# Tony Cliff biog



## articul8 (Sep 19, 2011)

I'm reading the new Ian Birchall biog of Cliff. Anyone else read it?

Only half-way through - surprised to read that Kidron thought Vietnam a bit of a side-issue (bending the stick v IMG?). But given a later turn to VSC work, why would IMG not agree to fuse? Line on USSR?

Other things - Gus Macdonald's trajectory seems to have been airbrushed. Maybe I just haven't come to it but as yet no mention of Roger Rosewell's either.


----------



## articul8 (Sep 20, 2011)

Ah, does mention Rosewell's role.  Was he M15?


----------



## JHE (Oct 7, 2011)

Ian Birchall was always the court historian.  There is probably an interesting biography of Cliff waiting to be written, but it won't be by Birchall.

A few of the questions I would like to be addressed by a good biographer of Cliff:


How did Cliff manage not to become as unpleasantly nutty as Healy or as weird as Grant?
What was it that allowed this strange little foreign man, who could have been a decent stand-up comedian, to be a much better judge of British reality than the people (some of whom were very bright) that he managed to recruit as his lieutenants?
Did he give up at some point, as some observers have suggested, and then just carry on, going through the motions, because it was the family business?  (As Chanie Rosenberg said, they didn't know anything else.)
How keen was he in his latter years - how aware was he - of the Nutty Harman-initiated turn to Mecca ("with the Islamists sometimes")?  If he had lived longer, would he, could he even have gone along with the Rees/German-led IslamoTrot lash-up, al-Respeq?


----------



## articul8 (Oct 8, 2011)

what makes you think Grant was "weird"?


----------



## discokermit (Oct 8, 2011)

JHE said:


> There is probably an interesting biography of Cliff waiting to be written, but it won't be by Birchall.


this is interesting, http://www.marxists.org/archive/higgins/1997/locust/

'more years for the locust' by jim higgins.

also this is quite interesting, 'they fuck you up, the left.', excerpt from a talk by andy wilson from the association of musicsl marxists and ex swp fulltimer that touches on some of the issues regarding leadership of a revolutionary organisation. http://www.cpgb.org.uk/article.php?article_id=1004564


----------



## articul8 (Oct 9, 2011)

to be fair to Birchall it's about as honest as it's ever likely to get from an official SWP publication


----------



## articul8 (Oct 9, 2011)

discokermit said:


> also this is quite interesting, 'they fuck you up, the left.', excerpt from a talk by andy wilson from the association of musicsl marxists and ex swp fulltimer that touches on some of the issues regarding leadership of a revolutionary organisation. http://www.cpgb.org.uk/article.php?article_id=1004564



good piece.


----------



## JHE (Oct 9, 2011)

articul8 said:


> what makes you think Grant was "weird"?



Wasn't he? He had a reputation for being an odd, solitary, jelly baby-munching, dogmatic Trot ideologue, though with his own little innovation on the subject of long-term entrism. (I am only going on that reputation, which I suppose could have been less than fair. I never met him or belonged to his sect.)


----------



## articul8 (Oct 9, 2011)

I never met Grant - I guess he was marked by some of the assumptions of his generation (queer politics and feminism were petit-bourgeois distractions from class struggle etc.) Not sure he was any weirder than your average Trot demagogue though?!


----------



## Fedayn (Oct 10, 2011)

articul8 said:


> I never met Grant - I guess he was marked by some of the assumptions of his generation (queer politics and feminism were petit-bourgeois distractions from class struggle etc.) Not sure he was any weirder than your average Trot demagogue though?!



He was a rather approachable individual as it goes. Yeah he had those rather unbending attitudes in some ways-not just him in the old MT leadership-but he was not weirdo, sex case like Healy or unbending demagogue like Clif. He was, on the numerous times I met him, a very affable gentle old fella.


----------



## articul8 (Oct 11, 2011)

should have had his arms strapped to his side when giving a speech mind 

Funny how these mannerisms spread - Taaffe and Mulhearn both have this tendency to drop an extra clause mid sentence and add "by the way" at the end, in exactly the same tone.


----------



## JHE (Oct 11, 2011)

In the good old days, _all_ the Millies were trained to make their sect's speeches - or should I say their sect's speech?

Most of the Millies making the speech had the same distinctive hand movements, involving chopping gestures, and a Scouse accent.  Some of them were Scousers, of course, but many weren't.  The accent was an odd affectation that indicated their allegiance to their particular brand of Trottery.

They were also trained in contemptuous rejection of those rival sects that were outside and against the Labour Party - the mass party of the working class, blah, blah, blah.  To be outside the Labour Party, as the Socialist Party is now, was to be "ultra-left".


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 11, 2011)

JHE said:
			
		

> or should I say their sect's speech?



speak for yourself, mr muslamic raygun


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 11, 2011)

funny you of all people should accuse people of saying the same thing again and again, one can only conclude that the repetitive speeches of the trots were not anti-muslim (or anti-trot) enough for your liking.


----------



## JHE (Oct 11, 2011)

It's difficult to tell from the written word, but I guess you're saying all that to yourself in a fake Scouse accent.

Try this, with the choppy hand movements: "Nationalise the top 200 monotheisms, under angelic control and with salvation only on the basis of proven need!"


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 11, 2011)

I actually did lol at that.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 11, 2011)

pretty amusing to see someone of your political persuasion complaining about "weird hand movements" though, given the unfortunate right-arm problem which seems to afflict so many members of the "counter-jihad" movement


----------



## JHE (Oct 12, 2011)

Do you mean like these gentlemen?






And these?





Let's get back to Tony Cliff. The thread is supposed to be about Cliff.

In his 1946 pamphlet 'A New British Provocation in Palestine' he wrote:

_"The British are ... doing all in their power to foster the Moslem Brotherhood, a clerical-fascist organisation in Egypt, which is at present organising branches in Palestine."_​
The "clerical-fascist organisation" (more accurately termed Islamist) succeeded in establishing itself in Palestine, where it became known as Hamas.

Imagine Harman's slogan reworded in the language of Cliff in 1946: 'With the clerical-fascists sometimes...'!


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 12, 2011)

i don't know, why don't you ask someone who supports the swp, i don't, particularly. as for the rest of your post, well, a stopped clock is right twice a day.


----------



## dynamicbaddog (Oct 14, 2011)

discokermit said:


> also this is quite interesting, 'they fuck you up, the left.', excerpt from a talk by andy wilson from the association of musicsl marxists and ex swp fulltimer that touches on some of the issues regarding leadership of a revolutionary organisation. http://www.cpgb.org.uk/article.php?article_id=1004564


the third part from that session, the contribution from Pat Byrne, raises some good points too

http://www.cpgb.org.uk/article.php?article_id=1004571


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 14, 2011)

it's a good article and makes a lot of good points, especially about how many people in left-wing groups end up losing touch with what everyone is thinking and the dangers of having too many full timers, and about the left-wing jargon which does often end up intimidating people sometimes, or making them think you're nuts. i think the modern day SP is a lot more open when it comes to some of the stuff especially the bit about a "united front" against internal differences etc, i think that it is a good thing that we have these debates in the party and are able to discuss things openly and i've not heard anyone say that they should not be discussed with anyone else (i've never heard anyone say anything like that).

sectarianism on the left is a real problem and i dont think any group is exactly perfect.

the cpgb are weird though. i agree with a lot of the things they say re: sectarianism and that, but i looked in their party constitution and it says that they do the "self-criticism", but i didn't think anyone actually did that. apart from the sparts or something.


