# First election to SWP leadership in years



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 6, 2006)

At the weekend the first contested election to the SWP's leadership in more than a decade and a half will take place, at that organisation's conference. John Molyneux, a former leader of the organisation, has apparently nominated himself. He has put a statement explaining his decision in the SWPs annual discussion bulletins. His reasons can be summarised as opposition to relentless hype and dishonesty about things like membership figures and paper sales. It can be read here:
http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/606/molyneux writes.htm

Meanwhile the SWP CC have responded by saying there is no problem now get back to clapping and handing out leaflets like you are supposed to:
http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/606/molyneux reply.htm


----------



## Larry O'Hara (Jan 6, 2006)

*Very interesting but...*

1) when did the Stalinist CPGB scum ever have an election (or commitment to debate) themselves??

2) When did the Socialist Party?  (Genuine question) If they do have properly contested elections, apologies in advance: otherwise it'd be a pot & kettle scenario.


----------



## Chuck Wilson (Jan 6, 2006)

Great trick that. Molyneux appeals to the memory and tradition of Cliff and the present CC says , hang on if you are having a go at the CC in the 90s  you are having a go at Tony Cliff, Duncan Hallas, Pat Stack, Julie Waterson and Dave Hayes.

Couldn't quite get to Molyneux's difference in what he would bring to the party apart from more accurate membership and paper sales figures.

tbh there were better and more vibrant internal debates in the 80s and early 90s.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 6, 2006)

Larry O'Hara said:
			
		

> 2) When did the Socialist Party?



I've been to Socialist Party conferences in England and Wales or in Ireland in each of the last 7 years, mostly in Ireland. At 5 of those conferences the leadership elections were contested. [edited to add: maybe 6 on reflection but I'd have to go digging in old documents to be sure]

I can't speak for the CPGB/PCC but they seem to make a fairly big song and dance about debate and the like. Also I don't think they've been Stalinists in any recognisable sense of the term for a decade at least.


----------



## Larry O'Hara (Jan 6, 2006)

Nigel Irritable said:
			
		

> I've been to Socialist Party conferences in England and Wales or in Ireland in each of the last 7 years, mostly in Ireland. At 5 of those conferences the leadership elections were contested. [edited to add: maybe 6 on reflection but I'd have to go digging in old documents to be sure]
> 
> I can't speak for the CPGB/PCC but they seem to make a fairly big song and dance about debate and the like. Also I don't think they've been Stalinists in any recognisable sense of the term for a decade at least.



1) Was the contestation genuine, policy-based, or merely the leadership[ slate against no-hopers.

2) As somebody who has been slandered on at least three occasions in the _Weekly Tosser_, without right of reply, I know exactly how seriously to take their "song & dance about debate and the like", thanks.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 6, 2006)

Larry O'Hara said:
			
		

> 1) Was the contestation genuine, policy-based, or merely the leadership[ slate against no-hopers.



I've seen both policy-based elections and a slightly strange one where there didn't seem to be any policy differences.

As an aside: The Irish Socialist Party doesn't use the traditional slate system, but an individual vote. The English and Welsh Socialist Party does though.


----------



## Larry O'Hara (Jan 6, 2006)

Nigel Irritable said:
			
		

> I've seen both policy-based elections and a slightly strange one where there didn't seem to be any policy differences.
> 
> As an aside: The Irish Socialist Party doesn't use the traditional slate system, but an individual vote. The English and Welsh Socialist Party does though.



Ah--your points accepted.  I had momentarily forgotten you are in Ireland, and am well aware the descendants of Militant have taken different paths.  The 'slate system' as practised in England and Wales is precisely the lack of internal democracy I was thinking of.  Apologies for confusing you with such practices.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 6, 2006)

It's interesting that Molyneux identifies the lack of 'honesty', the lack of internal debate, the hiding of figures and debates from 'normal' party members, the refusal to admit that reality and the 'perspective' did not fit, the habitual ' exaggeration (of the size of demos, meetings, Marxism, etc)', that members are not expected to have a say in internal debates (that effectively being what the CC and the CC alone is for) as starting in the 90s. From my experience of SWP members nd ex-members from the 70s/80s/90s there's a huge difference between the first two and the latter one (painting in broad strokes  of course). 

Those who joined and stayed from the 90s onwards grew up and learnt their politics in the precisely that sort of damaging culture outlined above - it's seeped downwards into their own approaches, for most (not all) of them that's how politics _should be done_, that's how you _should_ carry on. I think that's pretty self-evident if you compare the contributions made here by most (not all) of the newer intake to those who've experienced different ways of carrying on, of organising and of discussing politics. The sort of stuff outlined above is now second nature to many of those newer members - the inability to debate or argue on your feet, the casual smearing of opponents, the resort to outright lies, the shouting down of opposing views, the continuous chorus of rah! rah! rah! etc. I'm not saying that this didn't happen before the 90s, of course it did, but i don't think it was _expected_ of people as it seems to be today.

All that said, i don't expect JM's challenge to be anything other than a first peep over the trenches to see who's prepared to follow him over-the-top. I wouldn't bet onm ti being too many at _this_ particular point. (We've got the local elections coming up, GG's got a speaking tour, the war/occupation still drags on, Muslims are being terrorised - this isn't the time for internal challenges etc etc)


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Jan 6, 2006)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> the casual smearing of opponents, the resort to outright lies, the shouting down of opposing views, the continuous chorus of rah! rah! rah! etc.


Without denying that this happens inside the political organisation referred to, it's not something that's exactly absent in "anti-authoritarian" circles or indeed on this very forum.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 6, 2006)

I wouldn't deny that, but maybe you could keep those thoughts to a thread designed to discuss just that?


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Jan 6, 2006)

Not really, because they're pertinent to a discussion in which people of a certain political persuasion criticise those of another for faults that, in fact, they share.

I wasn't proposing to dwell on them though. Do proceed.


----------



## articul8 (Jan 6, 2006)

Interesting.  What I think comes across from the CC's reply is the haughty arrogance with which they regard a membership which is painted as recalcitrant, 'lagging behind' in its perspectives:



> It is the central committee which has developed these initiatives and argued for them within the wider SWP, sometimes in the face of a degree of scepticism from some members.





> to turn the idea of an anti-war movement into a reality involved a push from the centre on branches and comrades who were slow on the uptake


"Slow on the uptake" - sounds like they all have 'learning difficulties'?!     

What is missing here is any sense that the leadership of a revolutionary party has a great deal to learn from the experience of its members, or that perspectives and strategy is something which is developed as a consequence of that experience (rather than some exquisite pearl of intellectual foresight from Prof. Callinicos et.al)


----------



## poster342002 (Jan 6, 2006)

An interesting article. What a shame he seems firmly wedded to the RESPECT project - the biggest and most absurd fuckup on the left to date (for reasons gone into at length on _threads passim_). Unless he or anyone is prepared to address that, I don't see a great deal of change coming, tbh.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 6, 2006)

Reading between the lines of this challenge and the stuff he wrote for the pre-conference bulletin i suspect his committment to the RESPECT project is mainly tactical  - outright rejection of RESPECT at this point would place too large a weapon into the hands of the already (relatively) over-armed CC.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Jan 6, 2006)

poster342002 said:
			
		

> An interesting article. What a shame he seems firmly wedded to the RESPECT project - the biggest and most absurd fuckup on the left to date (for reasons gone into at length on _threads passim_). Unless he or anyone is prepared to address that, I don't see a great deal of change coming, tbh.


It's possible that his assessment is otherwise?


----------



## poster342002 (Jan 6, 2006)

..


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jan 6, 2006)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> the casual smearing of opponents, the resort to outright lies, the shouting down of opposing views, the continuous chorus of rah! rah! rah! etc.


that sounds like a self-portrait of butchersapron.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 6, 2006)

And i rest my case...

Have you anything to say to the charges JM makes other than confirming my reading of them?


----------



## Groucho (Jan 6, 2006)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> Reading between the lines of this challenge and the stuff he wrote for the pre-conference bulletin i suspect his committment to the RESPECT project is mainly tactical  - outright rejection of RESPECT at this point would place too large a weapon into the hands of the already (relatively) over-armed CC.



Molyneux supports Respect enthusiastically. He has written what he means. 
I don't believe he has a hidden agenda.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 6, 2006)

Groucho said:
			
		

> Molyneux supports Respect enthusiastically. He has written what he means.
> I don't believe he has a hidden agenda.


 Well fair enough if that's your interpretation of his criticisms of the direction the Party has taken and is currently going in. I think it's a fairly naive view though when they're placed alongside his criticisms from last year and read with at least one eye on the actual things that have happened over the last few years.

I didn't suggest that he has a hidden agenda either, merely that from a practical point of view it makes sense to minimise public disagreements over RESPECT, esp if he wishes his criticisms of the CC to be taken up and discussed.


----------



## mk12 (Jan 6, 2006)

I think I may take notes at the conference, and see how they compare to the CPGB's views on it...


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jan 6, 2006)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> And i rest my case...
> 
> Have you anything to say to the charges JM makes other than confirming my reading of them?


and what would be the point?


----------



## moti (Jan 6, 2006)

*obsessions....*

god you lot are obsessed aren't you?

if the SWP and Respect are such nightmares then why spend everyday on this forum slagging them, why not get on with doing whatever you think is right?

Butchersapron do you actually do any political activity to test your ideas against or are you just an internet geek?

John is entitled to his view, there's no problem there, I agree with a few points but not with the general thrust, you'd be hard pushed to argue the perspectives of the SWP haven't been largely correct - intiating and being an important part of the STWC, being part of getting the first left of labour MP voted in, defend council housing which has stopped loads of stock transfers, UAF and Love Music Hate Racism which has brought thousands into activity against the Fash etc...20,000 at last years mayday....GR without which mobilisations to demos and things like the ESF wouldn't have happened from this country...being part of rank and file networks in the tube and post that have had a big impact on the confidence of workers there etc etc....

the key problem has been that our own party organisation has suffered as a result, but it's been worth it to get all those things going and that is something we can work on....

I'm also one of the people who joined in the 90's who apparently have all the wrong attitude and bad habits, yet I have never found anyone trying to quash intiatives that people think are a goer, and have in fact been involved in lots of successful publishing projects that came not from the leadership but from myself and others...

all left groups have problems but the SWP is the best of the bunch, how various individual anarchists and people from the SP (the mechanical, "your all wrong, it's capitalism stupid" attitude of the CWI members the G8 this year was embarrassing and rightly turned people off) or people who think the CPGB is a credible source can make a credible argument that they are better when I see no other sizeable alternative doing the rounds is a joke without a punchline...


----------



## mk12 (Jan 6, 2006)

The 'general thrust' of John's contribution was about party democracy and more honesty. He admitted:



> (2) I strongly support, in theory and practice, the party’s united front initiatives including and especially the Respect project



You say the party has suffered as a result. It has. And John is trying to counter that, by helping to create a more inclusive, democratic party which will enable us to recruit and hold on to more members.


----------



## Macullam (Jan 6, 2006)

all left groups have problems but the SWP is the best of the bunch, how various individual anarchists and people from the SP (the mechanical, "your all wrong, it's capitalism stupid" attitude of the CWI members the G8 this year was embarrassing and rightly turned people off) or people who think the CPGB is a credible source can make a credible argument that they are better when I see no other sizeable alternative doing the rounds is a joke without a punchline...[/QUOTE]

Far better to tailend the various godbotherers and well meaning NGO's just like in the STWC and UAF. No fan of the weekly worker but the source material was from the pre conference bulletin so hardly lacking credibility.


----------



## Chuck Wilson (Jan 6, 2006)

mattkidd12 said:
			
		

> The 'general thrust' of John's contribution was about party democracy and more honesty. He admitted:
> 
> 
> 
> You say the party has suffered as a result. It has. And John is trying to counter that, by helping to create a more inclusive, democratic party which will enable us to recruit and hold on to more members.



sorry Matt but I missed the bit where he said how he would make the SWP more democratic and inclusive.


----------



## moti (Jan 6, 2006)

*response to Macullum*

>Far better to tailend the various godbotherers and well meaning NGO's just >like in the STWC and UAF. 

No- far better to work with organisations that make up the majority of the organised social movements in the UK, rather than the 30 odd people in the CPGB or whatever - how else exactly do you think social change will happen?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 6, 2006)

Moti said:
			
		

> all left groups have problems but the SWP is the best of the bunch, how various individual anarchists and people from the SP (the mechanical, "your all wrong, it's capitalism stupid" attitude of the CWI members the G8 this year was embarrassing and rightly turned people off)



And there you have it. A "socialist" who is embarrassed to point the finger at capitalism or advocate socialism. I'm sure you were much more comfortable blending in with the charities and avoiding challenging their politics.


----------



## Groucho (Jan 6, 2006)

Nigel Irritable said:
			
		

> And there you have it. A "socialist" who is embarrassed to point the finger at capitalism or advocate socialism. I'm sure you were much more comfortable blending in with the charities and avoiding challenging their politics.



NI you demonstrate Moti's point. Abstract denounciations of capitalism is what was being referred to, but as ever you fail to grasp any discussion unless it is reduced to Capitalism bad, socialism good.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jan 6, 2006)

Firstly, I don't think there is any "reading between the lines", I think John Molineux has articulated clearly what he intends to say without hiding anything.  What's more I MOSTLY agree with John Molineux, and I think at this moment in time I would vote for him.  I categorically agree there is a pressing paradox which need’s urgently to be addressed.

I agree with the CC that some of John's attack is upon the CC of the early 90s.  I don't think John would deny this.  There was a massive debate at the time whether the CC was right, and many party members left over the issue.  I agreed with the move at the time, but I now believe with hindsight the move ‘may’ have been overzealous.  I think John is attacking the failure to openly recognise this and do something about it.  However, there is a big problem for John and myself, we do not offer an alternative, because frankly I don't think either of us know of one. And this is where I agree with the cc, and would vote for them.

I have openly expressed my concerns at the lack of recruitment to the Revolutionary Socialist party Socialist Worker.  And so I fully share John's worries, but I also understand and cannot refute the CCs counter arguments about the role of the United front, the SW influence there in, and the time needed to develop recruitment to revolutionary socialism.

I have certainly been looking for alternatives, not just alternative policies in the party, but even alternative parties/groups/organisations.  As I say the problem is I haven't found any alternative organization, or policies that would eradicate the problems SW faces.  I do see qualities in other organizations/methods that are conducive to the working-class struggle imo, but I think they are mostly derived from different political philosophies, and so could only seriously have impact on the thinking of the SWP membership through United front work.  I suppose what I'm saying in other words is that anarchists, Socialist, etc could only really influence the SWP membership by employing the methods the SWP uses to influence the 'reformist working-class ', the United front.  But I suppose that reflects the inevitable political prejudice one develops over years of political activity/thought.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 6, 2006)

Groucho said:
			
		

> NI you demonstrate Moti's point. Abstract denounciations of capitalism.



There is nothing "abstract" about talking about capitalism as the cause of world poverty on a demonstration dedicated to the issue of world poverty. It's basic Marxism, so basic that only the SWP amongst supposed "socialists" could miss it. But I'm sure you had a nice day out, blending in with the Vicars and echoing Geldofs views.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jan 6, 2006)

Nigel Irritable said:
			
		

> There is nothing "abstract" about talking about capitalism as the cause of world poverty on a demonstration dedicated to the issue of world poverty. It's basic Marxism, so basic that only the SWP amongst supposed "socialists" could miss it. But I'm sure you had a nice day out, blending in with the Vicars and echoing Geldofs views.


That's right, you just keep telling people how stupid they have been all these years.  I am sure they will just be enthralled.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 6, 2006)

ResistanceMP3 said:
			
		

> That's right, you just keep telling people how stupid they have been all these years.  I am sure they will just be enthralled.



And now we have a "socialist" telling us that pointing the finger at capitalism as the root cause of povery is the same as "telling people how stupid they have been all these years". You couldn't make this shit up!


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Jan 6, 2006)

Nigel Irritable said:
			
		

> And now we have a "socialist" telling us that pointing the finger at capitalism as the root cause of povery is the same as "telling people how stupid they have been all these years". You couldn't make this shit up!


I'm not sure there isn't the tiniest bit of distortion involved there, Nigel. Still, it worked for Jimi Hendrix.


----------



## mk12 (Jan 6, 2006)

Chuck Wilson said:
			
		

> sorry Matt but I missed the bit where he said how he would make the SWP more democratic and inclusive.



Read it again, and read last year's contribution too.


----------



## moti (Jan 6, 2006)

*yes but it's the way you do it...*

...that matters

you miss my point Nigel in your attempt to point score, the meeting i was in was with Susan George she talked about the 'no' campaign in France and how involved building local networks to defeat the right - this inevitably brought the problem of working with people you may not agree with everything on that is, a united front which is the key issue for socialists at the moment- the CWI in this situation doesn't connect with the actual argument and think about how you would address it - ie. how would you argue your politics and show practically a way forward that doesn't put others off, but does take the movement forward (as we did with the debates over Feb 15 in the ESF) 

Why? Because it has little recent practical experience of this - so instead we get 3(!) ritualistic denounciations of capitalism which then allows Susan George to easily rubbish the points by saying well show me the winter palace and we'll storm it...in other words if your so correct then where is the revolution?

