worry, I'm aware that you are neither pro-Hamas or pro-Israel. I just interested in a) to what extent your pushing this line has any effect whatsoever on those who are organising the protests alongside you and b) how you can be part of organising a protest where the speakers or statements you will effectively go along with (at the very least through still helping organise the protest) are ones you disagree with. Ultimately if you believe that the main message of the protests have nothing to offer the working class (which presumably you do as you are criticising them for being nationalist) why are you helping organise them?

[Sam_b]

Will respond tomorrow, am a wee bit tired after getting back from a very long meeting coordinating support for Palestine.
Didn't spot you there Sam_b...

Yeah dude, sorry for having the dentist.


The people do not need Hamas, and only a minority voted for them anyway

60% in an election with high turnouts does not constitute a minority.

Why don't you name these Palestinian committees then? And why do they not have popular support?

Its also telling that you keep avoiding the questions in my post as well. Surely its the worst opportunism to make sniding remarks about SWP antisemitism and then give some waffled retraction, as well as calling our paper a 'shit rag'. Not nearly as bad, however, as your failure (or so i've seen here) of any understanding or support for the Palestinian people to resist.

[Marion]

Yes. The SWP may not have stated this explicitly in the context of the Israeli-Palestine conflict, but it does underpin our analysis of anti-imperialist movements in general, and is derived from Lenin's recognition that a genuine socialist revolution led by the working class in the colonial periphery will always be preceded by a series of nationalist revolts and uprisings which reflect the interests of other classes and the political immaturity of the working class.

Lenin's viewpoint was based upon the idea that bourgeoise revolutions in the colonies would be just that, bourgeoise revolutions (hence being a progressive step forward in terms of developing the proletariat). From his viewpoint it was wrong to support national liberation struggles if capitalism was established in a certain nation already. Now, even if you take Lenin's view of imperialism as true at the time (which is, and was, debateable), do you not think that things have developed to the extent that Palestine is currently fully enmeshed in the capitalist system?

It seems to me that if you choose to argue from Lenin that you'd end up arguing against nationalist struggles in Palestine.

[Hit The North]

Bob are you claiming that there is nobody who is calling on workers to join in an armed defence against the IDF? If you are I will provide quotes.


I'm saying I've not heard it. Provide quotes by all means.


So it isn't military support. It is support of the military, and it goes without saying that it is political support of the military.

Of course it isn't military; it can only be political support for the military defence. Who is claiming otherwise?

[Devrim]

I'm saying I've not heard it. Provide quotes by all means.

Possibly the clearest instance on these boards from Yehuda Stern:

If we had comrades in Gaza, they would have participated in the war against the Zionist army.


Of course it isn't military; it can only be political support for the military defence. Who is claiming otherwise?

So you don't think that all these people talking about 'military support' is confusing? Most people do including one example on this thread:


As for saying "SWP give miltary support to Hamas" - are you nuts? You're claiming this, on a public forum! Either you're an idiot who meant something different from what you're saying, an idiot who doesn't realise the possible repurcussions (ffs, whatever the rights and wrongs of Hamas if you're doing shit this illegal keep it secret!) or you're a liar.

I am merely pointing out that 'military support' is not actually 'military' support at all. It is political support.

Devrim

[benhur]

60% in an election with high turnouts does not constitute a minority.



So? People in the past have also voted for Hitler, Nixon, Reagan, Bush:rolleyes:, and the rest. Does that mean these people were all good for the working class in their respective nations? You, Sam, are a bourgeois apologist.

[Hit The North]

So you don't think that all these people talking about 'military support' is confusing? Most people do including one example on this thread:


I'll admit it confused the hell out me when I first heard we were giving it. :lol:

[Pogue]

Hope to see many people out in london on saturday.

[bellyscratch]

WOW! That was a pretty good protest :)

Was a bit mad when people were smashing up shops and throwing the barricades at the police and the police charging on the crowd:lol:

[Wake Up]

WOW! That was a pretty good protest :)

Was a bit mad when people were smashing up shops and throwing the barricades at the police and the police charging on the crowd:lol:


Was an impressive turnout from the anarchist bloc and hopefully we turned a few heads. Could have done with more leaflets and a loudspeaker. Also I feel that the facemasks just serve to alienate people, if members could keep them hidden unless they're about to cause trouble.