----------



## belboid (Oct 14, 2011)

Fedayn said:


> unbending demagogue like Clif.


unbending demagogue?  Whilst demagoguey might be in the ear of the behearer I suppose (and compared to Grant almost anyone could have demagogical powers), in no way could anyone call Cliff unbending!  His willingness to bend the stick was one of the major factors in the SWP becoming the biggest left group left. Indeed, its usually _the lefts_ biggest criticism of him/the partym, that he'd bend any which way for a few more sales and recruits.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 14, 2011)

well yeh that;s the issue i've always had with them


----------



## dynamicbaddog (Oct 17, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> i i've not heard anyone say that they should not be discussed with anyone else (i've never heard anyone say anything like that).
> 
> .


I have, I know someone who got expelled from the SPEW for discussing internal matters with 'non comrades'. Knowing what a paranoid egomaniac  Peter Taffe is I expect this sort of thing goes on all the time.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 17, 2011)

when was this?


----------



## dynamicbaddog (Oct 17, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> when was this?


late 90s I think, doubt  they have changed much since then, in fact I've heard they have  got worse


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 17, 2011)

oh, ok. that might explain it then. Just that nobody was epelled last year, and from what i've heard the sp havent expelled anyone for a long time. what did he do exactly? im surprised, to say the fuckin least, and i'd ask whether there would be more to it than that.

what do you think of the CPGB "self-criticism" stuff btw. where you have to stand up and say how shit you are.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 17, 2011)

I know someone who was expelled for doing an armed robbery to give the money to the party.


----------



## dynamicbaddog (Oct 17, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> oh, ok. that might explain it then. Just that nobody was epelled last year, and *from what i've heard* the sp havent expelled anyone for a long time.what did he do?
> 
> what do you think of the CPGB "self-criticism" stuff btw. where you have to stand up and say how shit you are.



excatly 'from what you've heard' Do you really think they are going tell you about stuff like that?


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 17, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> I know someone who was expelled for doing an armed robbery to give the money to the party.



Haha


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 17, 2011)

Drove him into the welcoming arms of Class War - they weren't fussy


----------



## dynamicbaddog (Oct 17, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> I know someone who was expelled for doing an armed robbery to give the money to the party.


but did they still  keep the proceeds for the fighting fund?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 17, 2011)

Quite likely, that fighting fund did mad things to people.


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Oct 17, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> where you have to stand up and say how shit you are.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 17, 2011)

but i know people in the sp who have shall we say ... very "different" views to what the party says, and openly repeat them all the time, as well as what they thinks wrong with the party, and they haven't been expelled or anything. so im surprised, to say the least. lol. and i've never had to do that criticism stuff.

that armed robbery story is hilarious though


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 17, 2011)

Captain Hurrah said:


>



It's true though, thats' what it is isn't it? And the CPGB do that. While calling everyone else cults lol.


----------



## JimW (Oct 17, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> oh, ok. that might explain it then. Just that nobody was epelled last year, and from what i've heard the sp havent expelled anyone for a long time. what did he do exactly? im surprised, to say the fuckin least, and i'd ask whether there would be more to it than that.





frogwoman said:


> what do you think of the CPGB "self-criticism" stuff btw. where you have to stand up and say how shit you are.



I've met a few older Chinese communists who think done right (at the grassroots in the country and on the shop floors) it was great for consolidating what genuine democracy people did manage to carve out for themselves in the collectives - trying to recall exactly how they put it, something along the lines of people working through problems together to arrive at a working consensus; done right, with no sense that you were on the naughty step, more like help to get your head round various things. Not so great when it was more like an auto da fe in the Inquisition, which was more often the case in the vertical hierarchy.
No experience myself, but these were decent folks with their heads screwed on who defended the practise. I can sort of imagine scenarios where it might be good, but maybe that's the long-lapsed Catholic in me 

ETA: was just googling the Chinese Internet to see if any of the current left sites write anything about it, and the top results are all off the local equivalent of Yahoo Answers with people begging for pro forma self-criticisms they need for their Party/Youth League career advancement. Times have changed


----------



## Random (Oct 17, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> but i know people in the sp who have shall we say ... very "different" views to what the party says, and openly repeat them all the time, as well as what they thinks wrong with the party, and they haven't been expelled or anything. so im surprised, to say the least. lol. and i've never had to do that criticism stuff.


 My guess is that it's probably because your party is currently tiny and can't afford to purge anyone. The SP of today seems to be a very different beast to that of about 20 years ago, when it was far far bigger and far far more arrogant. Good thing that drastic decline didn't make the SP go mad and cling to the past, like it did so many other shrunken left groups, but instead open up and become more tolerant.


----------



## Fedayn (Oct 18, 2011)

JHE said:


> In the good old days, _all_ the Millies were trained to make their sect's speeches - or should I say their sect's speech?
> 
> Most of the Millies making the speech had the same distinctive hand movements, involving chopping gestures, and a Scouse accent. Some of them were Scousers, of course, but many weren't. The accent was an odd affectation that indicated their allegiance to their particular brand of Trottery.
> 
> They were also trained in contemptuous rejection of those rival sects that were outside and against the Labour Party - the mass party of the working class, blah, blah, blah. To be outside the Labour Party, as the Socialist Party is now, was to be "ultra-left".



Yet more factually inaccurate bollocks. I was in the old MT for 13 years, was never once trained or coached how to deliver mine or anyone elses speech. But don't let that kinda factual reality to get in the way of your idiocy will you.


----------



## Fedayn (Oct 18, 2011)

belboid said:


> unbending demagogue? Whilst demagoguey might be in the ear of the behearer I suppose (and compared to Grant almost anyone could have demagogical powers), in no way could anyone call Cliff unbending! His willingness to bend the stick was one of the major factors in the SWP becoming the biggest left group left. Indeed, its usually _the lefts_ biggest criticism of him/the partym, that he'd bend any which way for a few more sales and recruits.



Badly worded I agree, unbending bureaucrat would and is a more accurate description. An absolute messianic zeal he was the only true voice of marxism....

Grant, however much I disagreed with him in later years, was a rather likable chap.


----------



## articul8 (Oct 19, 2011)

dynamicbaddog said:


> I have, I know someone who got expelled from the SPEW for discussing internal matters with 'non comrades'. Knowing what a paranoid egomaniac Peter Taffe is I expect this sort of thing goes on all the time.



I expect it would depend who the "non comrades" in question were.   I doubt you'd be expelled for questioning the party line down the pub


----------



## Fedayn (Oct 19, 2011)

articul8 said:


> I expect it would depend who the "non comrades" in question were. *I doubt you'd be expelled for questioning the party line down the pub*



If you were i'd have been expelled once a month at least.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 19, 2011)

yeah (@ fedayn)


articul8 said:


> I expect it would depend who the "non comrades" in question were. I doubt you'd be expelled for questioning the party line down the pub



yeah, that's why i think i need a bit more information than that! You cant say stuff like that and not give any more info lol. Who were they? What kind of things was he saying - what did he do?  i seriously doubt that you'd be expelled for questioning the party down the pub or on facebook or to your mates or your mum or whatever. It's not a cult ffs.


----------



## dynamicbaddog (Oct 19, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> yeah (@ fedayn)
> 
> yeah, that's why i think i need a bit more information than that! You cant say stuff like that and not give any more info lol. Who were they? What kind of things was he saying - what did he do?  i seriously doubt that you'd be expelled for questioning the party down the pub or on facebook or to your mates or your mum or whatever.* It's not a cult ffs*.



yes it is.

In this case the person had fallen out over personal issues with some other members of his branch and was telling other people in the pub about this after his branch meeting. He got told by a full timer to stop doing this but he refused, then he got a phone call from the full timer a few days later having a go at him for discussing the matter with 'non comrades' (which I believe is a term used within the SPEW to refer to  anyone outside the party)


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 19, 2011)

getting a phone call (which i agree is a bit over the top based purely on the info you've given) is a bit different from being expelled tho no? what happened after the phone call? what happened before this for that matter?