Which seeing as she'd just outlined an ACTUAL, SUCCESSFUL campaign that defeated neo-liberalism was a bit of a mistake


----------



## poster342002 (Jan 6, 2006)

The SWP _do_ come across as the least "revolutionary" or "socialist" revolutionary socialist party I've ever seen. I mean, launching their "RESPECT" outfit (how does anyone even say the word with a straight face?) when the fashion for trendy-liberal "identity politcs" died out back in the 80's is just bizarre.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jan 6, 2006)

Nigel Irritable said:
			
		

> And now we have a "socialist" telling us that pointing the finger at capitalism as the root cause of povery is the same as "telling people how stupid they have been all these years". You couldn't make this shit up!


you do make "shit up" on a regular basis.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Jan 6, 2006)

poster342002 said:
			
		

> The SWP _do_ come across as the least "revolutionary" or "socialist" revolutionary socialist party I've ever seen. I mean, launching their "RESPECT" outfit (how does anyone even say the word with a straight face?) when the fashion for trendy-liberal "identity politcs" died out back in the 80's is just bizarre.


Hmmm, well they may feel it connected with a group of people that needed to be connected with, and that they've made some progress in that aim.


----------



## moti (Jan 6, 2006)

*it's difficult I know*

also, and I know this is difficult for some of you - Respect IS NOT the swp!

The call for Respect came from Salma Yaqoob and others not us...


----------



## mk12 (Jan 6, 2006)

moti: are you going to the conference?


----------



## poster342002 (Jan 6, 2006)

moti said:
			
		

> also, and I know this is difficult for some of you - Respect IS NOT the swp!
> 
> The call for Respect came from Salma Yaqoob and others not us...


How do you expect people to differentiate when the SWP spend so much time identifying with and plugging RESPECT!?

Or are you now admitting that the SWP are actually the junior partners in this setup?


----------



## Groucho (Jan 6, 2006)

Macullam said:
			
		

> Far better to tailend the various godbotherers and well meaning NGO's just like in the STWC and UAF. No fan of the weekly worker but the source material was from the pre conference bulletin so hardly lacking credibility.



It is about working with people whose ideas differ from your own on issues where you can reach agreement on joint work e.g. against the war, rather than simply hectoring people for their supposed stupidy in not understanding the need for a socialist revolution you are incapable of delivering. By working with such people that the movement can be taken forwards without having to wait for a majority to sign up to a revolutionary programm; simultaneously fraternal debate within the movement strengthens the revolutionary current both numerically and in terms of influence. Key to all this is an understanding that revolutionaries do not have a monopoly on good ideas and stategies and that a would-be revolutionary party can learn from those you work with and alongside.

The SP approach is to propogandise as if they are the ones with all the answers and all any one else can do is listen and learn. When it comes to obtaining and maintaining influence though, the SP frequently behave in a less than revolutionary manner. We have to abolish capitalism, but we cannot fight the Government over decent pensions for all employees. All or nothing so often, whilst sometimes sounding revolutionary, in practice offers nothing.


----------



## mk12 (Jan 6, 2006)

Good post.


----------



## poster342002 (Jan 6, 2006)

Groucho said:
			
		

> revolutionaries do not have a monopoly on good ideas


Do you think Sharia is a "good idea"? Is it something the SWP would oppose or support were it proposed for implementation in Britain?


----------



## mk12 (Jan 6, 2006)

Jesus christ, what the hell are you on about?


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Jan 6, 2006)

poster342002 said:
			
		

> Or are you now admitting that the SWP are actually the junior partners in this setup?


'ang on poster me old mate, I thought it was an SWP front!


----------



## moti (Jan 6, 2006)

*reply to matt*

yes I'll be at conference on Saturday


----------



## mk12 (Jan 6, 2006)

Why can't I send you a private message?!


----------



## levien (Jan 6, 2006)

Someone hit the nail on the head when they said that the CC has stolen Johns clothes (lovely mental image.)  The fact remains that this CC _did_ release membership figures and circulation figures.  That party notes is a useful guide to whats going on and what the national priorities are (if not an internal discussion document.)  And also that in "building the party in the age of Mass movements" John Rees actually puts forward a route towards what John argues for.

John fails to engage with these facts in his document which is why his good points (criticism of national meetings being presented with the finished product to vote on) get lost.  Our biggest problem in districts like mine and Johns is local organisation is a bit of a mess.  When district/area committees are working and producing local district notes for branches then their is a mechanism for debate at the rank and file level of the party which can be transmitted up to the NC/party coucils etc and argued out. 

Our fundermental problem is leading local comrades don't want to take time out of campaigning to sort out the local organisation and are to willing to let district organisers substitute for a proper elected and accountable district leadership.  Maybe John M would be an asset in facilitating this but we can't saqy because he hasn't mentioned it.  The debate around the review is less key as we all knew it was a problem and have multiple options to be debated at conference.


----------



## moti (Jan 6, 2006)

*eh?*

blimey things times are tough...   

why wouldn't the SWP try to promote the best attempt at building a party to the left of labour for years?

do you think millions of people are revolutionaries just waiting for the SWP to get in touch? No of course not, so why wouldn't we try to build the desperately needed broader political force?

What on earth is wrong with that? Do you want change?! (you can dislike it and do your own thing, but it doesn't alter the fact that it's needed)


----------



## poster342002 (Jan 6, 2006)

mattkidd12 said:
			
		

> Jesus christ, what the hell are you on about?


Just asking a straightforward question. Quite pertinent in connection with forming alliances with people not necessarily interested in advancing the casue of socialism.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Jan 6, 2006)

poster342002 said:
			
		

> Just asking a straightforward question. Quite pertinent in connection with forming alliances with people not necessarily interested in advancing the casue of socialism.


Well, you know what politics makes.


----------



## mk12 (Jan 6, 2006)

> party notes is a useful guide to whats going on and what the national priorities are



Is it? Don't you think John's right in saying that _"Every week Party Notes would report excellent sales here and excellent sales there, but the overall figures were never given, never even spoken about in private."_ 

And what about his views on party democracy? What about the drastic reduction in members? How have the CC accounted for this?

I think his underlying message is: _"Having an over-optimistic perspective was not, however, the most serious mistake. The most serious mistake was not facing up to it."_ I have yet to hear a CC member honestly admit failures, or weaknesses, or disagreements. This isn't healthy in any organisation.


----------



## poster342002 (Jan 6, 2006)

moti said:
			
		

> the best attempt at building a party to the left of labour for years?


They haven't done that. They've created RESPECT, instead.


----------



## mk12 (Jan 6, 2006)

1 MP elected, to the left of Labour.


----------



## moti (Jan 6, 2006)

*reply to matt*

>why can't i send you a private message

I don't know!


----------



## poster342002 (Jan 6, 2006)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> Well, you know what politics makes.


A godawfull mess if the bedfellows are totally incompatible in terms of aims.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Jan 6, 2006)

poster342002 said:
			
		

> A godawfull mess if the bedfellows are totally incompatible in terms of aims.


In the long term, I would have said so, yes. Were this not so they wouldn't be strange.


----------



## articul8 (Jan 6, 2006)

Groucho said:
			
		

> It is about working with people whose ideas differ from your own on issues where you can reach agreement on joint work e.g. against the war, rather than simply hectoring people for their supposed stupidy in not understanding the need for a socialist revolution you are incapable of delivering. By working with such people that the movement can be taken forwards without having to wait for a majority to sign up to a revolutionary programm; simultaneously fraternal debate within the movement strengthens the revolutionary current both numerically and in terms of influence.



That would be all well and good * if * as part of that fraternal debate you empasise the fact that it is simply impossible to "make poverty history" without also "making capitalism history".    I agree it is necessary to engage and work with forces which don't accept the need for revolutionary demands.  But ON NO ACCOUNT does this justify the attitude of self-censoring of socialist argument that the SWP adopts in its so-called 'united fronts'.  

ANd how does it "strengthen" the revolutionary current to suppress directly socialist argument?  Isn't the experience of Respect, that the SWP has put enormous amounts of energy into a loose, politically amorphous coalition with forces (some of which are downright reactionary) and is, as a result, failing to recruit and strengthen its own forces?


----------



## poster342002 (Jan 6, 2006)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> In the long term, I would have said so, yes. Were this not so they wouldn't be strange.


Bu this goes beyond strange into downright absurd. About as compatible bedfellows as an oak tree and a telephone kiosk. In fact, at least the oak tree could make a trunk call!


----------



## levien (Jan 6, 2006)

mattkidd12 said:
			
		

> Is it? Don't you think John's right in saying that _"Every week Party Notes would report excellent sales here and excellent sales there, but the overall figures were never given, never even spoken about in private."_
> 
> And what about his views on party democracy? What about the drastic reduction in members? How have the CC accounted for this?
> 
> I think his underlying message is: _"Having an over-optimistic perspective was not, however, the most serious mistake. The most serious mistake was not facing up to it."_ I have yet to hear a CC member honestly admit failures, or weaknesses, or disagreements. This isn't healthy in any organisation.



Yes the bit about sales is never read by me I must admit but is ocasionaly useful to know, but that is a tiny fraction of the content (and hasn't been in there for last few months I think)

And the CC did admit mistakes in the small branches that was the main thing at last years conference when these membership figures came out. Why we had a change in perspective.


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Jan 6, 2006)

Groucho said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> The SP approach is to propogandise as if they are the ones with all the answers and all any one else can do is listen and learn. ...



Rushes to the defence of the SP ...  Not true, not true!!!

After all in 1995 they were prepared to organise a tour round the British Isles giving a platform to listen and learn from one Billy Hutchison of the Loyalist para-militaries in the North of Ireland!  For those who don't know, 'socialist' Billy is a convicted murderer and self-confused "sectarian bigot", who called for the RUC (the real one that is!) to get the "fucking fenians off the streets" in reference to the children and parents from Holy Cross School in Ardoyne


----------



## neprimerimye (Jan 6, 2006)

levien said:
			
		

> Our biggest problem in districts like mine and Johns is local organisation is a bit of a mess.  When district/area committees are working and producing local district notes for branches then their is a mechanism for debate at the rank and file level of the party which can be transmitted up to the NC/party coucils etc and argued out.
> 
> Our fundermental problem is leading local comrades don't want to take time out of campaigning to sort out the local organisation and are to willing to let district organisers substitute for a proper elected and accountable district leadership.  Maybe John M would be an asset in facilitating this but we can't say because he hasn't mentioned it.



Levien I find it very curious that you argue that comrades are too busy campaigning to take the time to properly sort out local SWP organisation. You tell us that the problem is that everything is left to the district organiser when such tasks should be within the purview of an elected district committee.

Which sounds very good indeed and i wish you luck in developing such a structure. But should you achieve that aim then i suspect that you will come in for a bit of a shock. If only because in case of any dispute between the appointed full timer and the elected district committee the constitution of the SWP gives the unelected organiser the final say. In practice the elected district committee is then subject to an appointee of the central committee.

Which would be fine IF the CC operated as something other than a monolithic faction dedicated to preventing and derailing any potential challenge to its perspectives which, as we know, are not discussed and decided uon by the membership of the party but by the CC and selected insiders only.

And the perspectives of the CC are that everything is more or less fine and their are great opportunities ahead. All that need be done is follow the lead of the CC and that lead dictates a cycle of building for the next big event to the detriment of recruitment and education of a Marxist cadre within the mass organisations of the class and in the workplaces.

That this perspective is both short sighted and over optimistic is in my opinion proven by the failure of the CC and John Molyneux for that matter, to even mention the debacle in the PCS late last year. Failures such as this are passed over in silence, wehn they are of fundamental importance to a party yhat claims to stand for the self emancipation of the workers, while electoralism, once thrice damned, is lauded as a great leap forward.

Something is wrong somewhere and its not Molyneux's anodyne critque.


----------



## Macullam (Jan 6, 2006)

Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> Rushes to the defence of the SP ...  Not true, not true!!!
> 
> After all in 1995 they were prepared to organise a tour round the British Isles giving a platform to listen and learn from one Billy Hutchison of the Loyalist para-militaries in the North of Ireland!  For those who don't know, 'socialist' Billy is a convicted murderer and self-confused "sectarian bigot", who called for the RUC (the real one that is!) to get the "fucking fenians off the streets" in reference to the children and parents from Holy Cross School in Ardoyne



Must have missed that one but i do remember the SSP giving him a platform around 1999.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jan 6, 2006)

articul8 said:
			
		

> That would be all well and good * if * as part of that fraternal debate you empasise the fact that it is simply impossible to "make poverty history" without also "making capitalism history".    I agree it is necessary to engage and work with forces which don't accept the need for revolutionary demands.  But ON NO ACCOUNT does this justify the attitude of self-censoring of socialist argument that the SWP adopts in its so-called 'united fronts'.


Your wrong.  We do NOT have to lecture them from the podium.  We can prove that it is simply impossible to "make poverty history" without also "making capitalism history" through activity, and saying in our oppinion that it is simply impossible to "make poverty history" without also "making capitalism history" when they ask us.  But it is the activity that is the clincher.  

Let me put it another way.  You can take a horse to water, but you can't Make it drink.  You can tell people you cannot make poverty history without making capitalism history, but unless capitalism and material circumstances in which they live have convinced people of the necessity of revolutionary change, you cannot force them drink in the ideas.You have to respect the debater, and at least genuflect the possibillity you may be wrong imo. 


> ANd how does it "strengthen" the revolutionary current to suppress directly socialist argument?  Isn't the experience of Respect, that the SWP has put enormous amounts of energy into a loose, politically amorphous coalition with forces (some of which are downright reactionary) and is, as a result, failing to recruit and strengthen its own forces?


Yes AND no.  yes it has not produced an increase in the membership of the revolutionary socialist socialist worker, but it has increased the influence and respect for revolutionary socialist amongst more reformist and anticapitalist workers than the Socialist workers party had.  When capitalism has convinced those reformist and anticapitalist workers of the need for revolutionary change, socialist worker will be best placed.  At least that is the strategy.

fraternal greetings resistanceMP3


----------



## JoePolitix (Jan 6, 2006)

Irritable - 

There's nothing quite so pathetic as reading one sectarian quoting another sects attack on another sect! 

If that's the game we're playing lets see what the CPGB have to say about the SP's great system of party democracy:  

"In common with much of the left, Militant/SP ban honest and clean public debate of the differences in its ranks - members are bound by an oath of silence, a travesty of the type of genuine party democracy that Lenin, Marx and the founders of our movement practised."

See the rest:

http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/478/spew.html


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jan 6, 2006)

neprimerimye said:
			
		

> Levien I find it very curious that you argue that comrades are too busy campaigning to take the time to properly sort out local SWP organisation. You tell us that the problem is that everything is left to the district organiser when such tasks should be within the purview of an elected district committee.


it is true though in my experience too.



> Which sounds very good indeed and i wish you luck in developing such a structure. But should you achieve that aim then i suspect that you will come in for a bit of a shock. If only because in case of any dispute between the appointed full timer and the elected district committee the constitution of the SWP gives the unelected organiser the final say. In practice the elected district committee is then subject to an appointee of the central committee.


it is not that simple though is it?  The full-time organiser is not going to be in debate with the district committee, try to convince them, and possibly be convinced himself that the Central committee have it wrong?



> Which would be fine IF the CC operated as something other than a monolithic faction dedicated to preventing and derailing any potential challenge to its perspectives which, as we know, are not discussed and decided uon by the membership of the party but by the CC and selected insiders only.


again it's not that simple.  Do you honestly believe the grand aspirations of the Central committee members is just to be at the head of an obscure little political party, or do you think there is a possibility like me they aspire to socialism/communism?



> And the perspectives of the CC are that everything is more or less fine and their are great opportunities ahead. All that need be done is follow the lead of the CC and that lead dictates a cycle of building for the next big event to the detriment of recruitment and education of a Marxist cadre within the mass organisations of the class and in the workplaces.
> 
> That this perspective is both short sighted and over optimistic is in my opinion proven by the failure of the CC and John Molyneux for that matter, to even mention the debacle in the PCS late last year. Failures such as this are passed over in silence, wehn they are of fundamental importance to a party yhat claims to stand for the self emancipation of the workers, while electoralism, once thrice damned, is lauded as a great leap forward.
> 
> Something is wrong somewhere and its not Molyneux's anodyne critque.


I too have a sneaking suspicion that there is something wrong somewhere.  although I don't totally agree with John, I think I would like to see him get elected.  however, so far I am not convinced John, you, or myself know what it is exactly wrong, and can offer an alternative.