At least the tankies didn't attempt to storm the barricades as they often do, seeing we don't actually support Hamas or a Palestinian state it doesn't help to be involved with all the angry muslims.

[BobKKKindle$]

Was an impressive turnout from the anarchist bloc and hopefully we turned a few heads

Are you serious? A "bloc" is an overstatement - there were, at most, 40 anarchists there, judging by the amount of people clustered around the red and black flags.


it doesn't help to be involved with all the angry muslims.

What do you mean? For me, one of the best things about the demonstration was the large number of young Muslim women. How can chauvinists possibly claim that just because Muslim women choose to wear the Hijab they must automatically be subject to the total control of men inside their communities and be incapable of making any independent political judgments, when these women were among the most radical and enthusiastic people there? I hope it will encourage others - including, unfortunately, some so-called leftists - to change the way they think about British Muslims and Islam in general.


Lenin's viewpoint was based upon the idea that bourgeoise revolutions in the colonies would be just that, bourgeoise revolutions

Actually, Lenin, in common with Trotsky, argued that the bourgeoisie of the colonies is too closely tied to the remnants of feudalism and the interests of the imperialist powers and so is incapable of carrying out bourgeois tasks such as national independence and land reform, such that these tasks would fall to the proletariat.

[Pogue]

Was an impressive turnout from the anarchist bloc and hopefully we turned a few heads. Could have done with more leaflets and a loudspeaker. Also I feel that the facemasks just serve to alienate people, if members could keep them hidden unless they're about to cause trouble.

At least the tankies didn't attempt to storm the barricades as they often do, seeing we don't actually support Hamas or a Palestinian state it doesn't help to be involved with all the angry muslims.

How about angry and politically conciouss young workers? Don't act as if because they're all Muslim (an assumpton you make) you shouldn't get involved with them. If you don't want to get involved with 'Angry muslims' you shouldn't be on a protest about freedom for palestine really.

Shame I missed the anarchist group though, I was looking for some people I have more in common with ideologically so I could join in the chants and talk to people about anarchism.

[nuisance]

Are you serious? A "bloc" is an overstatement - there were, at most, 40 anarchists there, judging by the amount of people clustered around the red and black flags.
Sorry, but what do you think a bloc actually is? You muggy ****.

[welshboy]

^^^^^what he said :laugh:

[BobKKKindle$]

The concept of a bloc infers that a decent number of anarchists bothered to turn up. Based on my experience at the demo, that was not the case, because the only sign that there were any anarchists there was a group of people standing around a few black and red flags wearing balaclavas - a group not exceeding forty people, at most. Anyway, the definition of a "bloc" is not an interesting topic to debate, and if you think I don't know what the term means, that's fine, as it's nice to see you accept the premise the participation of anarchists in one of the biggest and most important demos in recent years was extremely limited. In my opinion, the SWP did a great job - we were raising exactly the right slogans and managed to get loads of people along even before the demo was due to start, to sell papers and set up.

[Wake Up]

Are you serious? A "bloc" is an overstatement - there were, at most, 40 anarchists there, judging by the amount of people clustered around the red and black flags.

to me a bloc is a unit or gathering of unified people acting as one. Bloc doesn't refer to size at all. If you disagree that it wasn't a good turnout then fair enough


What do you mean? For me, one of the best things about the demonstration was the large number of young Muslim women. How can chauvinists possibly claim that just because Muslim women choose to wear the Hijab they must automatically be subject to the total control of men inside their communities and be incapable of making any independent political judgments, when these women were among the most radical and enthusiastic people there? I hope it will encourage others - including, unfortunately, some so-called leftists - to change the way they think about British Muslims and Islam in general.


Demonstrations are about showing your opposition to the status quo. Now there are often different reasons to have an opposition, as their are in the gaza conflict, but that doesn't mean that those differences should stop people turning up. However those differences need to be made clear otherwise they may as well not exist. We did not succeed in showing the other members of the demo why we were there and therefore I feel that I don't want to get fully involved.
I agree with you on the muslim woman front, I have heard that Imams that were meant to be leading sections of the march discouraged young muslims not to go as it would turn violent. It was great to see so many ignoring that request. i also saw several young muslims shouting "Allah Akbhar" then taking a swig from a hipflask!!!