----------



## dynamicbaddog (Oct 19, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> getting a phone call (which i agree is a bit over the top based purely on the info you've given) is a bit different from being expelled tho no? what happened after the phone call?


dunno the ins and outs  I think the phone call was to tell him he had become a non comrade,  he was still drinking in the same pubs as them  after his expulsion but they just blanked him. Lucky escape IMO


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 19, 2011)

that's weird. Like I said, i've never heard of something like that happening - someone being expelled just for something like that- and like i say i know loads of people who've got very "different" views to what the SP's line on things is and haven't been expelled yet.i'd need to know a bit more info about what this guy had been doing before (was going on in the pub all he did, in which case thats incredibly strange) or was there other stuff too?


----------



## dynamicbaddog (Oct 19, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> t or was there other stuff too?


could have been, but I've heard quite a few people tell me of similar cases.


----------



## belboid (Oct 19, 2011)

Fedayn said:


> Badly worded I agree, unbending bureaucrat would and is a more accurate description. An absolute messianic zeal he was the only true voice of marxism....
> 
> Grant, however much I disagreed with him in later years, was a rather likable chap.


Good to see you about and about mate, hope you're feeling somewhat recovered.

Ther is definitely no denying Cliff's messianic zeal.  At his best, it did help make him a great speaker, who could put his POV across with wit and passion. I must admit that on the occasins I did here Grant, I wouldnt use either of those words about him, but maybe that was down to time and place (and me being a 'sectarian on the fringes of the labour movement' as he would have put it). Cliff could be very warm and charming in one to ones too, quite patient with (some) comrades who didn't quite understand the nuances of certain policies.

Of course there were those absolutely absurd dogmatic times too - the Andy Wilson article above is nice enough not to mention Cliffs behaviour during the shenanigans used to expel him (Andy).  At one point Andy said that 'that's not how I remember it' about a conversation _in a pub_ after the meeting.  to which Cliff responded - 'You're calling me a liar!  You should be expelled for that'

But he would also absolutely put his mind to any question on which he didnt already have a view, and take care to take time to answer previously unconsidered points/concerns as fully, and politically, as possible.  I remember one occasion when some comrades were hauled in with a threat of disciplinary after being found, basically, cottaging, at Skeggy. Cliff was utterly bemused by the whole notion of why on earth they'd want to do such a thing, but listened to the comrades, then went away, and obviously thought through it all before coming back to give them a bit of a bollocking. Most of the comrades had thought they were about to be expelled, and came out of the meeting suprisingly impressed by his attitude.


----------



## dynamicbaddog (Oct 19, 2011)

belboid said:


> I remember one occasion when some comrades were hauled in with a threat of disciplinary after being found, basically, cottaging, at Skeggy. Cliff was utterly bemused by the whole notion of why on earth they'd want to do such a thing, but listened to the comrades, then went away, and obviously thought through it all before coming back to give them a bit of a bollocking. Most of the comrades had thought they were about to be expelled, and came out of the meeting suprisingly impressed by his attitude.


I remember that! I was at Skeggy that Easter (not involved in any cottaging I hasten to add) I went to the special meeting about it held shortly after at Malet Street. Lindsey German  was trying to make out that one of the cottagers called her a bitch and that this was an example of how the party was accomodating to 'macho sexist gay culture' I thought there was more than a hint of homophobia from the CC over that one..


----------



## Random (Oct 20, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> that's weird. Like I said, i've never heard of something like that happening - someone being expelled just for something like that- and like i say i know loads of people who've got very "different" views to what the SP's line on things is and haven't been expelled yet.i'd need to know a bit more info about what this guy had been doing before (was going on in the pub all he did, in which case thats incredibly strange) or was there other stuff too?


Frogster I just love it the way you're all starry eyed over your new party, like someone with a new bff "well that doesn't sound at all like the person I know".


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 20, 2011)

Random said:


> Frogster I just love it the way you're all starry eyed over your new party, like someone with a new bff "well that doesn't sound at all like the person I know".


nah, there are actually quite a few things i dont like/havent agreed with it on. but i still think the sp is the most effective and well-organised far-left party in britain and one which i can agree with the vast majority of their views on.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Oct 20, 2011)

Fedayn said:


> Yet more factually inaccurate bollocks. I was in the old MT for 13 years, was never once trained or coached how to deliver mine or anyone elses speech. But don't let that kinda factual reality to get in the way of your idiocy will you.



I would suggest it was more unconscious imitation than anything deliberate. There certainly wasn't training but pretty much everyone did seem to get into the 'chopping hand' style iirc.


----------



## JHE (Oct 20, 2011)

...and the fake Scouse accent.


----------



## articul8 (Oct 20, 2011)

.and saying "by the way" in the middle of a sentence for no good reason?


----------



## discokermit (Oct 20, 2011)

Smokeandsteam said:


> but pretty much everyone did seem to get into the 'chopping hand' style iirc.


that's an swp thing as well.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 20, 2011)

Just a thing you do when you're talking and you're trying to tie things together.


----------



## discokermit (Oct 20, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Just a thing you do when you're talking and you're trying to tie things together.


no it isn't. it's learnt from watching other left speakers.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 20, 2011)

I don't and have never watched left speakers - i do it to tie things together, to suggest they're connected and to add emphasis to this.


----------



## discokermit (Oct 20, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> I don't and have never watched left speakers - i do it to tie things together, to suggest they're connected and to add emphasis to this.


i sugest you try something else then, as it's a massive cliche.


----------



## Fedayn (Oct 20, 2011)

dynamicbaddog said:


> yes it is.
> 
> In this case the person had fallen out over personal issues with some other members of his branch and was telling other people in the pub about this after his branch meeting. He got told by a full timer to stop doing this but he refused, then he got a phone call from the full timer a few days later having a go at him for discussing the matter with 'non comrades' (which I believe is a term used within the SPEW to refer to anyone outside the party)



Yada yada yada....

So, when you actually go into more detail what we actually get is your mate spilling his guts about personal matters, that included others, to some people in a pub. I'd be fucking raging about that and i'm no defender of the SP in it's current guise. So, no threat of expulsion just an angry FTer having a go at someone for spilling their guts.

A truly pathetic swipe.


----------



## Fedayn (Oct 20, 2011)

JHE said:


> ...and the fake Scouse accent.



Aye, I remember all those comrades from London, Scotland, Newcastle, Manchester, Wales, Brum who all had.... Oh yeah local accents.... No scouse accents at all..... What a surprise....


----------



## Fedayn (Oct 20, 2011)

belboid said:


> Good to see you about and about mate, hope you're feeling somewhat recovered.
> 
> Ther is definitely no denying Cliff's messianic zeal. At his best, it did help make him a great speaker, who could put his POV across with wit and passion. I must admit that on the occasins I did here Grant, I wouldnt use either of those words about him, but maybe that was down to time and place (and me being a 'sectarian on the fringes of the labour movement' as he would have put it). Cliff could be very warm and charming in one to ones too, quite patient with (some) comrades who didn't quite understand the nuances of certain policies.
> 
> ...



Yeah much better ta, much better than last week.

When Militant had their Summer Camp there was cottaging a plenty, the leadership weren't interested in the slightest let alone consider disciplinary proceedings..... And this was when Grant was about.


----------



## Fedayn (Oct 20, 2011)

discokermit said:


> that's an swp thing as well.



Using your hands to gesticulate, in various ways and styles, when speaking is not a 'left' thing, it's common amongst human beings full stop.