(edited to add)fraternal greetings, resistanceMP3


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Jan 6, 2006)

Macullam said:
			
		

> Must have missed that one but i do remember the SSP giving him a platform around 1999.



Yes they did, and I've read that the SWP in (Northern) Ireland courted him as well.
From Socialist Democracy, Irish Section of the Fourth International, August 2001
http://www.socialistdemocracy.org/News&AnalysisIreland/News&AnalysisIreBillyTheSocialist.htm


----------



## treelover (Jan 6, 2006)

Christ, you really are delusional, imo, the fundi SWP/GR and the  Livingstone/Socialist Action cultists fundamentally undermined and even destroyed the ethos of the London European Social Forum(ESF) event.


i mean , selling Coca Cola, when Columbian Activists were present
(just a relatively minor example of how the the LESF was run...)   




> Moti said
> GR without which mobilisations to demos and things like the ESF wouldn't have happened from this country...


----------



## neprimerimye (Jan 6, 2006)

ResistanceMP3 said:
			
		

> it is true though in my experience too.
> 
> it is not that simple though is it?  The full-time organiser is not going to be in debate with the district committee, try to convince them, and possibly be convinced himself that the Central committee have it wrong?
> 
> ...



No its not that simple you are correct. But in practice the culture of the SWP is, and has been for quite a long time, such that the l;ocal fulltimer can as a rule carry the district committee without to much coercion. If nothing else the moral force of having the backing of the centre guarantees even the most inept fulltimer considerable weight.

All of which rather negates the point of the having a district committee if all that is debated is how to carry out the latest decisions of the centre. Surely every unit of the party and all fulltimers should be subject to the elective principle as Lenin argued in the RCP(B)? Prior to the suppression of factions and look what that led too!

All of which mitigates against the development of a democratic culture inside the party. the trouble is that the leadership itself act in such a way that the rank and file of the party have very little guidance as to how to debate politics rather than the mere discussion of how to carry out the line. Which relates in my view to the loss of any consitent orientation on the workplaces and the unions in my view.

And is it not in the workplaces that we traditionally claimed was the potential fulcrum of the workers struggle for state power? Is it not vital that a revolutionary group relate not only to the workplaces but to the best traditions of workers democracy which the shop stewards at their best represented and represent? bearing in mind that sho[p stewards however passive they might be at present are directly elected by those they represent.

As for the motivation of the SWP CC I'm not qualified to judge. It is in any case secondary to their politics. But I have no doubt at all that comrades such as Harman and Bambery are sincere revolutionists. But as regards German and Rees whatever their motivations might be, which I do question in recent years, they have been disastrous as leaders of the SWP if one accepts that they are the main inspirers of the current turn to populism.

I agree thought that Molyneux does not offer an explanation as to the current position the SWP finds itself in and he would seem to fear offering any kind of alternative. On the other hand I'm foolish enough to think that i do have some understanding as to how this lamentable situation arose and its roots. Elaboration of such an explanation is not best suited to these boards however.


----------



## articul8 (Jan 6, 2006)

ResistanceMP3 said:
			
		

> Your wrong.  We do NOT have to lecture them from the podium.  We can prove that it is simply impossible to "make poverty history" without also "making capitalism history" through activity, and saying in our oppinion that it is simply impossible to "make poverty history" without also "making capitalism history" when they ask us.  But it is the activity that is the clincher.



I did not say (or imply) "lecturing" people about anything.  I said that socialists should debate with others, but a debate involves an exchange of (differing) views, not shutting up and manifesting your commitment through 'activity' alone (ie. activity in support of fronts, the precondition for involvement with which ususually seems to be a willingness not to advance socialist arguments).  You (and the SWP) seem incapable of envisaging anything other than a) lecturing others and b) capitulating to the lowest common denominator - which is why as an organisation that SWP has 'swapped' between ultra-left sectarianism and populist opportunism.



> When capitalism has convinced those reformist and anticapitalist workers of the need for revolutionary change, socialist worker will be best placed.  At least that is the strategy.



You couldn't be more blatant - a tailist strategy. The failings of capitalism alone won't convince anyone of the viability of socialism, especially in the wake of Stalinism.  A revolutionary party has to take * an active role * in promoting socialist ideas. This doesn't mean refusing to work with anyone who doesn't share your vision in full.  But it does mean that you patiently explain the need to break with capitalism, even as you struggle for more limited objectives.


----------



## moti (Jan 6, 2006)

*treelovers of the world unite!*

>Christ, you really are delusional, imo, the fundi SWP/GR and the >Livingstone/Socialist Action cultists fundamentally undermined and even >destroyed the ethos of the London European Social Forum(ESF) event.

Treelover, if a bunch of autonomists hadn't taken it upon themselves to try to stop the ESF from coming to London, and then attempt to block any attempt to set up an organising committee -which was needed so groups could affliate to so democratic organisations like unions could legally fund the ESF- and in the process of doing this completely alienating the unions and (the awful, admittedly)SA lot around Livingston, to the point where if we hadn't argued with them there would have been NO esf at all. 

Our ESF got no funding from the government unlike Paris, in Paris anarchists tried to attack Socialists but were stopped by security, the Paris one was far worse for security etc..etc..in fact in all WSF/ESF's there's this tension because it isn't just an anti-capitalist event but one that includes all sorts of reformists, something the autonomists here ignore and just denounce people instead...like telling the secretary from Unison he doesn't 'represent' anyone....um..yeah...politcally inept and strategically idiotic....

>i mean , selling Coca Cola, when Columbian Activists were present
>(just a relatively minor example of how the the LESF was run...) 

I couldn't agree more, but the problem was no one was willing to organise the food and drink, as all the moaners when asked to actually do something, you know so they could make the ESF like they want did nothing - and that was my direct experience of facilitating the cultural stuff, plenty of autonomists came in to the meetings often after several weeks of organising, telling us how it should be, continually trying to create divisions, some with mental health problems, some coming from the south of France(Mi5?) BUT crucially doing none of the work when asked

so forgive me if I'm fed up with people who moan about the ESF but did fuck all to make it happen...especially as some of the key autonomist ringleaders then got employed by the GLA as Babels workers getting paid 3grand more than all the other ESF workers....some 'horizontals'!

>Quote:
>Moti said
>GR without which mobilisations to demos and things like the ESF wouldn't >have happened from this country...

and my original point was that without us, the mobilisations to things like the G8 or ESF's abroad wouldn't have happened, because they wouldn't!


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 6, 2006)

What's an autonomist moti?


----------



## Pilgrim (Jan 6, 2006)

moti said:
			
		

> >Christ, you really are delusional, imo, the fundi SWP/GR and the >Livingstone/Socialist Action cultists fundamentally undermined and even >destroyed the ethos of the London European Social Forum(ESF) event.
> 
> Treelover, if a bunch of autonomists hadn't taken it upon themselves to try to stop the ESF from coming to London, and then attempt to block any attempt to set up an organising committee -which was needed so groups could affliate to so democratic organisations like unions could legally fund the ESF- and in the process of doing this completely alienating the unions and (the awful, admittedly)SA lot around Livingston, to the point where if we hadn't argued with them there would have been NO esf at all.
> 
> ...



You seem  to be under the impression that, if something isn't done by your lot, it doesn't get done at all, which is cobblers.

And, by all accounts, the ethos of the ESF was pretty much ruined by the way in which it was run. I remember Indymedia publishing complaints from all manner of people about the way the London ESF was run, and not just from Autonomists or Anarchists either.

And your remark about Autonomists who showed dissent having 'mental health problems' is crass at best and blatantly insulting at worst.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jan 6, 2006)

neprimerimye said:
			
		

> No its not that simple you are correct. But in practice the culture of the SWP is, and has been for quite a long time, such that the l;ocal fulltimer can as a rule carry the district committee without to much coercion. If nothing else the moral force of having the backing of the centre guarantees even the most inept fulltimer considerable weight.
> 
> All of which rather negates the point of the having a district committee if all that is debated is how to carry out the latest decisions of the centre. Surely every unit of the party and all fulltimers should be subject to the elective principle as Lenin argued in the RCP(B)? Prior to the suppression of factions and look what that led too!


As part of a district renound in SW for destroying fulltimers I have to say your 'experience' does not concur with my experience.



> All of which mitigates against the development of a democratic culture inside the party. the trouble is that the leadership itself act in such a way that the rank and file of the party have very little guidance as to how to debate politics rather than the mere discussion of how to carry out the line. Which relates in my view to the loss of any consitent orientation on the workplaces and the unions in my view.
> 
> And is it not in the workplaces that we traditionally claimed was the potential fulcrum of the workers struggle for state power? Is it not vital that a revolutionary group relate not only to the workplaces but to the best traditions of workers democracy which the shop stewards at their best represented and represent? bearing in mind that sho[p stewards however passive they might be at present are directly elected by those they represent.


Good [pont, indeed a very worrying phenomena IMHO.  Even though my personal intervention experience of SA/Respect, UAF, AC, etc was more rewarding than my intervention experience with TUists who were far more politcally wedded.



> As for the motivation of the SWP CC I'm not qualified to judge. It is in any case secondary to their politics. But I have no doubt at all that comrades such as Harman and Bambery are sincere revolutionists. But as regards German and Rees whatever their motivations might be, which I do question in recent years, they have been disastrous as leaders of the SWP if one accepts that they are the main inspirers of the current turn to populism.


precisely.  I hate these conspiracy theories.  Their politics is primary, and their politics is the same as mine. *IF*, and it is a very big if, if they try to subvert the democratic process to maintain the control, they do so to achieve socialism.  and so even in those extreme circumstances, which I do not believe to be the case, they would be winnable to methods that would be more practical in achieving that aim, just as I argued with the organiser.

it is ironic that the German and Reese have probably been involvedin making the Structures of the SWP more democratic now, than they have ever been in my membership.



> I agree thought that Molyneux does not offer an explanation as to the current position the SWP finds itself in and he would seem to fear offering any kind of alternative. On the other hand I'm foolish enough to think that i do have some understanding as to how this lamentable situation arose and its roots. Elaboration of such an explanation is not best suited to these boards however.


Why?

fraternal greetings, resistantMP3


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jan 6, 2006)

articul8 said:
			
		

> I did not say (or imply) "lecturing" people about anything.  I said that socialists should debate with others, but a debate involves an exchange of (differing) views, not shutting up and manifesting your commitment through 'activity' alone (ie. activity in support of fronts, the precondition for involvement with which ususually seems to be a willingness not to advance socialist arguments).  You (and the SWP) seem incapable of envisaging anything other than a) lecturing others and b) capitulating to the lowest common denominator - which is why as an organisation that SWP has 'swapped' between ultra-left sectarianism and populist opportunism.
> 
> 
> 
> You couldn't be more blatant - a tailist strategy. The failings of capitalism alone won't convince anyone of the viability of socialism, especially in the wake of Stalinism.  A revolutionary party has to take * an active role * in promoting socialist ideas. This doesn't mean refusing to work with anyone who doesn't share your vision in full.  But it does mean that you patiently explain the need to break with capitalism, even as you struggle for more limited objectives.


and I didn't say you don't have a debate.  I'm just saying you try to be subtle about the debate.  The majority of time in the public the debate in particular you concentrate, mainly, on where you agree. As you say, you conform to the highest common denominator.  but the podium is not the only place for debate.  in working together you can have debate in a far more natural and dialectical manner as you work.  Plus you are continually using your publications to put the revolutionary argument as to whyyou cannot abolish poverty without abolishing capitalism.  in that way you make it clear you do not agree with them, although your still prepared to work with them on what can be achieved in here and now.

I never did say that capitalism would convince people of the need to socialism, I said it would convince people of the need for revolutionary change.  in those circumstances it is then incumbent upon revolutionary socialist to convince those people that the revolutionary change should be towards socialism, rather than the fascist convincing them that that revolutionary change should be towards barbarism.  Between now and then revolutionary socialists have to LISTENto those they are working with, to see who has already been convinced of the need of a revolutionary change, and recruit them to revolutionary socialism through debate/discussion/convincing.


fraternal greetings, resistanceMP3.


----------



## moti (Jan 6, 2006)

*...yeah but no but...*

yeah well i was actually there - it's not what someone did or didn't say on indymedia and my direct experience was when asked our autonomist critics would do nothing (except of course sort out their own events)...I'm not saying all the people who did stuff where SWP, that's the usual putting words in mouth thing that people on urban 75 do to justify their hositility to the SWP, it was about 60/40 SWP/not in the cultural stuff...

...and when I said people had mental health problems, I mean, it's not a slur, nor about whether they were part of the dissent...it's a statement of fact!


----------



## Pilgrim (Jan 6, 2006)

moti said:
			
		

> yeah well i was actually there - it's not what someone did or didn't say on indymedia and my direct experience was when asked our autonomist critics would do nothing (except of course sort out their own events)...I'm not saying all the people who did stuff where SWP, that's the usual putting words in mouth thing that people on urban 75 do to justify their hositility to the SWP, it was about 60/40 SWP/not in the cultural stuff...
> 
> ...and when I said people had mental health problems, I mean, it's not a slur, nor about whether they were part of the dissent...it's a statement of fact!



And did it ever occur to you to ask yourself WHY people would rather organise their own events than attend one run by and for the SWP/Livingston?

And, regarding those you allege had mental health problems, are you a psychologist or psychiatrist? Do you have recognosed qualifications in the mental health field? Because, if you haven't, I suggest you keep your attempts at 'diagnosis' to yourself.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 6, 2006)

JoePolitix said:
			
		

> There's nothing quite so pathetic as reading one sectarian quoting another sects attack on another sect!
> 
> If that's the game we're playing lets see what the CPGB have to say about the SP's great system of party democracy:



I've found something more pathetic than that: a cretin who doesn't read the posts he is attacking properly before spewing shit like the above. I didn't quote the CPGB's article on the SWP because by and large I think the CPGBs analyses of pretty much anything are about as trustworthy as "Party Notes". I linked to the CPGB's site because at those links they reproduced the two SWP documents in full. The CPGB are fantasists which I suppose still leaves them a rung or two above people like yourself on the political ladder.




			
				Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> Yes they did, and I've read that the SWP in (Northern) Ireland courted him as well.
> From Socialist Democracy, Irish Section of the Fourth International, August 2001
> http://www.socialistdemocracy.org/N...heSocialist.htm



Speaking of political fantasists, here's something from Socialist Democracy - one of the few organisations in the world which the CPGB can honestly claim to be a multiple the size of. And predictably they're moaning about everyone else, on this occasion implying that everybody (and I mean everybody) but them is soft on the PUP. Including fucking _Sinn Fein_!


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 6, 2006)

Groucho said:
			
		

> It is about working with people whose ideas differ from your own on issues where you can reach agreement on joint work e.g. against the war, rather than simply hectoring people for their supposed stupidy in not understanding the need for a socialist revolution you are incapable of delivering. By working with such people that the movement can be taken forwards without having to wait for a majority to sign up to a revolutionary programm; simultaneously fraternal debate within the movement strengthens the revolutionary current both numerically and in terms of influence.



All of which is perfectly obvious thanks. I don't see anyone here arguing for "hectoring people for their supposed stupidity" and that certainly isn't the approach which the Socialist Party takes. What we do insist on doing however is actually arguing for socialist ideas, unlike the SWP who seem to think that "fraternal debate" means socialists shutting up while everyone else, liberal, pacifist, reformist, Muslim, Christian, charity, whatever, openly argues for their own ideas. It's like a one way code of omerta!

A united front is a coming together of forces within the labour movement to achieve particular goals. A key component of the united front however is open and vigorous debate and criticism. Which the SWPers here would know if they hadn't had their conception of a united front spoonfed to them in bowdlerised form by Callinicos and Co.


----------



## moti (Jan 6, 2006)

*to be a pilgrim...*

Pilgrim...

if you read my post you'll see that the autonomists pretty much fucked it up all by themselves in terms of being part of organising the event...I seem to remember Dean from the Wombles leaving in a hissy fit when the GLA had dared pre-book the only venue big enough left in London to hold the event, Ally Pally because it wasn't a 'democratic' decision if you want to play politics and that playground level (and it's quite clear from a number of posters here that that is the case   ) then what do you expect?

Also no one, and I repeat no one was stopped from putting their events into the timetable which was categorically not run by the SWP or GLA but the European ESF process...

and please spare the moralism, I've had mates who have had schizophrenia and depression and whatever else, I know when someones not well - if you think someone advocating that aliens are coming to save us is the remark of someone in full charge of his/her faculties then so be it, (that's just one example) but I call a spade a spade it's no slur on the person, just a statment of fact


----------



## neprimerimye (Jan 6, 2006)

ResistanceMP3 said:
			
		

> As part of a district renound in SW for destroying fulltimers I have to say your 'experience' does not concur with my experience.
> 
> Good [pont, indeed a very worrying phenomena IMHO.  Even though my personal intervention experience of SA/Respect, UAF, AC, etc was more rewarding than my intervention experience with TUists who were far more politcally wedded.
> 
> ...