How about angry and politically conciouss young workers? Don't act as if because they're all Muslim (an assumpton you make) you shouldn't get involved with them. If you don't want to get involved with 'Angry muslims' you shouldn't be on a protest about freedom for palestine really.

i didn't mean to make that assumption at all, I realise the diversity of people on the march so I didn't really phrase my point well.
As for not wanting to get involved, what I've said earlier in this post hopefully explains that. Not agreeing with the "angry muslims" aint stopping me from protesting about what is happening in palestine.





Shame I missed the anarchist group though, I was looking for some people I have more in common with ideologically so I could join in the chants and talk to people about anarchism.
Mate, their were no chants. no loudspeakers, no message being given out at all. Would have been good to have a chat though.

[welshboy]

Mate, their were no chants. no loudspeakers, no message being given out at all.And yet another tremendous failing of Anarchists.
Wearing balacalavas and surrounding ourselves with abnners so that we can in no way interact with the rest of the people their allows parasites like the swappies to flourish. Load of wank.
Bob, you must be blin. I've seen photo's of the block and it had a good couple of uhndred people in it.
Was a load of monkey semen though.

[Marion]

Actually, Lenin, in common with Trotsky, argued that the bourgeoisie of the colonies is too closely tied to the remnants of feudalism and the interests of the imperialist powers and so is incapable of carrying out bourgeois tasks such as national independence and land reform, such that these tasks would fall to the proletariat.

So you're seriously arguing that you're in favour of supporting this national independence movement because Palestine is still, to some extent, involved in feudalism and needs land reform? Rather than the obvious observation that Palestine is fully enmeshed in capitalist social relations?

Did the SWP put the same argument forward when they supported Serbia against Kosovo?

[Sam_b]

Did the SWP put the same argument forward when they supported Serbia against Kosovo?

WOW! Is this yet another unsourced, three line post from Marion? I think it is!

Tell me, oh unsourceless one, how opposing the NATO bombings and flattening of communities in Serbia ecquates to supporting 'Serbia against Kosovo'?

[welshboy]

Tell me how opposing Hamas stoning women and attacking trade unionists equates to supporting Israel.
Thanks for that Sam

[Hit The North]

And yet another tremendous failing of Anarchists.
Wearing balacalavas and surrounding ourselves with abnners so that we can in no way interact with the rest of the people their allows parasites like the swappies to flourish. Load of wank.


The fact that the SWP was instrumental in building the demo whereas the anarchists just turn up with each other and, as you say, isolate themselves from the rest of the demo, makes you the parasites, wouldn't you say?

[welshboy]

Nope, you're the ones that feed on peoples anger in a cynical attempt to perpetuate your turgid and dying party.

[Hit The North]

And what do you do?

The fact that you think attempting to build a socialist workers party is "cynical" demonstrates that you have a good grasp of anarchist politics. :lol:

[Marion]

WOW! Is this yet another unsourced, three line post from Marion? I think it is!

Tell me, oh unsourceless one, how opposing the NATO bombings and flattening of communities in Serbia ecquates to supporting 'Serbia against Kosovo'?

Its pretty easy to see how the Serbia - Kosovo conflict ended up in the UK with different Trostkyist groups taking different sides, with internationalist working class politics being left out of it. While the AWl and the like were cheerleading Kosovan independence, the SWP and their allies chose their side in this imperialist conflict and spent the whole time working in fronts to castigate NATO (with the occasional small criticism of Milosevic thrown in). There's plenty on the Internet for you to look at in this regard. Some sources of interest are: http://www.workersliberty.org/node/10140 (AWL vs SWP squabbles - each as bad as each other), http://en.internationalism.org/book/export/html/441 (for an example of what the SWP approach actually amounted to on the ground) and, of course, any cursory check of the SWP archives (full of articles criticising NATO with the odd cursory mention of Milosevic's evils). Even one of the most recent statements condemns an independent Kosovo for being likely to be led by "nationalist gangsters" (http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=13810) without any mention of the fact that "nationalist gangsters" run Serbia (and, indeed, any country - that being the nature of capitalism).