----------



## discokermit (Oct 20, 2011)

Fedayn said:


> Using your hands to gesticulate, in various ways and styles, when speaking is not a 'left' thing, it's common amongst human beings full stop.


gesticulating, yes, and in many ways. not 'the trotsky chop'. i have only seen left wing speakers doing this.


----------



## dynamicbaddog (Oct 21, 2011)

Fedayn said:


> Yada yada yada....
> 
> So, when you actually go into more detail what we actually get is your mate spilling his guts about personal matters, that included others, to some people in a pub. I'd be fucking raging about that and i'm no defender of the SP in it's current guise. So, no threat of expulsion just an angry FTer having a go at someone for spilling their guts.
> 
> A truly pathetic swipe.


 more like a pathetic attempt by you to defend your guru Peter Taffe and his goons from the SPEW.
My friend was 'spilling his guts' about bullying he'd been on the receiving end of from some his former 'comrades'. Why shouldn't he be allowed to talk to his mates about this in his local pub?


----------



## Red Cat (Oct 21, 2011)

You post a link to someone saying it's a shame left orgs don't pay attention to group dynamics/social psychology and then you get into slagging off one of those orgs. I thought the point made by both links was that the features they critisise are features of all hierarchical revolutionary groups in capitalist society, swp, sp or otherwise. This constant scapegoating of others, individuals or groups, is so unproductive.


----------



## articul8 (Oct 21, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> I don't and have never watched left speakers - i do it to tie things together, to suggest they're connected and to add emphasis to this.



Butchers a few years ago?

Seriously, you can't say this chopping action isn't highly exaggerated


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 21, 2011)

I didn't.I said i do something similar.I do it because i've chopped my talk up into easily rememberable bits - one bit chop,2nd bit chop,3rd bit chop


----------



## Fedayn (Oct 23, 2011)

dynamicbaddog said:


> more like a pathetic attempt by you to defend your guru Peter Taffe and his goons from the SPEW.
> My friend was 'spilling his guts' about bullying he'd been on the receiving end of from some his former 'comrades'. Why shouldn't he be allowed to talk to his mates about this in his local pub?



Now, are you sitting comfortably? Shall we begin? I left the CWI 13 years ago, got that yet, has it sunk in, or does it need a bit more time to register and swirl around that space? I have little, if any time for the SP leadership, I have even less time for their organisation up here in Scotland. So your risible claim that i'm defending some guru is rather funny frankly.

Yes 'bullying', I bet he was terrified.... Sorry but do fuck off. I have seen some of the accusations of bullying as regards the SP, they weren't even close. Now toddle off and go to some Socialist Appeal meeting where you might get a sympathetic hearing.... Ironically off Rob Sewell no doubt.


----------



## Fedayn (Oct 23, 2011)

articul8 said:


> Butchers a few years ago?
> 
> Seriously, you can't say this chopping action isn't highly exaggerated




He was seen amongst Militant members as having a very gesticulatory style. No-one else was even remotely close.


----------



## JHE (Nov 2, 2011)

I don't often read the Morning Star, but I did today. In it there is a review of Ian Birchall's biography of Cliff. The reviewer is Steve Andrew, who I presume is a CPBer.

The review is surprisingly generous to Cliff: "above all a seasoned, anti-capitalist militant who inspired respect from friend and foe alike."

Inevitably, the reviewer regards Trottery and Cliffery as "ultra-left" and is suitably dismissive of notions like the permanent arms economy and state capitalism. There is a waspish little mention of "the development or otherwise of post-war Trotskyism".

Nevertheless, Steve Andrew thinks that compared to Grant or "the odious Gerry Healy", Cliff "comes out shining". "Unafraid of breaching orthodoxy, his study of Rosa Luxemburg's work was well researched and original while an ability to learn from others also saw him recognise the centrality of the gay struggle at a relatively early stage." (I'm not convinced Cliff saw 'the gay struggle' as 'central' to socialist politics, and I'm not convinced that he should, but it's true that he was better than some others.)

The reviewer is less generous to Ian Birchall and his book. "Poorly edited, repetitive and a little bit soulless, the book requires patience to wade through all of its 600-odd pages."


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Nov 3, 2011)

dynamicbaddog said:


> the third part from that session, the contribution from Pat Byrne, raises some good points too
> 
> http://www.cpgb.org.uk/article.php?article_id=1004571



Pretty much everything in that article is spot on, fairplay to him.


----------



## Fedayn (Nov 7, 2011)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Pretty much everything in that article is spot on, fairplay to him.



He's up here quite alot is Pat. I was speaking to him when we had a strike in June, he's got an interesting view on how the left 'works' or more accurately how it all too often doesn't work.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Nov 8, 2011)

Fedayn said:


> He's up here quite alot is Pat. I was speaking to him when we had a strike in June, he's got an interesting view on how the left 'works' or more accurately how it all too often doesn't work.



What is his view then? Is he SP? I thought his contribution on the video was pretty good, and it caused a wry smile on more than one occasion


----------



## Red Cat (Nov 8, 2011)

Smokeandsteam said:


> What is his view then? Is he SP? I thought his contribution on the video was pretty good, and it caused a wry smile on more than one occasion



I get the impression that his view is more to do with how he sees group dynamics working rather than a party position. At least that's what I found interesting about his perspective.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Nov 8, 2011)

Red Cat said:


> I get the impression that his view is more to do with how he sees group dynamics working rather than a party position. At least that's what I found interesting about his perspective.



Agreed. I'm interested in a) what he thinks the left should do about it and b) if this is a view that has a wider currency in leftie circles or it's still heads down to rage against cuts etc.


----------



## Nigel (Nov 8, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Drove him into the welcoming arms of Class War - they weren't fussy


A leading member of Class War always told a story about said person stripping to the waist covering himself in cream and asking a slightly prudish person with middle class foibles to like it off at a CW conference.
Myth or some truth in this story?


----------



## Nigel (Nov 8, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> yeah (@ fedayn)
> 
> yeah, that's why i think i need a bit more information than that! You cant say stuff like that and not give any more info lol. Who were they? What kind of things was he saying - what did he do?  i seriously doubt that you'd be expelled for questioning the party down the pub or on facebook or to your mates or your mum or whatever. It's not a cult ffs.


Not unless Dennisr's running the show


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 8, 2011)

JHE said:


> ...and the fake Scouse accent.



better than pretending to be from luton and going around demanding KFC give you your bacon back


----------



## Nigel (Nov 8, 2011)

SWP's more Mockney Fred Perry sort of Stylie


----------



## Nigel (Nov 8, 2011)

Anyway, even if that was true(scouser thing), which if the main mentors of the Millies were from Liverpool say in the eighties, cannot see that being so today.
For instance Hannah Sell couldn't be accussed of this, very different style of oration.


----------



## Nigel (Nov 8, 2011)

Is there anything in this book around the formation of the SWP from IS?
"Disagreements over constitutional changes, the management of the newspaper 'Socialist Worker', and strategy towards the Broad Left in the AEUW led to splits in the group between 1973-5. The break with entrist work within the Labour Party was finally confirmed in 1976, when the International Socialists decided to contest the by-election in Walsall, and it was decided that from January 1977 the IS should be renamed the Socialist Workers Party
	
."
http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/services/library/mrc/explorefurther/subject_guides/trotskyite_sources/


----------



## articul8 (Nov 8, 2011)

Nigel said:


> Anyway, even if that was true(scouser thing), which if the main mentors of the Millies were from Liverpool say in the eighties, cannot see that being so today.
> For instance Hannah Sell couldn't be accussed of this, very different style of oration.



She's not a scouser that's true enough.  But she does have the Taaffe/Mulhearn TM. "by the way" dropped in as a clause mid sentence.