Sure some districts have long established comrades involved in them who are capable and willing to express their views. Others do not. Some fulltimers are capable personally attractive individuals possessed of a deep commitment to the struggle for socialism. Others are bullshit merchants. Its uneven. All however are appointed none are elected.

As far as my own experience goes the fulltimer I worked with was a good decent semi-retired bloke doing his best. Trouble was his best meant relying on clique loyalties and gossip mongers. As for the current fulltimer in that area he is very much out of his depth and has almost nothbody to work with.

Yes it is far more rewarding in the short term to do political work aimed at a milieu defined by a pre-existing common political commitment. Such campaigning work is more exciting too and more likely to yield recruits in the short term. (Which raises the question why the SWP has failed to recruit from the anti-war movement) But work directed towards the workplaces, not just established trade unionists who may well be 'conservative I agree, is fundamental. Yet in the union where the SWP has its largest concentration of members, the PCS, leading cadre were left to do their own thing with the result that Martin John essentially sold out the pension rights of future entramts to the civil service. And all Bambery could do was roast the head of the TUC whom no one gives a toss about.

I'm not sure that German and Rees do share your politics. At least not if your politics are revolutionary IS type politics which I take them to be. Frankly I think they have gone native in Respect. In any event can they be persuaded that the party needs to be more democratic not less? I very much doubt it. I suspect that for Rees/German a party that functions on the basis  of workers democracy and the freest possible debate is anathema. After twenty years of leading a party that lacks a regular discussion bulletin and effectively bans factions they are not likely to change.

In what way are the structures of the SWP more democratic now? Are district committees sovereign in their districts or are they subject to appointed fulltimers? Are the fractions run by elected committees? That is where they exist I should add. Are factions allowed? Is it possible to hold discussions on party perspectives or even district or branch perspectives in regular or special meetings? Does conference take resolutions from the branchs or fractions? I should add that other than the election of fulltimers all of these questions could have been answered in the affirmative in the early 1970's. But today all are answered, if we are honest, in the negative and have been for a long time.

In my view these boards aren't suitable to elaborate an understanding of why the SWP has degenerated as that task requires a worked out analysis of the SWP's history and theory. Theres not really room for that here on boards that are dominated by liberals and other wankers. No offence intended to wankers of course.

Must dash my fave TV prog is on.


----------



## Groucho (Jan 6, 2006)

neprimerimye said:
			
		

> That this perspective is both short sighted and over optimistic is in my opinion proven by the failure of the CC and John Molyneux for that matter, to even mention the debacle in the PCS late last year. Failures such as this are passed over in silence, wehn they are of fundamental importance to a party yhat claims to stand for the self emancipation of the workers, ....



Socialist Worker - the public voice of the party - issued a very clear statement on the two comrade's big mistake on the PCS NEC. The statement reflected a large majority view of the PCS SWP members and the view of the CC (btw PCS is not the union where the SWP are strongest, though we have recruited a fair few PCS members lately).

The CC contribution to the pre-conference discussion on industrial work also makes clear reference.

The issue was also debated at a delegate meeting (Party Council) towards the end of last year (prior to the cc statement which reflected the view of the council)


----------



## Groucho (Jan 6, 2006)

neprimerimye said:
			
		

> Are district committees sovereign in their districts or are they subject to appointed fulltimers?



District Committees are sovereign in their districts. District organisers are appointed by the cc.




			
				neprimerimye said:
			
		

> Are the fractions run by elected committees?



Yes.




			
				neprimerimye said:
			
		

> Are factions allowed?



Yes, in the run up to conference over particular issues of dispute but not permanent opposition groups.




			
				neprimerimye said:
			
		

> Is it possible to hold discussions on party perspectives or even district or branch perspectives in regular or special meetings?



Yes, not only possible but encouraged.




			
				neprimerimye said:
			
		

> Does conference take resolutions from the branchs or fractions?



Not in the form of motions, but either individual comrades or groups of comrades can put forward proposals or amend proposals.




			
				neprimerimye said:
			
		

> I should add that other than the election of fulltimers all of these questions could have been answered in the affirmative in the early 1970's.



So no change there then.

In addition to annual conference the party will hold four party councils a year comprised of 50 delegates elected at conference and two delegates from each branch. Conference and the four delegate councils can overrule the cc.  That's a bit more democratic than any othert party I know. When you add the principle - scorned by so many - that representatives of the party are bound by democratic decisions I think we leave all other organisations of any relevence standing.


----------



## audiotech (Jan 6, 2006)

neprimerimye said:
			
		

> At least not if your politics are revolutionary IS type politics....



'IS type politics'? That's nearly thirty years ago and the SWP political analysis then was, if anything, over optimistic and failed to recognise the impending class downturn early enough. Although, to be fair this was corrected later. The SWP also took the threat of fascisim seriously and contributed significantly to the demise of the NF. The world has changed since that time. Although the crucial question of reform or revolution hasn't.


----------



## neprimerimye (Jan 7, 2006)

Groucho said:
			
		

> District Committees are sovereign in their districts. District organisers are appointed by the cc.
> 
> Yes.
> 
> ...



District committees under the constitution of the SWP are subject to appointed fulltimers so the truthful answer is no.

If fractions are led by elected committees then i do feel that you ought to inform the membership of the SWP og this. Most SWP members seem unaware that you actually have such bodies.

So internal democracy is limited to a three month period that currently includes the xmas and new year break. Are the membership not to be trusted for the other nine months of the year? As for your presumption that if factions were allowed to exist throughout the year that they must automatically become permanant oppositions this is nonsense. Surely a properly constituted faction would by definition be loyal to the partys program differing only on secondary questions? This was the nature of the Bolshevik faction of the RSDLP I note.

If, as you claim, meetings are encouraged within the SWP to discuss differences of opinion then it seems very strange that in recent years Party Notes, the Internal Bulletin and individual SWP members have complained of the partys branches not even holding regular meetings of any sort.I most certainly never heard of such meeting during my own membership in the 1970's, 80's and 90's. Except for meetings convened by the Control Commission to expel people that is.

So actually comrades cannot put forward resolutions. In essence you can either reject or support the documents of the CC but cannot put forward a alternative.

So a great many changes there from the early 1970's.

Havng attended meetings of the type you describe i believe that they were and are little more than rallies of the faithful. Too large to effectively supervise the fulltime leadership or to conduct in depth political discussions.


----------



## neprimerimye (Jan 7, 2006)

Groucho said:
			
		

> Socialist Worker - the public voice of the party - issued a very clear statement on the two comrade's big mistake on the PCS NEC. The statement reflected a large majority view of the PCS SWP members and the view of the CC (btw PCS is not the union where the SWP are strongest, though we have recruited a fair few PCS members lately).
> 
> The CC contribution to the pre-conference discussion on industrial work also makes clear reference.
> 
> The issue was also debated at a delegate meeting (Party Council) towards the end of last year (prior to the cc statement which reflected the view of the council)



Although it would seem that its circulation is at an all time low I assure you that I do know that SW is the public vice of the SWP.

One problem with the CC statement is that it was issued after your comrades had twice voted against the SWP's publically stated and absolutely correct position. Surely it would have been not only sensible but the duty of the Industrial Organiser and the leadership as a whole to have taken action following the first vote? Surely the leadership should also be held partially responsible, given their negligence, for the second vote? Surely the inaction of the SWP fraction in the PCS illustrates that the leadership of that body too is partially responsible for the fiasco?

Frankly I find your claim that the SWP is recruiting within the PCS laughable given the recent fiasco.


----------



## neprimerimye (Jan 7, 2006)

MC5 said:
			
		

> 'IS type politics'? That's nearly thirty years ago and the SWP political analysis then was, if anything, over optimistic and failed to recognise the impending class downturn early enough. Although, to be fair this was corrected later. The SWP also took the threat of fascisim seriously and contributed significantly to the demise of the NF. The world has changed since that time. Although the crucial question of reform or revolution hasn't.



The IS was nearly 30 years ago that is true but the SWP still calims to belong to the IS Tradition. Presumably this is meant to suggest that there is something distinct about that tradition that sets it apart from other Trotskyist tendencies. That would seem to be John Molyneuxs view in his document would it not? It is also the expressed view of many leading SWPers from time to time and of the fraternal groups in the IST.

Yet all you can do is reduce what I called IS type politics to over optimism. That says a great deal about your lack of understanding of the expressed politics of the SWP comrade.

But I do agree that the world has changed. I also agree that the crucial question of reform or revolution remains vital. Now on which side of that divide should one place Respect I wonder?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 7, 2006)

Groucho said:
			
		

> Not in the form of motions, but either individual comrades or groups of comrades can put forward proposals or amend proposals.






			
				neprimerimye said:
			
		

> So actually comrades cannot put forward resolutions. In essence you can either reject or support the documents of the CC but cannot put forward a alternative.



Am I reading this correctly? Are you two saying that branches and fractions can't put motions to the SWP conference? And that individual members can't either? What kind of motions and documents do they have then?


----------



## gurrier (Jan 7, 2006)

moti said:
			
		

> Pilgrim...
> 
> if you read my post you'll see that the autonomists pretty much fucked it up all by themselves in terms of being part of organising the event...I seem to remember Dean from the Wombles leaving in a hissy fit when the GLA had dared pre-book the only venue big enough left in London to hold the event, Ally Pally because it wasn't a 'democratic' decision if you want to play politics and that playground level (and it's quite clear from a number of posters here that that is the case   ) then what do you expect?
> 
> ...


Wow - the SWP cadre are in need of a few PR lessons!  I sense a bad case of somebody who has been spending too much time surrounded by underlings.

Firstly coming onto a public forum like Urban 75 and sneering at democracy as "playground politics" is a seriously stupid thing to do, by any measure.  You are supposed to pretend to think it is a good thing.

Secondly, relating a highly delusional version of the events surrounding the ESF as fact - a version of events that virtually every single participant in the ESF outside the IS would think is completely bonkers - is not exactly a good way of communicating with people who aren't members of your cult.  Frankly, it makes you look like a raving loonie.  

Finally, having a go at *other people* for being mad is the icing on the cake!  

Jesus, they shouldn't let you out in public mate    I'd almost feel sorry for you if you weren't such an utterly nasty piece of work with self-importance, derision and condescension oozing from every pore.  

Anyway, I haven't had as much fun since Workers Power released one of their similarly deluded higher-ups onto this forum, do please carry on.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 7, 2006)

JM was always in my experience a very decent bloke who did a lot to popularise marxist arguments. But if he dares to claim he stands in the Hallas/Cliff tradition against the current leadership I'd have to laugh in his face. Harman/Rees/the prof are head and shoulders above this epigone.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 7, 2006)

Straight in with the epigone! It's always in the memory.

Thing is from the texts, he hasn't really claimed that at all.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 7, 2006)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> From my experience of SWP members nd ex-members from the 70s/80s/90s there's a huge difference between the first two and the latter one (painting in broad strokes  of course).


You think mate? Personally I believe we 80's peeps were more hysterical than the 90's mob, in terms of immediate expectations. We believed we were building a revolutionary party as quickly as we could. This lot are much more mellow so to speak and with mellownes comes flowery language. Personally I think JM can't get with the fact that the old perspective don't fit anymore.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 7, 2006)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> Straight in with the epigone! It's always in the memory.


Well they breed us in vats.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 7, 2006)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> Thing is from the texts, he hasn't really claimed that at all.


Yes he does! He explicitly cites Cliff as being part of the 'look reality in the face' tradition which was fine when reality was something outside the swp and not JM's obsession with the structures of the party.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 7, 2006)

He cites cliff supporting lenin that party democracy is essential yes. How is someone who wants to uphold those positions supposed to argue - your logic leads to every single challenge to the CC being dismissed on the same grounds (no matter what the content or the behaviour of the CC) because the lessons of lenin/cliff belong and are under the management of the party CC alone. You won't have progressed a single step beyond Trotsky on his knees in 1923 admitting that you cannot be right _against_ the party.


----------



## Larry O'Hara (Jan 7, 2006)

*As it happens...*

Lenin never believed in internal democracy, when it came to the crunch

1) He blatantly manipulated the rules by reconvening a Conference after the Mensheviks had left, as he was in a minority

2) In 1917 he was at the start in a minority re the October revolution, so he conveniently ignored the DC theory & campaigned vs the majority (conciliatory) position.

3) Banning factions in 1921 (& Kronstadt) shows where he really stood on such questions.

4) His Last Testament shows he adopted a crude bureaucratic solution to the problems of...bureaucracy.

So, please don't cite Lenin as favouring internal democracy, please.  And as for Cliff: did you read *his* Last Testament (or a palimpsest of such)--a bit amusing....


----------



## 888 (Jan 7, 2006)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> Without denying that this happens inside the political organisation referred to, it's not something that's exactly absent in "anti-authoritarian" circles or indeed on this very forum.



In my experience that has not happened *within* the AF at all, except for one minor incident in 6 years, Justin. From my observation of the SWP (from pretty close up at times) the situation is *far* worse, largely due to the nature of their organisation and politics, but also size.


----------



## moti (Jan 7, 2006)

*gurrier i love you...*

hi Gurrier sweetie!

oh look you tried again to understand one of my posts, and still completely get the meaning wrong and ignore all the points that make life difficult for you!

shame, s'pose the old hand shandys get in the way of rational thinking tho don't they hey?


----------



## neprimerimye (Jan 7, 2006)

Nigel Irritable said:
			
		

> Am I reading this correctly? Are you two saying that branches and fractions can't put motions to the SWP conference? And that individual members can't either? What kind of motions and documents do they have then?



Historically IS conference was run on the old fashioned basis of an out going CC presenting a series of resolutions to conference which were then amended and voted upon in the usual manner. Properly constituted factions, branches, fractions and presumably other group units were also allowed to present counter-resolutions or amndments. This changed marginally in 1971 when factions weredenied the right to organise outside the pre-conference period. In practice i suspect that no full blown counter-resolutions were presented after 1971 but I can't be sure. What certainly did happen though was that branches did discuss CC resoutions in detail and many amendments were presente by them to conference. Some being qwuite substantial others less so.

By the time the SWP was founded such resolutions were still allowed but were actively discouraged by the leadership in the then regular Internal Bulletin. Many if not all branches and other party units would seem to have abandoned the practice of going through of holding meetings to discuss in detail the proposed resolutions and pre-conference debate was usually limited to a single District wide meeting introduced by two leading comrades. Amendments could still be put by party members in theory but in practice I doubt this happened very much, if at all, after, say 1981.

What the situation in the SWP is today I cannot authoritively say of course. But I think we are fairly safe in presuming that counter-resolutions are in practice a no-no and that internal discussion of proposed resolutions rarely if ever happens. Internal democracy being limited to the annuall three slim Internal Bulletins and a single District meeting in which 'Perspectives' for the comin year are presented by two leading members with a view to their implementation being discussed. That in essence being the role of internal discussion within the SWP to discuss perspectives decided upon by a small closed committee and to blow off a bit of steam.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 7, 2006)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> You won't have progressed a single step beyond Trotsky on his knees in 1923 admitting that you cannot be right _against_ the party.


Well in a certain sense Trotsky was right and the best one to one defence of that position I've ever heard was by Hallas who ironically was someone who was quite prepared to make reasoned criticisms of the general leadership line but who also understood that oppositionism for it's own sake is a luxury marxists can't afford.


----------



## montevideo (Jan 7, 2006)

moti said:
			
		

> Treelover, if a bunch of autonomists hadn't taken it upon themselves to try to stop the ESF from coming to London, and then attempt to block any attempt to set up an organising committee -which was needed so groups could affliate to so democratic organisations like unions could legally fund the ESF- and in the process of doing this completely alienating the unions and (the awful, admittedly)SA lot around Livingston, to the point where if we hadn't argued with them there would have been NO esf at all.



no, the 'autonomists' argued the uk had no concrete social base (unlike italy & less impressively, france) to organise a social forum _properly_. The 'autonomists' argued it would be more productive to begin building that base before setting off on a large political party-driven 'conference'. History, of course, absolves them.




			
				moti said:
			
		

> I couldn't agree more, but the problem was no one was willing to organise the food and drink, as all the moaners when asked to actually do something, you know so they could make the ESF like they want did nothing - and that was my direct experience of facilitating the cultural stuff, plenty of autonomists came in to the meetings often after several weeks of organising, telling us how it should be, continually trying to create divisions, some with mental health problems, some coming from the south of France(Mi5?) BUT crucially doing none of the work when asked
> 
> so forgive me if I'm fed up with people who moan about the ESF but did fuck all to make it happen...especially as some of the key autonomist ringleaders then got employed by the GLA as Babels workers getting paid 3grand more than all the other ESF workers....some 'horizontals'!



the 'autonomists' organised food & accommodation (& nightly entertainment) for *five* days over the period of the london esf for everyone who wanted it, free of charge. 