Of course, those of us who are old enough will remember that the SWP's campaign effectively was just a long anti-NATO and anti-America screed. As per usual, the whole SWP approach did an awful lot to try and convince workers in the Uk that the evil USA and NATO are behind all of the problems in the world rather than the problem being capitalism.

Btw, this is an Internet forum, not an academic paper. I don't have a problem with you not sourcing information providing that when asked you can provide it. Show me a poster here who provides sources for every claim they make in all their posts before being asked. I haven't bothered looking at your old posts, but given (ironically) that your reply to me has an unsourced claim (on the nature of the SWP's campaign) I think I'm on safe grounds that you're probably being rather hypocritical. If you're confident you source every statement you make before being asked (God knows why you should, but you're the one making the claim) I'll take you up on it. I know this has taken me waaaaaay past my allotted three lines but stick to proper arguments, grow up and stop being so petty.

[Hit The North]

Originally quoted by Marion
the SWP and their allies chose their side in this imperialist conflict and spent the whole time working in fronts to castigate NATO (with the occasional small criticism of Milosevic thrown in).

We really shouldn't have turned our rhetorical guns on NATO and our own ruling class. How shameful of us. :lol:

[Marion]

No, I don't think the SWP see any shame whatsoever in repeatedly choosing sides in Imperialist conflict. It's terribly easy for them, just look at whichever side the USA or NATO is involved in and support the other side - no need to think about anything such as class or answer awkward questions about internationalism.

Of course, you could have chosen the other side and supported the KLA. It would have been quite easy as instead of complaining about US imperialism you could then have complained about Russian imperialism.

[Sam_b]

Marion, you are being absolutely ridiculous. If you give a one-line post (attempting to attack our position, for instance), then I will call you up on it and will ask you to cite a source. Its not about academic papers, its about political debate; and you have absolutely no excuses to not cite sources while posting on the internet.

At the end of the day, however, your assertion proves little and doesn't tell me anything I don't already know. The SWP was absolutely right to hold up NATO for what it did in the region, and was absolutely right to codemn it as the instrument of imperialism that it undoubtedly is. This is why we'll be mobilising in a couple of months at the demonstration called against the 60th anniversary of NATO. This does not in any way mean that the SWP supported the Serbs in this conflict, and your argument relies heavily on speculation: that, for example, not condemning Serbia equally in an article in our newspaper means that the party line is to support the Serbian state. This is not true. It is also entirely false that we 'pick sides' in imperialist conflicts or wars: look at the position that the party took on the South Ossetian conflict, where we condemned both the Russians and Georgians.

It is also a very strange statement you make here:

SWP approach did an awful lot to try and convince workers in the Uk that the evil USA and NATO are behind all of the problems in the world rather than the problem being capitalism.

You have a problem of immediacy here, almost a Left-Communist argument i'm guessing. The fact is that the immediate actors in the conflict were NATO and its crimes, and that is plain and true. Yes, the problem is capitalism, the problem always is capitalism, but does that mean we lose our basis of depth and turn everything into its logical conclusion? Should we, for example, join the Anti-racism demonstrations, or the mobilisations to stop violence against women, and argue that the real issue is not racism or patriarchy, but capitalism? Sure, we would try and argue our intervention in these movements, but as an immediate demand? No.

[Marion]

Marion, you are being absolutely ridiculous. If you give a one-line post (attempting to attack our position, for instance), then I will call you up on it and will ask you to cite a source. Its not about academic papers, its about political debate; and you have absolutely no excuses to not cite sources while posting on the internet.

Sam, your completely misreading what I said. I don't have a problem with being asked to provide a source after an initial post. What I do have a problem with is instead of just asking me for a source, you acting in a pathetic manner and trying to imply that I have a problem sourcing information. Like anyone else I make a number of statements and, if asked, I'll provide a source. I'm sure you do the same - now grow up. As I said earlier, if you want to claim you provide source information immediately for every claim you make then please do so and we can examine your posts in detail.

Sorry, I'll get back to the rest of your post when I have time.