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 8, 2011)

articul8 said:


> She's not a scouser that's true enough. But she does have the Taaffe/Mulhearn TM. "by the way" dropped in as a clause mid sentence.


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 8, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> better than pretending to be from luton and going around demanding KFC give you your bacon back



the dress sense of the millies was always better than JHE's lot, too. peter taaffe etc always look quite well dressed, compared to the "Christian Knights" who just end up looking like fucking twats. They cant even get the uniforms right any more.


----------



## audiotech (Nov 12, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> I know someone who was expelled for doing an armed robbery to give the money to the party.



Michael Winner did a docudrama on the very man, which was televised.


----------



## audiotech (Nov 12, 2011)

articul8 said:


> Ah, does mention Rosewell's role. Was he M15?



No.


----------



## audiotech (Nov 12, 2011)

Random said:


> Frogster I just love it the way you're all starry eyed over your new party, like someone with a new bff "well that doesn't sound at all like the person I know".



Someone once said to me that any born-again Christian should be locked in a cupboard for the first 12 months. Same goes for new members of the various political sects.


----------



## articul8 (Nov 12, 2011)

audiotech said:


> No.


you sure?


----------



## audiotech (Nov 12, 2011)

JHE said:


> ...and the fake Scouse accent.



I met a few scousers who were in the SWP and they weren't fake, unlike you.


----------



## audiotech (Nov 12, 2011)

articul8 said:


> you sure?



Let's put it this way, Birchall's recently published book on Cliff mentions Rosewell a fair few times and he actually interviewed him as part of his research, along with many others for the book. If Rosewell had been an MI5 agent, then can you imagine Birchall wishing to interview Rosewell, or Rosewell volunteering to be interviewed, because I can't?


----------



## articul8 (Nov 12, 2011)

unless Birchall is too


----------



## audiotech (Nov 12, 2011)

I was expecting that.  An MI5 agent who writes a biography on some leading theoretician of a small revolutionary sect, that's over 650 pages in length seems unlikely.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 13, 2011)

audiotech said:


> Michael Winner did a docudrama on the very man, which was televised.


Er...what?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 13, 2011)

audiotech said:


> Let's put it this way, Birchall's recently published book on Cliff mentions Rosewell a fair few times and he actually interviewed him as part of his research, along with many others for the book. If Rosewell had been an MI5 agent, then can you imagine Birchall wishing to interview Rosewell, or Rosewell volunteering to be interviewed, because I can't?


That's _exactly_ what you'd expect someone like that to do.


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 13, 2011)

audiotech said:


> I was expecting that.  An MI5 agent who writes a biography on some leading theoretician of a small revolutionary sect, that's over 650 pages in length seems unlikely.


i'd love it to be true though.


----------



## articul8 (Nov 13, 2011)

There was a documentary on MI5 surveillance of the left a year or two back, where one guy explains how he spent all day in a broom cupboard at a Militant national committee or something, pissing into a bucket as quietly as he could to avoid detection It ain't a glamorous life


----------



## discokermit (Nov 13, 2011)

birchall did a meeting in wolverhampton, during the course of discussion it turned out he'd never heard of the 'carry on' films. struck me as a bit iffy, that.


----------



## Red Cat (Nov 13, 2011)

discokermit said:


> birchall did a meeting in wolverhampton, during the course of discussion it turned out he'd never heard of the 'carry on' films. struck me as a bit iffy, that.



Sure he didn't just misunderstand the wolverhampton accent?


----------



## articul8 (Nov 13, 2011)

It's hard to imagine how you could live in the UK for a number of years and not have at least a general idea of the Carry Ons even if you've never watched one from start to finish.


----------



## audiotech (Nov 13, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Er...what?



As stated.


----------



## audiotech (Nov 13, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> That's _exactly_ what you'd expect someone like that to do.



You're letting your imagination get the better of you.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 13, 2011)

audiotech said:
			
		

> As stated.



That michael winner made a docu-drama about my mate?


----------



## audiotech (Nov 14, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> That michael winner made a docu-drama about my mate?



You didn't say it was your "mate", but rather someone you knew.

Nonetheless, there was an SWP member (I didn't know him), who carried out armed robberies and Michael Winner presented a drama documentary on the fella. This was televised some years ago. He was caught and arrested during one of these robberies and served serious time.


----------



## audiotech (Nov 14, 2011)

discokermit said:


> birchall did a meeting in wolverhampton, during the course of discussion it turned out he'd never heard of the 'carry on' films. struck me as a bit iffy, that.



Not surprising really. Tony Cliff once attended an Arsenal home game and wasn't the least bit interested in the football (Spurs supporters would have a similar viewpoint about Arsenal and football), but was all the time there observing the crowd and enquired; were all those watching workers? This gives some insight into the mind of a Marxist theoretician, in relation to others of a similar bent, with regard to the specific cinematic genre of 'carry on' films.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Nov 14, 2011)

Interested that Ken Livingstone was totally sure that MI5 stitched Healy's group up ...

http://www.aworldtowin.net/resources/GH.html#foreword


----------



## audiotech (Nov 14, 2011)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Interested that Ken Livingstone was totally sure that MI5 stitched Healy's group up ...
> 
> http://www.aworldtowin.net/resources/GH.html#foreword



The Rise and Fall of Gerry Healy.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 14, 2011)

audiotech said:


> You didn't say it was your "mate", but rather someone you knew.
> 
> Nonetheless, there was an SWP member (I didn't know him), who carried out armed robberies and Michael Winner presented a drama documentary on the fella. This was televised some years ago. He was caught and arrested during one of these robberies and served serious time.


Only problem is that i didn't mention the SWP - and i didn't mention the SWP as i was talking about militant.


----------



## audiotech (Nov 14, 2011)

Fair enough and I was talking about some guy in the SWP.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Nov 16, 2011)

audiotech said:


> Not surprising really. Tony Cliff once attended an Arsenal home game and wasn't the least bit interested in the football (Spurs supporters would have a similar viewpoint about Arsenal and football), but was all the time there observing the crowd and enquired; were all those watching workers? This gives some insight into the mind of a Marxist theoretician, in relation to others of a similar bent, with regard to the specific cinematic genre of 'carry on' films.



The answer to his question would be 'no' if my recent trips to the Emirates are indicative. Full of Guardian readers....


----------



## audiotech (Nov 16, 2011)

Oh, that old chestnut. Leave me out.

Not sure what time period Cliff went to watch that particular football game?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Nov 16, 2011)

audiotech said:


> Edit: I've just noticed a small stain over the word 'Guardian' in the post above. Thought it was my laptop screen and wiped it, but it's still there and now I notice it goes up and down when I toggle the screen. How odd?



Very metaphorical...


----------



## audiotech (Nov 16, 2011)

Yes,  I've worked out what it is now.


----------



## sptme (Nov 18, 2011)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Interested that Ken Livingstone was totally sure that MI5 stitched Healy's group up ...
> 
> http://www.aworldtowin.net/resources/GH.html#foreword


 Healy's party split because Healy has been sexually assaulting female party members for years. Anyone who tries to sweep that under the carpet can fuck off.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Nov 18, 2011)

sptme said:


> Healy's party split because Healy has been sexually assaulting female party members for years. Anyone who tries to sweep that under the carpet can fuck off.



The sexual assaults were only one of the symptoms of the madness.


----------



## maomao (Nov 18, 2011)

discokermit said:


> birchall did a meeting in wolverhampton, during the course of discussion it turned out he'd never heard of the 'carry on' films. struck me as a bit iffy, that.



That's not true. I think he was pulling someone's leg.