-someone who was involved in organising 'beyond esf'.

The autonomists: anarchist troublemakers & their cheerleaders who don't do what they have been told to do.


----------



## neprimerimye (Jan 7, 2006)

bolshiebhoy said:
			
		

> Well in a certain sense Trotsky was right and the best one to one defence of that position I've ever heard was by Hallas who ironically was someone who was quite prepared to make reasoned criticisms of the general leadership line but who also understood that oppositionism for it's own sake is a luxury marxists can't afford.



Trotsky was wrong, terribly wrong, to capitulate to the Stalinist fation in 1924. It was a mistake that Lenin, who had only shortly before been looking towards forming a bloc with Trotsky against Stalin, would never have made.

The fact is that the party can be wrong in which case the most loyal course of action is to strive to corrct the course of the party. Loyalty being defined as a defence of political principles not a mindless defence of a partys structures.

Could you give a source for any defence made by Hallas of Trotskys foolish and incorrect declaration that one cannot be right against the party? I ask only because I cannot bring to mind any such silly statement on his part.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 7, 2006)

Is that what you think JM is engaging in "oppositionism for it's own sake" bolshie? And if so don't you see any merit in any of his points or is is that you think the rasing of them at this point is potentialy dangerous to the Party? Are there any fractions historically you think are worth defending and on what grounds were they justified in making their criticisms of the party known?


----------



## Pilgrim (Jan 7, 2006)

moti said:
			
		

> hi Gurrier sweetie!
> 
> oh look you tried again to understand one of my posts, and still completely get the meaning wrong and ignore all the points that make life difficult for you!
> 
> shame, s'pose the old hand shandys get in the way of rational thinking tho don't they hey?



I notice you made no effort whatsoever to answer the points people have put to you.

You really aren't very good at this debating business, are you?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 7, 2006)

neprimerimye said:
			
		

> But I think we are fairly safe in presuming that counter-resolutions are in practice a no-no and that internal discussion of proposed resolutions rarely if ever happens.



So hang on, when you were involved did branches and fractions actually ever put motions or resolutions to conference? Did individual members?

And for current or more recent SWP members, do branches and fractions actually ever put motions or resolution to conference? Do individual members?

I have to admit that this all seems rather alien to me.


----------



## durruti02 (Jan 7, 2006)

Groucho said:
			
		

> It is about working with people whose ideas differ from your own on issues where you can reach agreement on joint work e.g. against the war, rather than simply hectoring people for their supposed stupidy in not understanding the need for a socialist revolution you are incapable of delivering. By working with such people that the movement can be taken forwards without having to wait for a majority to sign up to a revolutionary programm; simultaneously fraternal debate within the movement strengthens the revolutionary current both numerically and in terms of influence. Key to all this is an understanding that revolutionaries do not have a monopoly on good ideas and stategies and that a would-be revolutionary party can learn from those you work with and alongside.





what you say above as an ideology/practice is spot on .. but you then orientate it to the m/c or muslims   

you do not work with working class people as much as you can help .. your main efforts in hackney are aimed at church street in stoke newington !!    and broadway market's saturday yuppy market!!! 

it is hard to find a decent w/c swoppy these days .. and don't give me waterson .. she is authoritarian of the worst kind .. a bully .. a wanna be cop ..what as kids we called a fascist


----------



## durruti02 (Jan 7, 2006)

forgive me but was JM not part of the IS > SWP coupe in 1977??? 

going to swp meetings in my home town in 1977-1979 they laughed at the state of democracy in the swp .. i remember them getting a weekly brown envelope telling them what to do that week!!


----------



## cogg (Jan 7, 2006)

durruti02 said:
			
		

> what you say above as an ideology/practice is spot on .. but you then orientate it to the m/c or muslims
> 
> you do not work with working class people as much as you can help .. your main efforts in hackney are aimed at church street in stoke newington !!    and broadway market's saturday yuppy market!!!
> 
> *it is hard to find a decent w/c swoppy these days * .. and don't give me waterson .. she is authoritarian of the worst kind .. a bully .. a wanna be cop ..what as kids we called a fascist



That's a really good point which I'd completely forgotten about. All the people I knew who came from a working class background (with 2 exceptions) drifted away some time ago.

The 2 or 3 people who sell socialist worker in walthamstow definitely aren't working class. The socialist party sellers are, even though some of them seem a bit barking...Friendly though.


----------



## cogg (Jan 7, 2006)

neprimerimye said:
			
		

> Trotsky was wrong, terribly wrong, to capitulate to the Stalinist fation in 1924. It was a mistake that Lenin, who had only shortly before been looking towards forming a bloc with Trotsky against Stalin, would never have made.
> 
> The fact is that the party can be wrong in which case the most loyal course of action is to strive to corrct the course of the party. Loyalty being defined as a defence of political principles not a mindless defence of a partys structures.
> 
> Could you give a source for any defence made by Hallas of Trotskys foolish and incorrect declaration that one cannot be right against the party? I ask only because I cannot bring to mind any such silly statement on his part.



Hallas, like Trotsky 50 years earlier, was wrong in 1974 when he signed the original IS opposition document to capitulate to Cliff. If he hadn't the organisation may have been very different to what we know it now.


----------



## durruti02 (Jan 7, 2006)

cogg said:
			
		

> That's a really good point which I'd completely forgotten about. All the people I knew who came from a working class background (with 2 exceptions) drifted away some time ago.
> 
> The 2 or 3 people who sell socialist worker in walthamstow definitely aren't working class. The socialist party sellers are, even though some of them seem a bit barking...Friendly though.



same for me .. in the 8ts they had loads of w/c members .. most gone .. a remember a few getting disciplined for being part of the poll tax riot .. BAD BOYS!! they left after ..


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jan 7, 2006)

cogg said:
			
		

> That's a really good point which I'd completely forgotten about. All the people I knew who came from a working class background (with 2 exceptions) drifted away some time ago.
> 
> The 2 or 3 people who sell socialist worker in walthamstow definitely aren't working class. The socialist party sellers are, even though some of them seem a bit barking...Friendly though.


no it isn't a good point.  It depends what you mean by working-class.

fraternal greetings, resistanceMP3


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jan 7, 2006)

durruti02 said:
			
		

> same for me .. in the 8ts they had loads of w/c members .. most gone .. a remember a few getting disciplined for being part of the poll tax riot .. BAD BOYS!! they left after ..


in the 1980s, from what I've remember, militant always laid the charge that the  SWPwas middle-class. so there is really nothing new in your false claims, I say  false but I suppose it depends how you define middle-class.

fraternal greetings.  ResistanceMP3.


----------



## durruti02 (Jan 7, 2006)

ResistanceMP3 said:
			
		

> in the 1980s, from what I've remember, militant always laid the charge that the  SWPwas middle-class. so there is really nothing new in your false claims, I say  false but I suppose it depends how you define middle-class.
> 
> fraternal greetings.  ResistanceMP3.



you know what we mean/is meant generally by w/c .. in hackney they had a large contigent of scots who staffed many a paper sale .. they have all but gone .. and been replaced by some VERY m/c looking/sounding people ... 


 and in the 8ts militant were correct, that they were much more w/c and locally based than the swp .. it just goes 2 show how bad things have got .. 

these are not not not false claims


----------



## mk12 (Jan 7, 2006)

So do people want to know how it went?


----------



## Pilgrim (Jan 7, 2006)

mattkidd12 said:
			
		

> So do people want to know how it went?



If SWP security is as good as usual we should be able to read it in the Weekly Worker in a couple of days. Either that or on the BNP website.

That said, it could be interesting to have a debate that doesn't descend into a farce of how 'Brilliant!', 'Wonderful! and 'Historic! opportunities for the working class are developing before our eyes.

But that'll come when RW gets here I suppose.


----------



## mk12 (Jan 7, 2006)

> That said, it could be interesting to have a debate that doesn't descend into a farce of how 'Brilliant!', 'Wonderful! and 'Historic! opportunities for the working class are developing before our eyes.



Your criticism was debated _all day_ today. It was a great conference.


----------



## Pilgrim (Jan 7, 2006)

mattkidd12 said:
			
		

> Your criticism was debated _all day_ today. It was a great conference.



Oh, go on then.

We want ALL the sordid details.

How many votes did the CC actually lose?

Were any of those votes on major issues?

Did the CC manage to re-elect itself, like it usually seems to?

Did anybody, apart from John Molyneux, stand up to the CC and tell them that they get things wrong and should be more democratic and accountable to the rank and file?

Did the CC members indulge in harsh criticism of the rank and file for not pushing the new perspective hard enough?

And was Galloway's latest exercise in narcissism spun positively, or acknowledged to be the debacle it is?


----------



## mk12 (Jan 7, 2006)

Pilgrim said:
			
		

> How many votes did the CC actually lose?



57. About 10 abstained. They got 208. Many people came up to John Molyneux beforehand saying that they agreed with some of his views, yet didn't think they could vote for him for some reason. 



> Were any of those votes on major issues?



No. Someone tried to start a debate about the religious hatred bill. John Rees claimed this had been "debated" in the paper and at a caucas. This wasn't voted on however, yet I got the feeling that many were undecided on this issue.



> Did the CC manage to re-elect itself, like it usually seems to?



Well, the majority voted for the slate the CC put forward, yes. But not after a long debate, in which John Molyneux spoke, and then Callinicos replied. 5 speakers then spoke for John (including me and ex CC member *******), and 5 for the CC slate (including John Rees and Lindsey German). 



> Did anybody, apart from John Molyneux, stand up to the CC



Nope.



> and tell them that they get things wrong



It depends what you mean by "things". About 10 contributers throughout the day criticised certain lines of the leadership: for example, John Molyneux claimed that the leadership had a tendency to exaggerate membership figures, exaggerate imminent 'breakthroughs' etc. The main issue that was debated was the fact that John claimed that the CC wasn't honest about the level of class struggle: the fact that the number of strikes are a 1/10 of what they were in the 'downturn'. You can read his main arguments in WW.



> and should be more democratic and accountable to the rank and file?



Yep: myself, *******, ******, John Molyneux and couple others put forward this view. 

All throughout the day, in meeting such as "Leninism in the 21st century", speakers from the CC were giving John Molyneux stick. Chris Harman even went as far to say that a Central Committee should be homogenous! (which was criticised in the CC elections debate). 

******** said this was the best conference he'd been to in years. This was because there were a minority of members, spurred on by Molyneux's decision to stand I think, which were confident about standing up to the leadership. The day started off with the usual studenty speakers, telling us how we need to build this and that, but as the day went on, the speeches got more and more important to the running of the party.

Although John only got 57 votes, that's the biggest rebellion the party has seen in decades. It was a good result! Hopefully this will encourage the CC to be more honest and the SWP to be more democratic. 



> Did the CC members indulge in harsh criticism of the rank and file for not pushing the new perspective hard enough?



I remember Lindsey German criticised the membership for some reason, and a few contributors from the floor said how the CC was right, and the membership had to be _won round_ to the 'new perspective'.



> And was Galloway's latest exercise in narcissism spun positively, or acknowledged to be the debacle it is?



Not one supporter in the house for him. Although John Rees claimed it wasn't important. One delegate called him a "loose canon" (GG, not JR)


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 7, 2006)

mattkidd12 said:
			
		

> All throughout the day, in meeting such as "Leninism in the 21st century", speakers from the CC were giving John Molyneux stick. Chris Harman even went as far to say that a Central Committee should be homogenous! (which was criticised in the CC elections debate).


Why in the name of sweet jeezus is it controversial for a bolshevik to say that the cc should sing from the same hymn sheet? This stuff used to be abc for the average trot, where's the controversy?!?!

On a more practical note, is there a single SWP comrade on here who can direct me to a swp meeting in London next week because I've been trying for days to get one of my old comrades to let me into the secret of where I can go to meet some fellow Cliffites now I'm working in London. Has the SWP ceased to exist or what?


----------



## mk12 (Jan 7, 2006)

Why not try: http://www.euston-swp.org.uk/



> Why in the name of sweet jeezus is it controversial for a bolshevik to say that the cc should sing from the same hymn sheet? This stuff used to be abc for the average trot, where's the controversy?!?!



The fact that in our tradition, CC's have been made up of various tendencies? The Workers Opposition in 1920-21 had representatin on the CC IIRC...Zinoviev and Kamenev voted against the insurrection in 1917...Lenin was in a minority on the CC in mid 1917 etc etc etc


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 7, 2006)

mattkidd12 said:
			
		

> Why not try: http://www.euston-swp.org.uk/


Aye well very helpful if I wanted to go to Marxism 2005.


> The fact that in our tradition, CC's have been made up of various tendencies? The Workers Opposition in 1920-21 had representatin on the CC IIRC...Zinoviev and Kamenev voted against the insurrection in 1917...Lenin was in a minority on the CC in mid 1917 etc etc etc


Are we about to or have we just had a workers' revolution in this country?


----------



## mk12 (Jan 7, 2006)

No. Does that mean we cannot have differences of opinion, which reflects the difference of opinion in the party, on the central committee?

Sorry about the link, didn't see the date!

I suggest you email the national office. The only one I found on the website was this one:

Tower Hamlets "Is the US losing in Iraq?"
With Simon Assaf. Thu 5 Jan, 7pm Oxford House, 
Derbyshire St 

It's an SWP public meeting.


----------



## Groucho (Jan 8, 2006)

Pilgrim said:
			
		

> And was Galloway's latest exercise in narcissism spun positively, or acknowledged to be the debacle it is?



On the Friday, which Mattkidd12 missed, John Rees made a statement critical of Galloway's decision to enter the BB house. SWP and other Respecters tried to dissaude alloway once they heard of the decision but were too late as contracts had been signed. However, it is not the most important issue in the World....


----------



## Pilgrim (Jan 8, 2006)

Groucho said:
			
		

> On the Friday, which Mattkidd12 missed, John Rees made a statement critical of Galloway's decision to enter the BB house. SWP and other Respecters tried to dissaude alloway once they heard of the decision but were too late as contracts had been signed. However, it is not the most important issue in the World....



True, there are more important things going on in the world than GG going into some house.

That said, this won't do GG or RESPECT (which GG represents) any favours in the positive PR stakes.

I think the problem here is that Rees, German and the rest have in Galloway someone who will not be pushed around, or made to toe the line like an ordinary party member can be. I think GG knows that Rees and Co need him an awful lot more than he needs them, for without GG RESPECT amounts to very little, especially in the non-Muslim areas.


----------



## Groucho (Jan 8, 2006)

mattkidd12 said:
			
		

> Many people came up to John Molyneux beforehand saying that they agreed with some of his views, yet didn't think they could vote for him for some reason.



I said exactly that to him this morning, but in the event I voted for Molyneux with criticisms. 

However, we shouldn't be revealing the ins and outs to all. Rigourous internal debate, united public face!! Like this one -


----------



## mk12 (Jan 8, 2006)

Ooo, I think I may have seen you then. Well done for voting for him. United public face: on.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 8, 2006)

mattkidd12 said:
			
		

> Tower Hamlets "Is the US losing in Iraq?"
> With Simon Assaf. Thu 5 Jan, 7pm Oxford House,
> Derbyshire St
> 
> It's an SWP public meeting.


The 5th?!?! In a post on the 7th.

All joking aside it does look as if the casual punter would find it very hard to trip over an SWP meeting these days and I ain't even a casual punter. 

Differences of opinion are gonna be rife in every party. Whether they need to be reflected in the leading body of the party is another question. Arguably a period when there is no major struggle going on, no life and death issues of the day to be debated that affect real major conflicts and the party seems stretched to organise public meetings isn't one in which the cc should be run on a coalition basis...


----------



## mk12 (Jan 8, 2006)

Having the same CC as usual, with one extra new person, isn't really a "coalition" though. 

Yeah you're right about the meetings. It seems the number of meetings has decreased recently. The website is pretty crap on this point. Just email the national office.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 8, 2006)

bolshiebhoy said:
			
		

> Differences of opinion are gonna be rife in every party. Whether they need to be reflected in the leading body of the party is another question. Arguably a period when there is no major struggle going on, no life and death issues of the day to be debated that affect real major conflicts and the party seems stretched to organise public meetings isn't one in which the cc should be run on a coalition basis...



And of course if we were in a period of major struggles the argument would be:




			
				alternateuniverse said:
			
		

> Differences of opinion are gonna be rife in every party. Whether they need to be reflected in the leading body of the party is another question. Arguably a period when there is major struggle going on, life and death issues of the day convulsing the workers movement and the party seems stretched to intervene succesfully into these vital struggles isn't one in which the cc should be run on a coalition basis...



Because there will always be a reason why the leading bodies of an organisation don't need to reflect the real differences of opinion in that organisation if you don't want minority viewspoints to be represented. Really Bolshiebhoy, think about what you are saying here. You are calling for a leadership which presents a united face, not externally but to the rest of the party.