[Sam_b]

You did have a problem sourcing inofrmation. When did we side with the Serbian state?

[Hit The North]

No, I don't think the SWP see any shame whatsoever in repeatedly choosing sides in Imperialist conflict. It's terribly easy for them, just look at whichever side the USA or NATO is involved in and support the other side - no need to think about anything such as class or answer awkward questions about internationalism.


Well we take a Leninist, class struggle position that the enemy is at home. But rest assured when we do find that the British or American governments are engaged in defending the interests of the working class overseas we'll rush to their support!

[Devrim]

You did have a problem sourcing inofrmation. When did we side with the Serbian state?

I would imagine that the SWP supported the Serbian state in 1999 when they were being bombed by NATO. I don't know this to be true, but it would be consistent with their politics. It is impossible to check on the SWP's own internet archives as they don't go back quite that far.

As for supporting states who are involved in military conflict with the US, I would say yes the SWP certainly does do it:


we have no choice but to support the XXXX regime...it would be wrong to strike...socialists should not call for the disruption of military supplies to the front… should not support actions which could lead to the collapse of the military effort

Supporting the Serbian state would have been consistent. However, I don't know if they did do it.

Devrim

[Hit The North]

Devrim, what is the point of your post? What you imagine the SWP position was is neither here nor there.

And what's with the imaginary quote from Socialist Worker? It'd be like me making up a quote from you:


Originally quoted by Devrim
It's great being a Left Communist as we're too lofty to engage in political struggle and it gives us more time to write abstract declarations and drink more beer.:confused:

[Devrim]

Devrim, what is the point of your post? What you imagine the SWP position was is neither here nor there.

And what's with the imaginary quote from Socialist Worker? It'd be like me making up a quote from you:

It isn't an imaginary quote from Socialist Worker. It is a real quote from Socialist Worker from the issue dated, 28/11/1987. The word Xed out is Khomeini. My point was that Socialist Worker is an organisation, which has historically taken positions like this, and I wouldn't have been surprised if they had taken a similar position on Serbia.

As for making things up, I don't do it. I will leave things like this to you, things such as suggesting the AWL created that leaflet, and making personal comments about people whom you know nothing about.

Devrim

[Red Dreadnought]

Devrim, you have reason. In his panflets SWP supports "national liberation struggles", like "ETA or provisional IRA (sic)" and in Spain it's supponting catalonian nationalist election lists. And in "Respect" they unite with moderate nationalism: possibly is a justification of "iraki resistance":crying:, that has been really as harmful as USA to common people, shiies or kurds in particular.

[Marion]

I think that a number of Trotskists have a problem understanding what actually constitutes an internationalist argument.

On the one hand, there are the various statements from Anarchists (the AFed statements or Django's(?) on Libcom) and those from Left Communists (ICC or IBRP). These generally have in common a rejection of nationalism in favour of a class-based approach, the argument that taking sides in these conflicts has nothing to offer the working-class, a call for workers to argue on this basis rather than watering down their politics, and showing that the only solution to these problems is the overthrow of capitalism instead of siding with one or other capitalist faction.

On the other hand is the SWP argument over Serbia. If anyone can find a statement the SWP endorsed arguing for workers to take neither side in this conflict I will be surprised. Instead there was the standard refusal to take class seriously and the dumbing-down of all their politics to the extent their campaign was actually a mirror-image of most of the Russian imperialist arguments. Typical of the SWP's arguments is one of their recent discussions on Kosovo-Serbia (http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=15775) which is full of bourgeoise bleating about Serbia's boundaries not being respected and that the US and "main European powers" aren't abiding by UN rules.

[Leo]

the AFed statements or Django's(?) on Libcom

Django is in AFed as well I think.


If anyone can find a statement the SWP endorsed arguing for workers to take neither side in this conflict I will be surprised.

The only time they took a position like that was the at the Korean War to my knowledge. It didn't last for long.

[Sam_b]

It was a bit before my time, but I believe we took a similar position on the Falklands war.

[Devrim]

It was a bit before my time, but I believe we took a similar position on the Falklands war.

As I remember it you are right. The question is why the SWP departed from its usually position on this particular war.

Devrim