----------



## discokermit (Nov 18, 2011)

maomao said:


> That's not true. I think he was pulling someone's leg.


i think what it might have been was that he didn't want to get drawn in to petty branch squabbles. it was a bit weird, the branch was split and at war with itself, the branch committee used the opportunity of a public meeting on culture to attack the dissenters by asking him what he thought about the films (the opposition all happened to like carry on films). they probably thought he would condemn them, and by association us, as sexist, thus giving them a little edge.

he was very dismissive and said he'd never heard of them. he must have seen through their utterly pathetic little game.


----------



## barney_pig (Nov 19, 2011)

My rather eclectic journey through the English left has brought me into contact with virtually all of its myriad wonders (sic!), Despite my differences with the SWP today I am grateful that I met and heard Tony Cliff in the early eighties, and to have known some of that generation of Trotskyists who were members of the SWP at that time; Chanie, Duncan Hallas, Audrey Farrell, Jim Scott an others, when people ask me today why I stayed within the SWP for 20 years, it is them that I think of.
 The series in WW about the left is good, but it does focus attention on the internal structure of the weekly worker cpgb.
 I was only in the "cpgb" for a few weeks, hardly enough time to unpack my bags, before I followed the rest of the Guildford branch out and, eventually, set up the red party.
  What struck me then, and has continued to do so since, is that the 'party' is despite it fetishes for internal democracy and openess on the left, a very undemocratic private club run by and for its leadership.
Our own row with the pcc was around participation in Respect, which the CPGB WW was a member
 we wanted, if not out, then a far more critical approach to the whole thing, and in fact won the argument at conference, a victory that the pcc simply ignored, and then unleashed its attack dogs in the letter pages of ww, and online against the red platform and personally aginst individuals involved. eventually we simply removed ourselves from an increasingly poisonous enviroment.
Recently the CPGB had an influx of students attracted by the communist students group ( we are talking relative here, for a group that had never had more than 30-35 members nationally, an extra 20 new faces is a serious change in the group demographic), these new members were far less wedded to the old pattern of party activity and we confused by the fetish of 'THE PAPER', and especially the frenetic and unending scramble for funds to keep the paper published.
 They argued for dumping the weekly worker, and instead devoting all to a revitalised and accessable website (500 'hard copy' papers printed a week, whilst the website gets up to 20,000 hits every week). they won the argument and vote hands down and then... nothing happens the paper continues to be published, complete with numerous articles attacking thge idea of scrapping the paper, and the political ideas of those involved in the student group are rubbished, until eventually many of the students drift away and the old guard can reestablish their majority.
sorry to drone on about the CPGBWW, but they are in some way the 'purest' of the leninist groups operating today, and their antidemocratic shennanigans do hold up a mirror for the rest.


----------



## articul8 (Nov 19, 2011)

discokermit said:


> i think what it might have been was that he didn't want to get drawn in to petty branch squabbles. it was a bit weird, the branch was split and at war with itself, the branch committee used the opportunity of a public meeting on culture to attack the dissenters by asking him what he thought about the films (the opposition all happened to like carry on films). they probably thought he would condemn them, and by association us, as sexist, thus giving them a little edge.
> 
> he was very dismissive and said he'd never heard of them. he must have seen through their utterly pathetic little game.


Is this for real?


----------



## discokermit (Nov 19, 2011)

articul8 said:


> Is this for real?


oh yeh. a clique of half a dozen in a branch of thirty, backed by the fulltimer, managed to wreck the branch. the fulltimer was constantly in touch with two ex public schoolboys who she got on to branch committee, who then went on to poison the whole branch. central committee/cliff faction in action.


----------



## barney_pig (Nov 19, 2011)

discokermit said:


> oh yeh. a clique of half a dozen in a branch of thirty, backed by the fulltimer, managed to wreck the branch. the fulltimer was constantly in touch with two ex public schoolboys who she got on to branch committee, who then went on to poison the whole branch. central committee/cliff faction in action.


Throw a brick in any meeting at Marxism, and you would be hard pressed not to hit a couple of public schoolboys


----------



## articul8 (Nov 19, 2011)

Just struggling to see how attitudes to Carry On films can an issue in a faction fight!


----------



## discokermit (Nov 19, 2011)

articul8 said:


> Just struggling to see how attitudes to Carry On films can an issue in a faction fight!


anything can be an issue in a faction fight. also anything can be an issue in the swp. films you watch, length of your hair, you name it. don't want curry at a branch meal in an indian restaurant? trotbot screams "_RACIST!_", offender has to defend himself in front of branch committee.


----------



## emanymton (Nov 19, 2011)

Either a) This is total bollocks, or B) You have had this misfortune to come across some SWP branches with really unhealthy internal cultures. I was a member for around 5 years and there was nothing like that.

Which isn't to say I think the SWP has a healthy internal culture, it doesn't and some areas are worse that others.


----------



## discokermit (Nov 19, 2011)

i'm not saying it was like that everywhere, dudley branch seemed to work ok.
in fact, i only found out i wasn't a member when one of dudley branch approached me at marxism and asked me why i'd left the party. my branch hadn't reregistered me, without even informing me.

what years were you in, by the way?


----------



## Das Uberdog (Nov 19, 2011)

i'd back up discokermit's experience, and i've been around quite a number of branches.


----------



## emanymton (Nov 19, 2011)

Around 2000-2005





discokermit said:


> i'm not saying it was like that everywhere, dudley branch seemed to work ok.
> in fact, i only found out i wasn't a member when one of dudley branch approached me at marxism and asked me why i'd left the party. my branch hadn't reregistered me, without even informing me.
> 
> what years were you in, by the way?


Around 2000-2005

I'm confused how your branch could not re-register you. That was an individual thing when I was a member, and it was also a struggle to get the centre to talk people of the bloody list even when they made it quite clear they didn't want to be a member.


----------



## discokermit (Nov 19, 2011)

emanymton said:


> Around 2000-2005
> Around 2000-2005
> 
> I'm confused how your branch could not re-register you. That was an individual thing when I was a member, and it was also a struggle to get the centre to talk people of the bloody list even when they made it quite clear they didn't want to be a member.


'88-'94 for me.

it'r right what you say about registration, normally you could be dead and still not get taken off the list. but in our circumstance it was used as a backdoor expulsion. it happened to three of us. another was expelled and another two didn't bother to find out if they'd been reregistered or not.


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Nov 19, 2011)

Sounds really fucking weird the above. A lot of stress?​


----------



## emanymton (Nov 19, 2011)

discokermit said:


> '88-'94 for me.
> 
> it'r right what you say about registration, normally you could be dead and still not get taken off the list. but in our circumstance it was used as a backdoor expulsion. it happened to three of us. another was expelled and another two didn't bother to find out if they'd been reregistered or not.


Yeah, that makes more sense, I think things like that where more common during the the period you where a member as well.

In general terms I think it takes two things to get expelled form most left parties, first you have to have a formal disagreement and then someone who is more senior in the organization has to decide you are also actually disruptive in the organization. Whether or not this is related to the disagreement can be irrelevant, and In some cases of course they just don't like the person but that won't be how they see it in their own head. But normally differences of opinion are accepted as long as the day to day work isn't affected.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Nov 19, 2011)

The internal cultures of most far-left parties are completely bonkers.

I know its been discussed here ad-infinitum but fucking hell, I can still be surprised and amused by individul stories.

Its a shame because there probably is a large enough grouping of ex-members of the various groups who still have decent socialist politics and who could actually have a positive influence on politics if they worked together in a genuinely democratic, open, and broad based organisation.


----------



## barney_pig (Nov 19, 2011)

discokermit said:


> anything can be an issue in a faction fight. also anything can be an issue in the swp. films you watch, length of your hair, you name it. don't want curry at a branch meal in an indian restaurant? trotbot screams "_RACIST!_", offender has to defend himself in front of branch committee.