----------



## neprimerimye (Jan 9, 2006)

bolshiebhoy said:
			
		

> Differences of opinion are gonna be rife in every party. Whether they need to be reflected in the leading body of the party is another question. Arguably a period when there is no major struggle going on, no life and death issues of the day to be debated that affect real major conflicts and the party seems stretched to organise public meetings isn't one in which the cc should be run on a coalition basis...



As a general rule serious mass parties are based on a commonly agreed upon series of positions. This is what is refered to as a program.Traditionally parties based on the class struggle adhering to Marxism also adopted such an approach.

Which is why the history of Marxism is, to a large degree, a history of disputes over the meaning and content of such a program. Following from this it became a positon of the revolutionary movement that minorities within the party should recieve representation on leading bodies commensurate to the level of support they had within the party.

You may argue that such an approach, that of Lenin and Trotsky (and Cliff too prior to 1971), reduces said leading bodies to coalitions. But if both majority and minority agree on the program and differ only on its implementation then this is not the case. Of course the failure of the SWP to adopt any kind of formal program makes this Marxist approach to the question a trifle tricky....


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Jan 9, 2006)

Some interesting perspectives from outside the SWP here:
http://marxsite.blogspot.com/

(Not necessarily endorsing it though ...)


----------



## poster342002 (Jan 9, 2006)

neprimerimye said:
			
		

> sho[p stewards however passive they might be at present are directly elected by those they represent.


In theory. 

In practise, they are mostly elected unopposed. Where contested shop-steward/rep elections do occur, often barely a handfull of members bother to return their ballot.


----------



## neprimerimye (Jan 9, 2006)

poster342002 said:
			
		

> In theory.
> 
> In practise, they are mostly elected unopposed. Where contested shop-steward/rep elections do occur, often barely a handfull of members bother to return their ballot.



True enough but the point remains that they directly represent their members and for the most part work alongside their members day and day out. As a form of workers democracy shop stewards are most easily influenced in the event of a growing level of class conflict and therefore of far more potential importance to a political tendency that defines itself by adherence to Socialism from Below than any number of 'cadre' on union executives.


----------



## mk12 (Jan 9, 2006)

I apologise to all SWP members on here for posting up some of the organisation's member's names. Apparently, this could cost them their job. I have edited their names out.


----------



## Groucho (Jan 9, 2006)

Nigel Irritable said:
			
		

> Am I reading this correctly? Are you two saying that branches and fractions can't put motions to the SWP conference? And that individual members can't either? What kind of motions and documents do they have then?



*Any individual member or group of members* can put forward either amendments to cc proposals or alternative proposals. So you are reading this wrongly.  They are not 'motions' from branches as delegates are not mandated from branches.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jan 9, 2006)

Groucho said:
			
		

> I said exactly that to him this morning, but in the event I voted for Molyneux with criticisms.
> 
> However, we shouldn't be revealing the ins and outs to all. Rigourous internal debate, united public face!! Like this one -



I'd watch out if I were you, associating with Matt (even cyber associations) might not prove to be popular with the party's higher echelons.  

Louis Mac


----------



## mk12 (Jan 9, 2006)

I'm not in the party anymore anyway, so it doesn't matter to be honest. As I said, sorry if I said something on this thread that could have cost anyone their jobs or something like that. I just thought that being honest about what happened, in the company of ex-SWP members and other socialists, would help.


----------



## hibee (Jan 9, 2006)

I'd like to know which cunt on here is the tout who shopped Matt.


----------



## knopf (Jan 9, 2006)

hibee said:
			
		

> I'd like to know which cunt on here is the tout who shopped Matt.



Yep. Me too. Which of the baby trotlets went squealling to their controllers?


----------



## Mr T (Jan 9, 2006)

bolshiebhoy said:
			
		

> The 5th?!?! In a post on the 7th.
> 
> All joking aside it does look as if the casual punter would find it very hard to trip over an SWP meeting these days and I ain't even a casual punter.



why not try this:

http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/article.php?article_id=8029

its in socialist worker _every week_


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jan 9, 2006)

knopf said:
			
		

> Yep. Me too. Which of the baby trotlets went squealling to their controllers?



The likelihood of the person who did it having the guts to admit it publicly is nil; but please feel free to prove me wrong. However, any defence they made of their actions (made in the interests of the class of course) who'd have some educational, albeit nausea inducing value.

Louis Mac


----------



## mk12 (Jan 9, 2006)

hibee said:
			
		

> I'd like to know which cunt on here is the tout who shopped Matt.



No it doesn't matter. It was a unanimous decision anyway. I hope I haven't cost people their jobs.


----------



## knopf (Jan 9, 2006)

mattkidd12 said:
			
		

> I hope I haven't cost people their jobs.



I doubt it. You will, however, have won your branch organiser some valuable cadre points.


----------



## cockneyrebel (Jan 9, 2006)

Matt the three names you mentioned have all been published in SW recently. One of them is an election candidate FFS. It's absolute bollox that this could "cost someone their jobs". By that rate they should sack the editor of SW. Check out the search section on the SW paper site and put those names in.


----------



## mk12 (Jan 9, 2006)

But it's a breach of party discipline, talking about conference to non-members.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jan 9, 2006)

mattkidd12 said:
			
		

> But it's a breach of party discipline, talking about conference to non-members.



I suspect that very much depends on what you say. More seriously I hope you are able to keep up friendships with people in your branch; so if any of them are looking in here...do the right thing and get in touch with a kind word.

Best wishes to Matt - Louis Mac


----------



## mk12 (Jan 9, 2006)

Unforuntately I doubt that will happen, seeing as somebody rang my branch organiser right after I spoke at the CC elections, saying what i'd done. He then sent me an angry text message. So, one friend down. Nice.


----------



## knopf (Jan 9, 2006)

mattkidd12 said:
			
		

> He then sent me an angry text message.



Did he call you a wenegade class twaitor?

Sorry to be flippant -- losing a mate's losing a mate, I know, but he does sound like a bit of a twat.


----------



## cockneyrebel (Jan 9, 2006)

> But it's a breach of party discipline, talking about conference to non-members.



To be honest on that level they've kind of got you bang to rights. Agree or disagree, that is democratic centralism. Having said that what you did was a pretty minor "breach" and could hardly warrant suspension of membership!

But the stuff about costing people their jobs is absolute bollox.


----------



## mk12 (Jan 9, 2006)

No he's not a twat. He's a close friend. He just jumped to conclusions before hearing my side of the story. 

cockney: I answered some questions from Pilgrim, and ex-SWP member, about the conference. How the votes went etc. I any other non-member asked how it went, i'd tell them.


----------



## cockneyrebel (Jan 9, 2006)

> cockney: I answered some questions from Pilgrim, and ex-SWP member, about the conference. How the votes went etc. I any other non-member asked how it went, i'd tell them.



All I'm saying is that democratic centralism probably does mean you're not meant to disclose that kind of info publicly. Does the SWP have a rules book, I never found one when I was an SWP member.

But as said, what you did, even by those standards, was hardly grounds for suspending you.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 9, 2006)

Groucho said:
			
		

> *Any individual member or group of members* can put forward either amendments to cc proposals or alternative proposals. So you are reading this wrongly.  They are not 'motions' from branches as delegates are not mandated from branches.



This thread is almost certain to get swallowed by Matt's suspension from the SWP but hopefully somebody will answer this anyway:

I'm not sure that I follow what the procedure is here Groucho. Individual members can put forward "proposals", but they put them straight to conference rather than raising them in other bodies first, is that what you are talking about?

Just for comparisons sake, the way it works in the Socialist Party is that any member can submit a resolution or amendment to conference. They can also bring their resolutions to their branch or other body and seek the branches support, in which case it would appear at conference as a resolution coming from say Stoke South branch or they can have it discussed at a load of branch meetings and have it submitted as a motion from however many branches.


----------



## levien (Jan 9, 2006)

Nigel Irritable said:
			
		

> This thread is almost certain to get swallowed by Matt's suspension from the SWP but hopefully somebody will answer this anyway:
> 
> I'm not sure that I follow what the procedure is here Groucho. Individual members can put forward "proposals", but they put them straight to conference rather than raising them in other bodies first, is that what you are talking about?
> 
> Just for comparisons sake, the way it works in the Socialist Party is that any member can submit a resolution or amendment to conference. They can also bring their resolutions to their branch or other body and seek the branches support, in which case it would appear at conference as a resolution coming from say Stoke South branch or they can have it discussed at a load of branch meetings and have it submitted as a motion from however many branches.



You could do that yes. But SWP democracy doesn't work with motion etc.  people or who ever else they can find support from can put forwrds perspectives (with conlusions for action/organisation etc) to be discussed and voted on within the relevent section theory, Industrial, global economy, international etc.  It is very flexible with Conference arangements committee pretty much fitting things around what members want to discuss.  Bits of the procedure need poliching up a bit and looking at but it compares well in this formal sense with other organisations I have been involved in where a minority of one can infact get a reasonably amount of conference time.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 9, 2006)

Cheers for that levien, makes a bit more sense now.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 9, 2006)

Anyone want to start a sweepstakes on how long it takes bolshiebhoy to come along and start defending Matt's suspension on the grounds that notifying someone in advance of disciplinary proceedings, charges, evidence and the like is soft and wouldn't have been considered necessary in his day?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 9, 2006)

When he's got the kids back from school and fed i reckon. 6-30.


----------



## hibee (Jan 9, 2006)

So now we know why the likes of rebel, levein and udo spend their days posting glorified press releases up here. They know they're being watched.

What a nasty little sneak you are, whoever you are.


----------



## articul8 (Jan 9, 2006)

This might be a really naive question, but is there no appeals procedure?


----------



## gurrier (Jan 9, 2006)

Sadly, bolshieboy is no longer with us.  Following the comment below, bolshieboy was condemned to death by a secret midnight court on charges of Jacobinism and bringing the party into disrepute.  He was subsequently beheaded by a crack team of SWP hitmen on his way to work this morning.  




			
				bolshiebhoy said:
			
		

> All joking aside it does look as if the casual punter would find it very hard to trip over an SWP meeting these days and I ain't even a casual punter.


----------



## mk12 (Jan 9, 2006)

articul8 said:
			
		

> This might be a really naive question, but is there no appeals procedure?



I was offered the chance to appeal to a disciplinary hearing, yes.


----------



## darren redparty (Jan 9, 2006)

I am really sorry to hear that you have been suspended over posting from conterence on here, Mattkidd, I wouldn't hold out any hopes from the ccc (central control commision) whop are the ones who deal withappeals etc. In my experience EVEN when it is proved that there is no justification for accusations against a member the ccc found against them as to do otherwise would 'undermine confidence in the district commitee/ upset an important comrade'  (wakefield).
   It is a shame I was a member for years and placed real hope in the swp, but the party is not what we believed it to be.


----------



## articul8 (Jan 9, 2006)

Hmmm...in my naive little way I'd like to think this was a genuinely independent panel accountable to the membership as a whole, not just the CC.  I doubt it, but could be wrong. 

Democratic centralism (ought to) cut both ways.  Maybe (from a leninist perspective) you over-stepped the mark.  But the reaction has been wildly out of proportion and pretty paranoid IMO.

[edit - just read Darren's post - that is Stalinism in action and no mistake    ]


----------



## shandy (Jan 9, 2006)

articul8 said:
			
		

> a genuinely independent panel accountable to the membership as a whole, not just the CC.




Unfortunately not. My friend was expelled from the SWP after he and other members of SWP complained about the actions of a long-time local SWP full-timer. They complained that the person a) had bullied SWP members (this had been witnessed) and b) that the person was ineffective in the role of full-timer and had continually blocked local initiatives to promote SWP and RESPECT 

A member of the CC came to hear their complaint and adjudicated that all those who brought the complaint were expelled.  The full-timer was left in post.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 9, 2006)

Any chance this was the bully GF?


----------



## mk12 (Jan 9, 2006)

Birmingham?


----------



## belboid (Jan 9, 2006)

I once knew someone who was vaguely threatened with disciplinary action for selling speed at Marxism.  The fact that said person also sold hash to two members of the CCC probably protected them somewhat...


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 9, 2006)

mattkidd12 said:
			
		

> Birmingham?


 That's him.


----------



## mk12 (Jan 9, 2006)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> That's him.



When I said in my speech that I had spoken to "ex-members", I was referring to a couple from that area.


----------



## mutley (Jan 9, 2006)

articul8 said:
			
		

> Hmmm...in my naive little way I'd like to think this was a genuinely independent panel accountable to the membership as a whole, not just the CC.  I doubt it, but could be wrong.
> 
> Democratic centralism (ought to) cut both ways.  Maybe (from a leninist perspective) you over-stepped the mark.  But the reaction has been wildly out of proportion and pretty paranoid IMO.
> 
> [edit - just read Darren's post - that is Stalinism in action and no mistake    ]



The panel is a committee, which is elected by conference, and reports to conference who then back what it decided the previous year or not.

Any organiser or the cc can suspend someone, but the matter is taken to the disputes committee to uphold it, or came up wioth some othe rcourse of action. In practice they've mainly had to deal with non-political breeches of discipline in my experience (eg two members have a fight in a pub..) They've were very lenient in the one 'political' case that i was familiar with. 

I think that in this case a quite hard line has been taken because we are all a bit fed up with the weekly worker getting detailed reports from inside our organisation, which have placed at least one member who was not 'out' at work in jeopardy.

If Matt wants to argue his case then I know he will get a good hearing from the disputes cttee. It depends if he wants to or not.

And for the record I was at the conference, I think that posting a detailed report here was totally out of order and the suspension as a response is totally in order. Even our own members hadn't had a report back ffs!


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 9, 2006)

mutley said:
			
		

> Any organiser or the cc can suspend someone,



Are you serious? Any fulltime organiser can suspend someone?




			
				mutley said:
			
		

> I think that in this case a quite hard line has been taken because we are all a bit fed up with the weekly worker getting detailed reports from inside our organisation



So let me get this straight a hard line has been taken because (a) someone else has been giving reports to the Weekly Worker and you decided to make Matt a scapegoat for that or (b) Matt has been giving reports to the Weekly Worker?




			
				mutley said:
			
		

> And for the record I was at the conference, I think that posting a detailed report here was totally out of order and the suspension as a response is totally in order.



Do you think that suspending someone, holding a discussion and vote on their behaviour in their absence and without informing them in advance is "totally in order"?


----------



## hibee (Jan 9, 2006)

mutley said:
			
		

> The panel is a committee, which is elected by conference, and reports to conference who then back what it decided the previous year or not.
> 
> Any organiser or the cc can suspend someone, but the matter is taken to the disputes committee to uphold it, or came up wioth some othe rcourse of action. In practice they've mainly had to deal with non-political breeches of discipline in my experience (eg two members have a fight in a pub..) They've were very lenient in the one 'political' case that i was familiar with.
> 
> ...



I'm sure your overseers are very pleased with you for posting that.


----------



## Pilgrim (Jan 9, 2006)

mattkidd12 said:
			
		

> No he's not a twat. He's a close friend. He just jumped to conclusions before hearing my side of the story.
> 
> cockney: I answered some questions from Pilgrim, and ex-SWP member, about the conference. How the votes went etc. I any other non-member asked how it went, i'd tell them.



Well, if I've got you into any trouble then I really am very sorry.   

The last thing I wanted was to drop you in it.

And whoever sneaked off and informed on you is a lowlife and a grass of the first water. It would be nice to know exactly who it was for future reference.

Truly sorry to hear of your suspension.


----------



## Groucho (Jan 9, 2006)

Louis MacNeice said:
			
		

> I'd watch out if I were you, associating with Matt (even cyber associations) might not prove to be popular with the party's higher echelons.
> 
> Louis Mac



I freely associate with all sorts of well dodgy types!!   

Matt made a mistake posting the names of comrades which he rectified once brought to his attention.

Details of the voting and goings on at our conference are not for the public domain, and that was another mistake. However, Matt is not motivated out of hostility to the SWP, he is not a WW mole, and I bear him no hostility.


----------



## Pilgrim (Jan 9, 2006)

I warned MattKidd12 elsewhere that there might well be some sort of backlash over his stance at conference, but I never thought the SWP CC would would move as fast and with such an utter contempt for decent conduct as this.

I wonder if the little reptile who snitched on MattKidd12 will have the courage and the decency to admit it and state their reasons for doing so publicly?

This reeks of the SWP CC deciding to make an example of MattKidd12 for speaking out and daring to go against them. He makes some minor mistake, so they use this as a pretext to force him out and thus deter others from making a similar stand on any other issue.

I wouldn't be surprised if others who voted for Molyneux were recieving similar treatment.


----------



## mk12 (Jan 9, 2006)

> And for the record I was at the conference, I think that posting a detailed report here was totally out of order and the suspension as a response is totally in order.



Thanks for your honesty. It's a shame someone couldn't tell me that this was "out of order", as I would have stopped doing it. Instead, a couple of 'comrades' decided to go and tell others of the nasty things I had done, and now I have left the party I worked hard for for 3 years. Espcially irritating is the fact I was trying to prove to people on here that the SWP _was in fact_ democratic, and I hoped this would change some ex-members minds.


----------



## hibee (Jan 9, 2006)

As a former SWP member who came to reject leninism, this case to me highlights the _political_ (never mind ideological) limitations of democratic centralism. 

Do the SWP members here seriously believe it is possible to build a mass party on the basis of such a stringent levels of discipline? I know the teachers, lecturers and social workers at its core are used in their professional lives to telling the working class to do what they're fucking told, but few will sign up to this out of hours beyond a cult-like few. 

It is not seriously sustainable to believe a decent number of people will hand over their brains at the door like the rest of you have done.

And what exactly is so heinous about telling outsiders about what happened at a conference? It's not like he was revealing nuclear secrets. Ultimately, the SWP has proved yet again how terrified it is of the working class - because it knows empowering them with knowledge is a dangerous thing.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 9, 2006)

hibee said:
			
		

> As a former SWP member who came to reject leninism, this case to me highlights the _political_ (never mind ideological) limitations of democratic centralism.



Please, "... the SWP's version of democratic centralism." Anyone who wants to know what happened at the Irish Socialist Party's conference can read most of it in the newspapers.


----------



## cockneyrebel (Jan 9, 2006)

> Please, "... the SWP's version of democratic centralism." Anyone who wants to know what happened at the Irish Socialist Party's conference can read most of it in the newspapers.Please, "... the SWP's version of democratic centralism." Anyone who wants to know what happened at the Irish Socialist Party's conference can read most of it in the newspapers.



Wasn't there loads of doggin' and S&M going on?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 9, 2006)

cockneyrebel said:
			
		

> Wasn't there loads of doggin' and S&M going on?



I'm feeling mildly nauseous just thinking about it.


----------



## hibee (Jan 9, 2006)

Nigel Irritable said:
			
		

> Please, "... the SWP's version of democratic centralism." Anyone who wants to know what happened at the Irish Socialist Party's conference can read most of it in the newspapers.



I'm not familiar with the workings of the Irish Socialist Party. I am better acquainted with the writings of Lenin and Trotsky.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 9, 2006)

And where exactly did Lenin or Trotsky advocate that people should be kicked out for revealing what happened at a conference?  I can recall that Lenin advocated kicking Zinoviev and Kamenev out of the Bolsheviks for publishing the fact that the Bolsheviks were planning an insurrection, which is perhaps slightly more serious than announcing that John Molyneux got 50 something votes. Of course despite Lenin's advocacy, they weren't actually expelled even then.


----------



## hibee (Jan 9, 2006)

I was thinking more along the lines of this:




			
				Trotsky said:
			
		

> None of us desires or is able to dispute the will of the party. The party in the last analysis is always right, because the party is the single historical instrument given to the proletariat for the solution of its basic problems. I have already said that in front of one’s own party nothing could be easier than to acknowledge a mistake, nothing easier than to say: “All my criticisms, my statements, my warnings, my protests – the whole thing was simply a mistake.” I cannot say that, however, comrades, because I do not think it. I know that one must not be right against the party. One call be right only with the party, and through the party, for history has no other road for being in the right. The English have a saying: “My country – right or wrong.” With far more historical justification we may say: my party – in certain concrete cases – right or wrong


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 9, 2006)

Yes, a crass and stupid statement. But not something which encapsulates some necessary essence of democratic centralism. The Bolsheviks were in fact a vastly looser organisation than the SWP, despite the conditions of persecution and illegality. 

One thing I've noticed about both the SWP and some of those on the left who are highly "anti-Leninist" is that they are both more than willing to accept the SWP's claims that their unbelievably rigid and anti-democratic system is "true democratic centralism". It suits both to have the SWPs caricature as the only possible version. In fact an enormous array of groups with an enormous array of structures have called themselves democratic centralist, which after all means simply freedom of discussion with unity in action. The SWP I think by anybody's standards falls short on the "freedom of discussion" criterion.


----------



## Random (Jan 9, 2006)

Well i think Matt's been treated very badly, by 'his party' and his 'comrades'.  Unless someone on here seriously thought Matt was a WW mole, why didn't they simply let him know that he should delete his reports?  It would have been done instantly, if I know Matt.

Instead a campaign of lies an innuendo has been organised, and a 'unanimous' vote organised to get rid of him.  Even if you think he behaved badly the sledgehammer--->walnut analogy springs to mind.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 9, 2006)

Random said:
			
		

> Well i think Matt's been treated very badly, by 'his party' and his 'comrades'.  Unless someone on here seriously thought Matt was a WW mole, why didn't they simply let him know that he should delete his reports?  It would have been done instantly, if I know Matt.
> 
> Instead a campaign of lies an innuendo has been organised, and a 'unanimous' vote organised to get rid of him.  Even if you think he behaved badly the sledgehammer--->walnut analogy springs to mind.



That about sums it up for me.


----------



## Pilgrim (Jan 9, 2006)

Random said:
			
		

> Well i think Matt's been treated very badly, by 'his party' and his 'comrades'.  Unless someone on here seriously thought Matt was a WW mole, why didn't they simply let him know that he should delete his reports?  It would have been done instantly, if I know Matt.
> 
> Instead a campaign of lies an innuendo has been organised, and a 'unanimous' vote organised to get rid of him.  Even if you think he behaved badly the sledgehammer--->walnut analogy springs to mind.



This pretty much says it all about the internal democracy (or total and utter lack thereof) within the SWP.

Matt speaks in support of John Molyneux who is challenging the SWP CC line.

Then, having showed dissent with the CC, and publicly so at that, he is an ex-member of the SWP within 24 hours.

I notice our resident Swappies have been largely silent on this issue.

I wonder why.


----------



## mk12 (Jan 9, 2006)

> I notice our resident Swappies have been largely silent on this issue.



Not if you include PMs.


----------



## Pilgrim (Jan 9, 2006)

mattkidd12 said:
			
		

> Not if you include PMs.



Wasn't aware of PM's.


----------



## mk12 (Jan 9, 2006)

Just saying, i have been in contact with SWP members who post on here via PMs. They are following party discipline by not posting in public. Which is fair enough I guess.


----------



## gurrier (Jan 9, 2006)

Who's the stoolie?

Moti - all the charm of a flying turd - 2/5 on
mutley - first in on the defence of the purge  - evens
levien - trotbot - 2/1
rebel warrior - dim witted robo-trot - 4/1

If Matt can be purged for revealing the names of well known SWPers whose names regularly appear in SW, on the flimsy pretext that it might get them in trouble at work, can we have a purge here of trots who grassed him up to the party causing him to get kicked out?

Come on editor, let your inner chekist out!


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jan 9, 2006)

Pilgrim said:
			
		

> This pretty much says it all about the internal democracy (or total and utter lack thereof) within the SWP.
> 
> Matt speaks in support of John Molyneux who is challenging the SWP CC line.
> 
> ...



Tellingly the one who has put their head over the parapet has chosen to ignore the lies which have been told about Matt, has chosen to ignore the way in which Matt was not even told of the move to suspend him, let alone provide him with the opportunity to counter the accusations as they were being made, and has chosen to ignore the fact that Matt's disclosure of Party members names does not threaten those individuals. 

So it seems that Mutley is happy that his organisation lies, withholds information and punishes one party member for the 'crimes' of another. And all for what? So that people outside of the 'revolutionary party' don't get to know how a debate and vote on the membership of that party's central committee went. 

Luckily the delusion and paranoia on show are mostly laughable (although obviously not for Matt personally...but what the heck Mutely it's all in a good cause isn't it?); however, it is worth bearing in mind when the self same people aspire to be in charge of anything more substantial than a raffle...even then I'd still be inclined to shout 're-draw' on principle.

Louis Mac


----------



## Random (Jan 9, 2006)

I don't think levien would have done this.


----------



## Pilgrim (Jan 9, 2006)

Random said:
			
		

> I don't think levien would have done this.



In fairness, I don't think we will ever know the identity of the rodent responsible for this little farrago.

Unless they have the decency to come out and admit what they've done.

And if they had any decency at all, they wouldn't be a grass in the first place.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 9, 2006)

It was moti. Simple as.


----------



## Streathamite (Jan 9, 2006)

Groucho said:
			
		

> I freely associate with all sorts of well dodgy types!!
> 
> Matt made a mistake posting the names of comrades which he rectified once brought to his attention.
> 
> Details of the voting and goings on at our conference are not for the public domain, and that was another mistake.


why ever not/ what is it you want to hide?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 9, 2006)

The names were of also of 3 long standing members who everyone already knows are SWP members - one of them writing books for the SWP, the second of them even having a section of one of their mags named after him (the other one's a tossy actor). There is no defence of Matt exposing them with these three - none whatsoever.


----------



## TeeJay (Jan 9, 2006)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> It was moti. Simple as.


I'd have to agree with this. They seemed to take an instant dislike to u75 right from the start ("you people" etc.) and since they haven't been here very long they probably not even feel guilty about fucking things up here or even see the advantage in getting so much free "airtime" on a popular (and non-swp-ghetto) internet forum. No doubt this has also fucked things up for other swp posters here and there will probably be a witch-hunt with their inquistors reading through all previous posts here checking for other thought crimes and leaks.


----------



## mk12 (Jan 9, 2006)

Yep - the CC member who rang me said SWP members "shouldn't" post on here.


----------



## Random (Jan 9, 2006)

Moti's attitude would also be explained by him/her thinking that they were on an 'anarchist website' and therefore among 'dangerous sectarian political opponents'; which would explain the general 'you're scum' attitude that was used in debates.

u75 witch-hunts aside, this kind of behaviour by politicos always makes me think: thank fuck we're not running the country.  The sheer self-deception that was required to get htemselves all huffy about 'extremely serious' 'stupid and dangerious' thinks that Matt was supposed to do.  I mean, I've sene this kind of behaviour among non-SWP activsts, where people convince themselves that they've got some deep, political, issue with what's going on, insterad of hating person A because they're going out with person B....


----------



## Pilgrim (Jan 9, 2006)

mattkidd12 said:
			
		

> Yep - the CC member who rang me said SWP members "shouldn't" post on here.



Amazing just how far their cult-like control freakery extends, isn't it?

They'd like to restrict what texts people read, what email lists they subscribe to, what bulletin boards they post on...

Terrifying really.


----------



## hibee (Jan 9, 2006)

gurrier said:
			
		

> Who's the stoolie?
> 
> Moti - all the charm of a flying turd - 2/5 on
> mutley - first in on the defence of the purge  - evens
> ...



This is a pretty good form list I have to say

Would put the mortgage on Moti, if I had one


----------



## mk12 (Jan 9, 2006)

It's irrelevant though, isn't it?


----------



## TeeJay (Jan 9, 2006)

What are we going to do now that there are no SWP people allowed to post here any more?

Maybe they will all re-register using new names, and learn to keep their identity better hidden?

But then again if they did that, what would stop some naughty "autonomistas" registering and claiming all sorts of things?


----------



## hibee (Jan 9, 2006)

You're right Matt, it is. It's the politics of Leninism/democratic centralism/the SWP which are the issue


----------



## Pilgrim (Jan 9, 2006)

mattkidd12 said:
			
		

> It's irrelevant though, isn't it?



I suppose so.

What's done is done, after all.

All the same, it would be nice to know the identity of the our resident grass.

Grasses should, after all, be exposed as widely and as publicly as possible.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 9, 2006)

hibee said:
			
		

> You're right Matt, it is. It's the politics of Leninism/democratic centralism/the SWP



...and the SP


----------



## hibee (Jan 9, 2006)

Nigel Irritable said:
			
		

> Yes, a crass and stupid statement. But not something which encapsulates some necessary essence of democratic centralism. The Bolsheviks were in fact a vastly looser organisation than the SWP, despite the conditions of persecution and illegality.
> 
> .



Sorry, you can't brush it off like that. I've just given it to you from the horses mouth. I'll take my definition in that case from Mr Bronstien rather than yourself, thanks.


----------



## haggy (Jan 9, 2006)

for goodness sake why all the bleating about someone getting unfairly expelled from the swp?  it's been going on for decades.  they say that each new generation makes its own mistakes, but i thought the swp also said the party is the memory of the class...  fucking short memory.

as soon as this diseased organisation dies a speedy death - via expulsions and meltdown - the better.  then perhaps those who are serious, politically, can get on with actually relating to the w/c instead of being herded around by a bunch of authoritarian m/c 'intellectuals'.

i don't feel sorry for Matt - i'm glad he now has the opportunity to do something useful.  expulsion from that rats nest should be seen as a liberating experience...


----------



## TeeJay (Jan 9, 2006)

haggy said:
			
		

> for goodness sake why all the bleating about someone getting unfairly expelled from the swp?  it's been going on for decades.


Yeah, but come one - how often does it actually happen on the very same thread where people are talking about? It's worth a bit of discussion* isn't it?

*read: the usual, albeit well deserved, swp slagging.


----------



## gurrier (Jan 9, 2006)

mattkidd12 said:
			
		

> Yep - the CC member who rang me said SWP members "shouldn't" post on here.


That's pure cultism. Since when did SWP membership include allowing the party to decide what internet bulletin boards you post on?  Any organisation that attempts to control its members' leisure activities in such detail is just a cult - plain and simple.  

Besides, the way that they've handled it has been yet another PR disaster.  If they had any sense they'd have been able to acheive the same effect (ie giving matt the heave-ho) without nearly so much publicity. Now We've got a ludicrous bit of cultic thought control carried out in full public view on what is almost certainly the most frequented UK leftist discussion site on the internet with probably 10 times the membership of the SWP.  They've also probably made it impossible for any SWPers to come on here in the future and argue the party line openly.  What we'll probably get instead is SWPers signing up with new handles and being much more cautious about revealing their affiliations or arguing the party line verbatim.  Furthermore they've provided their criticis with a nicely rounded example of the party's lunatic control freakery in action *saves thread*.  All in all, everybody wins except the SWP - we get less rote repetition of the party line, SWP members can engage in genuine debate more easily from their 'clandestine' status and nurture their inner rebel, leading to more of the ones with brains slipping away from the party and so on. 

As the spirals of their ever decreasing circle contract, they typically react by cutting themselves further and further off from reality.


----------



## levien (Jan 9, 2006)

gurrier said:
			
		

> That's pure cultism. Since when did SWP membership include allowing the party to decide what internet bulletin boards you post on?  Any organisation that attempts to control its members' leisure activities in such detail is just a cult - plain and simple.
> 
> Besides, the way that they've handled it has been yet another PR disaster.  If they had any sense they'd have been able to acheive the same effect (ie giving matt the heave-ho) without nearly so much publicity. Now We've got a ludicrous bit of cultic thought control carried out in full public view on what is almost certainly the most frequented UK leftist discussion site on the internet with probably 10 times the membership of the SWP.  They've also probably made it impossible for any SWPers to come on here in the future and argue the party line openly.  What we'll probably get instead is SWPers signing up with new handles and being much more cautious about revealing their affiliations or arguing the party line verbatim.  Furthermore they've provided their criticis with a nicely rounded example of the party's lunatic control freakery in action *saves thread*.  All in all, everybody wins except the SWP - we get less rote repetition of the party line, SWP members can engage in genuine debate more easily from their 'clandestine' status and nurture their inner rebel, leading to more of the ones with brains slipping away from the party and so on.
> 
> As the spirals of their ever decreasing circle contract, they typically react by cutting themselves further and further off from reality.



Nothing like talking a load of bollocks is their gurrier?  Its never been a secret that Urban P&P debate is seen (rightly so) as a sort of political wanking on a par with reading the weekly worker.  No one who spoke for or voted for John will have got in any trouble because they will have understood that party disapline means not putting conference reports on websites, especially not before they go out to party members.  The fact that this was IMO an over reaction, tying in Matts reference to the Weekly Worker and and this slip to quickly to the leaks to that shitty little gossip sheet. that got a comrade into a very difficult position at work.  A confusion that could be overcome if matt did take it to the Disputes Committee.  Matts intentions were I believe in the right place and it should have been better handled.  I was sleeping off my hangover when it was discussed so tbh am dealing with this on only slightly better second hand info then you.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 9, 2006)

Carry on...

Such deatailed refutation is hard to find nowadspo


----------



## Random (Jan 9, 2006)

levien said:
			
		

> Nothing like talking a load of bollocks is their gurrier?  Its never been a secret that Urban P&P debate is seen (rightly so) as a saort o



As a sort of what?  Did Ger Francis come up behind you and throttle you while you were typing?

Shit things have got worse, quickly.


----------



## Groucho (Jan 9, 2006)

levien said:
			
		

> Nothing like talking a load of bollocks is their gurrier?  Its never been a secret that Urban P&P debate is seen (rightly so) as a saort o



Perhaps he was just grabbed from behind by one of the party hit squ


----------



## Macullam (Jan 9, 2006)

mattkidd12 said:
			
		

> Yep - the CC member who rang me said SWP members "shouldn't" post on here.