Anyone else remember the ban on shaved haircuts?-  in the mid- nineties someone got it in their heads that a shaven head meant skinhead meant nazi, and that comrades were scaring vast numbers of asian women from joining because of their hair cuts, and so it was announced that a short hair cut meant disciplinary action being taken. (what was even more ludicrous was that the nazis had dropped the skinhead look years before, and the only people wearing it were gays and socialists).
 Then  there was the party's ban on Romper Stomper, which it was claimked was an active recruiting weapon for fascism (the same was claimed for American History X).
Then there was the decision to ban branches from meeting in pubs.
The almost total ban on the internet (which went on for years)
 it is amazing that they just keep getting away with it.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Nov 19, 2011)

barney_pig said:


> Then there was the decision to ban branches from meeting in pubs.
> .



The only non completely mental ban on the list.


----------



## discokermit (Nov 20, 2011)

barney_pig said:


> Anyone else remember the ban on shaved haircuts?- in the mid- nineties someone got it in their heads that a shaven head meant skinhead meant nazi, and that comrades were scaring vast numbers of asian women from joining because of their hair cuts, and so it was announced that a short hair cut meant disciplinary action being taken. (what was even more ludicrous was that the nazis had dropped the skinhead look years before, and the only people wearing it were gays and socialists).
> Then there was the party's ban on Romper Stomper, which it was claimked was an active recruiting weapon for fascism (the same was claimed for American History X).
> Then there was the decision to ban branches from meeting in pubs.
> The almost total ban on the internet (which went on for years)
> it is amazing that they just keep getting away with it.


oh yeh, i remember. i remember seeing paul from leicester growing his hair, "tony cliff told me to".

and talk of picketing cinemas where romper stomper was being shown. down with this sort of thing!


----------



## discokermit (Nov 20, 2011)

emanymton said:


> But normally differences of opinion are accepted as long as the day to day work isn't affected.


not then they weren't.


----------



## belboid (Nov 20, 2011)

there was never really any 'ban' on cropped haricuts. when i had a mohican around that time the full-timer recommended i just chopped the bloody lot of (of course, that could have been because my mohawk just looked shit)

Then again, that branch did keep meeting in a pub, so maybe we were rebels (we weren't)



discokermit said:


> not then they weren't.


yeah they were, its just what was considered to be 'disruptive' was rather broader than what any sane person might consider disruptive


----------



## articul8 (Nov 21, 2011)

sptme said:


> Healy's party split because Healy has been sexually assaulting female party members for years. Anyone who tries to sweep that under the carpet can fuck off.



Healy was a dodgy character from the beginning - he was first recruited after punching Jock Haston and calling him a "Trotskyite bastard" - unfortunately Haston didn't punch him straight back but persuaded him he was wrong. Then Healy played a dodgy role in the latter end of the WiL, the RCP and ran "the club" like a fuhrer.

Funny - in most of the above he was aided and abetted by James Cannon - who was also a prick. ISFI attracted these sorts for some reason.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 21, 2011)

Enjoy your old books.


----------



## Fedayn (Nov 21, 2011)

discokermit said:


> and talk of picketing cinemas where romper stomper was being shown. down with this sort of thing!



Wasn't just talk, it happened in some places.


----------



## Fedayn (Nov 21, 2011)

discokermit said:


> gesticulating, yes, and in many ways. not 'the trotsky chop'. i have only seen left wing speakers doing this.



I see no Trotsky chop!!!!


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 21, 2011)

Fedayn said:


> Wasn't just talk, it happened in some places.


Belboid did it.


----------



## belboid (Nov 21, 2011)

bastard...how did I know you were going to grass me up....

I would say...it wasn't really a 'picket', merely a leafletting outside a showing, no one was stopped from going in.

And there was some evidence that it was a bit of a recruiting tool for the fash: tales of them going out for an evenings headkicking after a showing. How much said tales were really true is another story


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 21, 2011)

You love your crap pickets


----------



## belboid (Nov 21, 2011)

there was only one other, you fucker


----------



## Fedayn (Nov 21, 2011)

belboid said:


> bastard...how did I know you were going to grass me up....
> 
> I would say...it wasn't really a 'picket', merely a leafletting outside a showing, no one was stopped from going in.
> 
> And there was some evidence that it was a bit of a recruiting tool for the fash: tales of them going out for an evenings headkicking after a showing. How much said tales were really true is another story



They tried stopping people from getting in up here in Glasgow. A few fascists got slapped up here too when it was shown.

As an aside a skinhead mate of mine-left leaning Hearts/Cardiff fan-who was living in Australia was asked by the film makers to 'advise' them on dress, music etc. They had a look, saw the direction it was taking and refused to get involved.


----------



## articul8 (Nov 21, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Enjoy your old books.


History is always worth understanding.


----------



## Nigel (Nov 21, 2011)

articul8 said:


> Healy was a dodgy character from the beginning - he was first recruited after punching Jock Haston and calling him a "Trotskyite bastard" - unfortunately Haston didn't punch him straight back but persuaded him he was wrong. Then Healy played a dodgy role in the latter end of the WiL, the RCP and ran "the club" like a fuhrer.
> 
> Funny - in most of the above he was aided and abetted by James Cannon - who was also a prick. ISFI attracted these sorts for some reason.



That's quite interesting when the inevitable WRP split came where I'm from one member punched a leading member of the local branch and then ended up joinng the National Car Parks, went through several organisations: Leninist, CPGB, TUC News, CAG and ended up working for the Morning Star.
The other lot found anything vaguely out of salt such as aggreesive body language*; Stalinist. *They also made a big thing about talking to Joe Public in Trotboid so no one could understand what vthey were on about, least of all sometimes themselves.

As far as the abuse of women goes there is one leading member who claims that while having dialogue with Healey used to stand there while he hit her over the head.


----------



## redsquirrel (Nov 22, 2011)

belboid said:


> there was only one other, you fucker


Was that SWP organised or another group?


----------



## belboid (Nov 22, 2011)

the other?  Most definitely another group


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Nov 22, 2011)

articul8 said:


> History is always worth understanding.



And those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat its mistakes


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Nov 22, 2011)

belboid said:


> the other? Most definitely another group



workers power


----------



## dynamicbaddog (Nov 22, 2011)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Its a shame because there probably is a large enough grouping of ex-members of the various groups who still have decent socialist politics and who could actually have a positive influence on politics if they worked together in a genuinely democratic, open, and broad based organisation.


such an organisation already exists - the LRC.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 22, 2011)

Said with a straight face too.

You've basically just said the LRC is full of washed up ex-trots


----------



## dynamicbaddog (Nov 22, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Said with a straight face too.
> 
> You've basically just said the LRC is full of washed up ex-trots




I implied nothing of the kind. Just pointing out that  the LRC has the sort of open democratic structure that makes it possible for  various types of lefties to work together in a positive way.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 22, 2011)

The LRC might have. The party that is a part of doesn't.


----------



## articul8 (Nov 22, 2011)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> And those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat its mistakes


Absolutely.


----------



## dynamicbaddog (Nov 22, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> The LRC might have. The party that is a part of doesn't.


which is why the LRC campaigns to make the Labour Party accountable to the class which it was set up to represent.( Not everyone in the LRC is a member of  Labour btw.)


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 22, 2011)

Which is why it's a fantasy.

Accountable to the w/c through the LRC?


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Nov 22, 2011)

A bit of a diversion from the topic, but could anyone explain to me the gripe with 'trots'? I've never met one so am unfamiliar with these things. In fact, I'm unsure what trotskyites are all about.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Nov 22, 2011)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> A bit of a diversion from the topic, but could anyone explain to me the gripe with 'trots'? I've never met one so am unfamiliar with these things. In fact, I'm unsure what trotskyites are all about.



It might have something to do with Trotsky. It is the one thing that anarchists and Stalinists have in common.


----------



## Random (Nov 22, 2011)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> A bit of a diversion from the topic, but could anyone explain to me the gripe with 'trots'? I've never met one so am unfamiliar with these things. In fact, I'm unsure what trotskyites are all about.


Trotskyism is the main form of Leninism in the UK, now that the old Communist Party is no more. Plus for a longer time Trotskyism was seen as being more revolutionary than pro-USSR Leninism, since the Communists always had to support the USSR.

Just like other Leninists, trots want to build a party that will lead the working class to power, and the various kinds of trotskyism all fight each other tooth and nail, as they all say that the other lot are the wrong kind of leaders.


----------



## The39thStep (Nov 22, 2011)

Random said:


> Trotskyism is the main form of Leninism in the UK, now that the old Communist Party is no more. Plus for a longer time Trotskyism was seen as being more revolutionary than pro-USSR Leninism, since the Communists always had to support the USSR.
> 
> Just like other Leninists, trots want to build a party that will lead the working class to power, and the various kinds of trotskyism all fight each other tooth and nail, as they all say that the other lot are the wrong kind of leaders.



what about the transitional programme or nationalising the top 200 companies?


----------



## barney_pig (Nov 23, 2011)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> A bit of a diversion from the topic, but could anyone explain to me the gripe with 'trots'? I've never met one so am unfamiliar with these things. In fact, I'm unsure what trotskyites are all about.


An attempt to answer IWNW question (Twice I almost finished writing this out, twice my laptop turned itself off or wiped everything off, third time lucky)
Throughout the soviet era the Trotskyists were able to present themselves as without blemish, a pure Leninism free from the crimes of Stalin’s regime. They could stand on both sides of the fence, as critics of Stalinism and true inheritors of the success of the world’s only proletarian revolution.
At the heart of Trotsky’s political theory was the question of ‘leadership’. For Trotsky the Crisis of the working Class was the crisis of revolutionary leadership. The proletariat was prevented from revolution by the treacherous misleadership of the Reformists and the Stalinists, only when freed of their influence would the ‘objective forces’ compel the workers be able to complete their historical task under the leadership of those equipped with the correct programme.
 Trotsky had an apocalyptic vision of the coming war; The Stalinist bureaucracy would be swept away by the shock of war and the world war would instigate the final crisis of Capitalism, a crisis that neither Social Democrat nor Stalinist would have any answer. Instead the scattered supporters of Trotsky would be swept to the head of the revolutionary movement by dint of the correctness of the theory that he laid out in his writings for the 4th International.
The failure of Trotsky’s predictions for the end of the war created a crisis in Trotskyism.  In the context of the Cold War many made their peace with Stalinism or Social Democracy, whilst the successes of both post war social democracy and the expansion of the Stalinist system across “a third of the world” invalidated most of Trotsky’s theories. The remaining Trotskyists accommodated themselves to the changed circumstances, trailing reformism and Stalinism and practising deep entry in the main working class parties. 
Trotskyism adapted elements of Stalinism, and social democracy whilst wrapping them in the rhetoric of Trotsky oppositionism: e.g.  Manichean anti Imperialism, that is blind support for any force deemed anti-imperialist, was redressed in the clothes of the ‘Permament revolution’, Reformist state capitalist nationalisation, saving Capitalism through state intervention, was beautified by reference to theTransitional programme.
Internally the Trotskyists reproduced a party regime that reflected their deification of Lenin’s party model, as filtered through Trotsky. The Leninist model was supposedly  devised for operating under conditions of extreme illegality and repression, however, the actual RSDLP never confirmed to this, as the model Trotsky took was that designed by Bukharin in the early 1920s when the Bolsheviks were reorganised and were already deeply bureaucratised.
Not all Trotskyist groups became as grotesque as that of Healy’s in Britain or Robertson’s Spartacists in the USA, but all have imposed upon themselves regimes intolerant of internal dissent or independence of thought external to themselves. 
 The fall of the Berlin Wall, removed both Trotskyism’s rival for its claim to be the heirs of Lenin, and their main alibi.
 No longer the outsiders shouting abuse at the Stalinist misleaders of the social movements the trots suddenly found themselves in charge. And replicated the Stalinist lead almost unaltered (although they have proved to be even less tolerant of independent voices than the Stalinists were.


----------



## articul8 (Nov 23, 2011)

I'd agree with a lot of that. Although the "state capitalist nationalisation" you refer to was glossed as "nationalisation under democratic workers control and management" - although in practice there was no real effort to explain how the latter would be achieved and a Stalinised model seemed to be the basic paradigm. Also, not every group had the kind of blind "Manichean anti-imperialism" you refer to.

The tactical entry (though not deep entry) into social democratic parties didn't automatically been accommodating to that milieu - although I accept that is a danger.


----------



## Fedayn (Nov 23, 2011)

articul8 said:


> I'd agree with a lot of that. Although the "state capitalist nationalisation" you refer to was glossed as "nationalisation under democratic workers control and management" - although in practice there was no real effort to explain how the latter would be achieved and a Stalinised model seemed to be the basic paradigm.



In fairness the old Militant did with it's formula of the management being 1/3 workers/delegates from the industry/business, 1/3 from the wider TU movement and 1/3 from govt nominees to represent the wider working class.


----------



## barney_pig (Nov 23, 2011)

by the time id finished writing for the 3rd time, i'd lost a bit of the finesse (as well as the will to live..), but I was trying to be fair to Trotskyism, or at least not rabid at it.


----------



## articul8 (Nov 23, 2011)

Fedayn said:


> In fairness the old Militant did with it's formula of the management being 1/3 workers/delegates from the industry/business, 1/3 from the wider TU movement and 1/3 from govt nominees to represent the wider working class.



That's very crude though - statist and centralist rather than genuine self-management at workplace level.


----------



## articul8 (Nov 23, 2011)

barney_pig said:


> by the time id finished writing for the 3rd time, i'd lost a bit of the finesse (as well as the will to live..), but I was trying to be fair to Trotskyism, or at least not rabid at it.



Yes - it's a good rule of thumb that if a body of ideas is worth engaging with it's best to take it at its strongest not to score victories on the cheap.


----------



## mk12 (Nov 23, 2011)

articul8 said:


> That's very crude though - statist and centralist rather than genuine self-management at workplace level.



Very Trotskyist in that sense then.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 23, 2011)

articul8 said:


> Yes - it's a good rule of thumb that if a body of ideas is worth engaging with it's best to take it at its strongest not to score victories on the cheap.


Is it fuck


----------



## articul8 (Nov 23, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Is it fuck


you think it's easy to bowl over a strawman caricature?  And so it is.  But what does it achieve?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 23, 2011)

articul8 said:


> you think it's easy to bowl over a strawman caricature? And so it is. But what does it achieve?


What did your post just do?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 23, 2011)

Odd that a point that's _not the strongest_ becomes a strawman caricature in your weird bubble world.

The only way to destroy a statue is from the head down. Isn't it?


----------



## articul8 (Nov 23, 2011)

Your just trying to pick a fight over nothing now -  why would you seek to demolish a set of ideas based on a reconstruction that you openly admit "is not the strongest" is you didn't want to set up an adversary which was to some degree made of straw?

I don't mean that need to take up every body of ideas by explaining the points on which you agree.   You were the one that brought "points" into it


----------



## Fedayn (Nov 23, 2011)

barney_pig said:


> by the time id finished writing for the 3rd time, i'd lost a bit of the finesse (as well as the will to live..), but I was trying to be fair to Trotskyism, or at least not rabid at it.



Fair enough.


----------