I seem to remember a quote from John Rees along the lines of "anyone who posts on the internet is a cross eyed sectarian"


----------



## haggy (Jan 9, 2006)

gurrier said:
			
		

> That's pure cultism. Since when did SWP membership include allowing the party to decide what internet bulletin boards you post on?



since the mid-90's when the CC warned the membership against the 'net and discussion boards...


----------



## Random (Jan 9, 2006)

Macullam said:
			
		

> I seem to remember a quote from John Rees along the lines of "anyone who posts on the internet is a cross eyed sectarian"



That's just good old fashioned H+S advice about the dangers of too much computer use, shurely?


----------



## levien (Jan 9, 2006)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> Carry on...
> 
> Such deatailed refutation is hard to find nowadspo



Someones added some stupid key stroke ctrl and a letter now sticks posts straight up.  How I don't know.

Ps. there after me I can hear them coming...    

pps. Its been a while since I used a


----------



## mutley (Jan 9, 2006)

haggy said:
			
		

> for goodness sake why all the bleating about someone getting unfairly expelled from the swp?  it's been going on for decades.  they say that each new generation makes its own mistakes, but i thought the swp also said the party is the memory of the class...  fucking short memory.
> 
> as soon as this diseased organisation dies a speedy death - via expulsions and meltdown - the better.  then perhaps those who are serious, politically, can get on with actually relating to the w/c instead of being herded around by a bunch of authoritarian m/c 'intellectuals'.
> 
> i don't feel sorry for Matt - i'm glad he now has the opportunity to do something useful.  expulsion from that rats nest should be seen as a liberating experience...



He didn't get expelled. He was suspended. He then resigned. There is a committee of ordinary members that looks at cases like this, which Matt had every right to appeal to. He chose not to - fair enough if he's that pissed off or had enough but he was not expelled. 

And the committee reports back to conference, not the cc.


----------



## gurrier (Jan 9, 2006)

levien said:
			
		

> Nothing like talking a load of bollocks is their gurrier?  Its never been a secret that Urban P&P debate is seen (rightly so) as a sort of political wanking on a par with reading the weekly worker.  No one who spoke for or voted for John will have got in any trouble because they will have understood that party disapline means not putting conference reports on websites, especially not before they go out to party members.  The fact that this was IMO an over reaction, tying in Matts reference to the Weekly Worker and and this slip to quickly to the leaks to that shitty little gossip sheet. that got a comrade into a very difficult position at work.  A confusion that could be overcome if matt did take it to the Disputes Committee.  Matts intentions were I believe in the right place and it should have been better handled.  I was sleeping off my hangover when it was discussed so tbh am dealing with this on only slightly better second hand info then you.


Ah yes, affirming your loyalty - how touchingly pathetic   .  Gold star.


----------



## neprimerimye (Jan 9, 2006)

Frankly I'm a little shocked at how swiftly the SWP's curs have moved. It was my intention to sit down and write a short comment on this years SWP Conference making the point that the first test for the incoming CC would be how the conference was reported in this weeks SW. And now they go and suspend a leading dissident on grounds that are trumped up to say the least.

Quite honestly I suspect that Matt will not now be reinstated, presuming he appeals, having continued to post on this board after having been ordered to cease and desist from doing so. Although I would not myself have posted details of the conference it is my opinion that the SWP does itself a grave disservice by witholding such details as Matt published from the radical public. it is deeply sectarian in that the party exists for the benefit of the class not itself and that requires the class, or as large a part of the class as are concerned, to have the fullest practical knowledge of the party.

On a personal level I hope very much that Matt does not now abandon activism as a revolutionary socialist.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 9, 2006)

gurrier said:
			
		

> Sadly, bolshieboy is no longer with us.  Following the comment below, bolshieboy was condemned to death by a secret midnight court on charges of Jacobinism and bringing the party into disrepute.  He was subsequently beheaded by a crack team of SWP hitmen on his way to work this morning.


Nah the Jacobins were dead hard so they was. 

Of course people shouldn't be discussing details of conference on here before people get reports back from their delegates. And no of course that's not reason enough to suspend soemone.

It seems I was a little premature about the demise of the swp, there are branches and they do meet (judging by the reaction from all the stalwarts I have pestered for info). Mind you sw is no help, I can't wait till 25th jan for the next public meeting.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 9, 2006)

bolshiebhoy said:
			
		

> Nah the Jacobins were dead hard so they was.
> 
> Of course people shouldn't be discussing details of conference on here before people get reports back from their delegates. And no of course that's not reason enough to suspend soemone.
> 
> It seems I was a little premature about the demise of the swp, there are branches and they do meet (judging by the reaction from all the stalwarts I have pestered for info). Mind you sw is no help, I can't wait till 25th jan for the next public meeting.


 Now if you don't mind, i have a plane to catch...


----------



## neprimerimye (Jan 9, 2006)

This is a note on the SWP's disciplinery procedures. Badly out of date perhaps. Perhaps not.

Ten or so years ago the Central Control Commission was the body which dealt with disciplinery problems. As has been noted alredy most such problems concerned petty quarrels and the like. And from what I gather the CCC dealt with them reasonably well.

The trouble is that when disputes were political in their nature the CCC was far from impartial or even fair. For a start the CCC is not independent of the Central Committee but is its creature. This arises because the CCC is not elected by conference but is in part appointed by the CC directly. Given that in practice the CC decides who is nominated for the CC and then elected at conference this ensures the subserviance of the CCC to the CC.

Another problem arises in that no written charges are presented to the accused prior to a CCC hearing. This makes it more than difficult to prepare a defence. Moreover an accused person may be instructed not to have any contact with other party members prior to a hearing. Impossible of course if one lives with other party members or wishes to call upon a comrades as witnesses.

When a hearing does take place it seems that the size and composition of the CCC body is very variable and can include non-CCC members. To be fair I'm not certain on this last point and the person who claimed this might have been mistaken. Hearings, according to the Constitution of the SWP, must take place within 3 Months. Although I know of one that took place 5 months after being requested.

At the hearing the accused comrade is not told the charges and cannot hear evidence presented against him/her. The accused is allowed to request two party members, evidence from non-party members is not permitted, to speak on his/her behalf. The accused cannot ask question or do anything other than answer questions. Any attempt to make a statement placing events in context is denied.

The CCC is also briefed beforehand by the local fulltimer and or other leading comrades in the district or branch. That such comrades may be parties to the complaint is, or so it would appear, not germane.


----------



## bristol_citizen (Jan 9, 2006)

neprimerimye said:
			
		

> At the hearing the accused comrade is not told the charges and cannot hear evidence presented against him/her. The accused is allowed to request two party members, evidence from non-party members is not permitted, to speak on his/her behalf. The accused cannot ask question or do anything other than answer questions. Any attempt to make a statement placing events in context is denied.


Anyone familiar with Kafka?


----------



## Groucho (Jan 9, 2006)

neprimerimye said:
			
		

> This is a note on the SWP's disciplinery procedures. Badly out of date perhaps. Perhaps not.



It's complete and utter made up bollocks


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 9, 2006)

What is it now then?


----------



## audiotech (Jan 9, 2006)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> Any chance this was the bully GF?



Shandy "thinks" it was Leeds/Bradford which demonstrates that he's short on information. It wasn't Birmingham either.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 9, 2006)

MC5 said:
			
		

> Shandy "thinks" it was Leeds/Bradford which demonstrates that he's short on information. It wasn't Birmingham either.


 But you jump in because you recognise that the brummy bully has behaved/is behaving in the same manner.


----------



## audiotech (Jan 9, 2006)

mattkidd12 said:
			
		

> Thanks for your honesty. It's a shame someone couldn't tell me that this was "out of order", as I would have stopped doing it. Instead, a couple of 'comrades' decided to go and tell others of the nasty things I had done, and now I have left the party I worked hard for for 3 years. Espcially irritating is the fact I was trying to prove to people on here that the SWP _was in fact_ democratic, and I hoped this would change some ex-members minds.



I gave 13 years matt you'll get over it. Just avoid becoming an ultra-left loon.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 9, 2006)

Or agreeing with the party on every turn from outside.


----------



## audiotech (Jan 9, 2006)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> But you jump in because you recognise that the brummy bully has behaved/is behaving in the same manner.



I jumped in because I know someone who was expelled from the branch shandy was attempting to allude to.

I do not know and do not give a fuck about some midlands hack.


----------



## audiotech (Jan 9, 2006)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> Or agreeing with the party on every turn from outside.



You can think what you like butchers, but I know your completely wide of the mark.


----------



## Chuck Wilson (Jan 9, 2006)

cockneyrebel said:
			
		

> Wasn't there loads of doggin' and S&M going on?



Any news yet of the Workers Power annual conference?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 9, 2006)

MC5 said:
			
		

> You can think what you like butchers, but I know your completely wide of the mark.


 Ok, fair dos.


----------



## shandy (Jan 9, 2006)

MC5 said:
			
		

> Shandy "thinks" it was Leeds/Bradford which demonstrates that he's short on information. It wasn't Birmingham either.




Nah, I know my mate is from Leeds, not sure of the exact geographical distribution of SWP branches and wanted to point out it wasn't Birmingham.  

Has there only been one such kangaroo court in W. Yorkshire in the last few years? If so, we're talking about the same one.


----------



## Chuck Wilson (Jan 9, 2006)

neprimerimye said:
			
		

> Frankly I'm a little shocked at how swiftly the SWP's curs have moved. It was my intention to sit down and write a short comment on this years SWP Conference making the point that the first test for the incoming CC would be how the conference was reported in this weeks SW. And now they go and *suspend a leading dissident * on grounds that are trumped up to say the least.
> 
> Quite honestly I suspect that Matt will not now be reinstated, presuming he appeals, having continued to post on this board after having been ordered to cease and desist from doing so. Although I would not myself have posted details of the conference it is my opinion that the SWP does itself a grave disservice by witholding such details as Matt published from the radical public. it is deeply sectarian in that the party exists for the benefit of the class not itself and that requires the class, or as large a part of the class as are concerned, to have the fullest practical knowledge of the party.
> 
> On a personal level I hope very much that Matt does not now abandon activism as a revolutionary socialist.



Steady on old bean, i can see the telescopic sight and the finger on the trigger as we speak with descriptions like that.


----------



## audiotech (Jan 9, 2006)

shandy said:
			
		

> Nah, I know my mate is from Leeds, not sure of the exact geographical distribution of SWP branches and wanted to point out it wasn't Birmingham.
> 
> Has there only been one such kangaroo court in W. Yorkshire in the last few years? If so, we're talking about the same one.



Probably.


----------



## levien (Jan 9, 2006)

neprimerimye said:
			
		

> And now they go and suspend a leading dissident on grounds that are trumped up to say the least.



Leading dissident??? Matt would far from consider himself a leading dissident and trying to turn this into something it isn't is just throwing scraps to the delusional dronings of the Weekly Worker.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 9, 2006)

As political as ever. *It just isn't true*.

Which days conference did you attend cliffy?


----------



## levien (Jan 9, 2006)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> As political as ever. *It just isn't true*.
> 
> Which days conference did you attend cliffy?



Well would you discribe matt as a leading dissident of the SWP?  I don't see how that relates to reality at all.  As far as I can gather Matt was a loyal party member up until the point he left. I attended all of conference and actually quite enjoyed it when I wasn't feeling horribly tired/hungover.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 9, 2006)

levien said:
			
		

> Well would you discribe matt as a leading dissident of the SWP?  I don't see how that relates to reality at all.  As far as I can gather Matt was a loyal party member up until the point he left. I attended all of conference and actually quite enjoyed it when I wasn't feeling horribly tired/hungover.


 No i wouldn't.

Did you attend the session where his relationship with these boards was discussed?


----------



## darren redparty (Jan 9, 2006)

There have been two kangaroo courts in leeds the first was the expulsion of two friends of mine in harehills (their crime was to insist that the local district actually carry out the position of the national party, oh and being elected to conference over the local 'important' comrade, a middle class teacher who when she saw my baby for the first time was convinced that the social services provide the toys free of charge, twat).
 the second was the whole wakefield/pontefract fiasco and the behaviour of HM and SM who are in opinion scum.
 When mutley says





> He didn't get expelled. He was suspended. He then resigned. There is a _committee of ordinary members _ that looks at cases like this, which Matt had every right to appeal to.


 then he is talking bollox, ordinary members? as far as I know pat stack has been in charge of this for years


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 9, 2006)

And as one of the named 'comrades'...


----------



## shandy (Jan 9, 2006)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> And as one of the named 'comrades'...



No, natural justice will be done...


----------



## levien (Jan 10, 2006)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> No i wouldn't.
> 
> Did you attend the session where his relationship with these boards was discussed?


No I had fallen asleep getting a coffee and wasn't in the hall (gumbert snores)


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 10, 2006)

hibee said:
			
		

> Sorry, you can't brush it off like that. I've just given it to you from the horses mouth. I'll take my definition in that case from Mr Bronstien rather than yourself, thanks.



Or alternatively you can take the actual practive of the Bolshevik Party between the split with the Mensheviks and the Russian Revolution as your "definition" rather than a single crass comment from Trotsky which (a) suits your prejudice (b) was made under some rather peculiar conditions and (c) doesn't in any case advocate the expulsion of people for saying what went on at a party conference. As I've already pointed out to you, the Bolsheviks in fact never expelled people for that kind of stuff and didn't even expell two of its members who publically announced that they were planning an insurrection a rather more serious offence than telling some punters on a website how many votes John Molyneux got in a leadership election. But yeah, what I say or historical facts, who cares about any of it when you have an agenda to push...

In fact the Bolsheviks organisational structure had very little in common with that of the SWP, despite the SWP aping the language. They had contested elections, full factional rights, lengthy disputes which didn't lead to splits and no expulsions for petty shit. I don't advocate using the Bolsheviks precise structure because such things are conjunctural, but I do think that the organisational principle of freedom of debate and unity in action is something with much wider application. You don't like "Leninism" so it suits you to pretend that the SWP's structure is Leninism, just as it suits the SWP to pretend the same thing.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 10, 2006)

Or... the actual organisational practice of the groups that claim to adhere to DC (,loose, tight, Luxemgurgist, taafist) - it's not nice and it can't be wished away by denying that history, changing it's name or saying that it's just been done wrong.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 10, 2006)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> Or... the actual organisational practice of the groups that claim to adhere to DC.



I refer you to my first response to Hibee, where I pointed out that a vast range of groups with a vast range of organisational practices have claimed to be Democratic Centralist. Ranging from the extremely undemocratic to the extremely democratic. And by the way, the Socialist Party doesn't actually claim to adhere to "Democratic Centralism".


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 10, 2006)

I know, i refer you to the 'changing its name bit' in my previous post.

You're left arguing that you have the understanding of what a renamed DC is. All of you are. It's so pointless.


----------



## gurrier (Jan 10, 2006)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> I know, i refer you to the 'changing its name bit' in my previous post.
> 
> You're left arguing that you have the understanding of what a renamed DC is. All of you are. It's so pointless.


Yep and you all claim that yours is completely different from the rest, but from the outside they all look remarkably similar.  From the inside *shudder* - well I don't want to go there


----------



## neprimerimye (Jan 10, 2006)

Groucho said:
			
		

> It's complete and utter made up bollocks



Every word was true and accurate. I've been around a number of disciplinery iinvestigations and each was very different to the others.

In one case two members of the branch I was in were attending an anti-fascist mobilisation and were instructed to sell SW by Julie Waterson. They replied to her by allegedly telling her to fuck off. With the result that a CCC investigation of, I think, 2 people headed by Sheila MacGregor came to the conclusion that the entire branch was at fault and did not understand democratic centralism. The 2 comrades concerned were expelled and a more senior comrade deemed to be in charge on the day was suspended for a year. At least one meeting was held by the CCC at which the entire branch was invited to discuss the issues around the event.

I'm not entirely sure of some of the events as I was not at the anti-fascist demonstration but 150 miles away at the time and only returned to my branch as events were comiong to a climax as it were. But there were no written charges I'm aware or anything of that nature. By a fluke i still have the notes I took at the meeting of the CCC and the branch. One branch member nows leads the OZ ISO and must be presumed to have developed an 'understanding' of democratic centralism.

From talking to AW some years ago now I gained the distinct impression that his expulsion and subsequent CCC hearing did not feature any formal written charges. Nor was he given the opportunity to confront his accusers directly. I also gained the impression that the CCC at his hearing was quite sizeable including one comrde from Scotlland for example who cursed AW for wasting a day he could have spent with his family.

As for the expulsion I made several references to earlier it was as I wrote above described truthfully and accurately. I did omit one detail however which is that it took place on Aprils Fools Day.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 10, 2006)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> You're left arguing that you have the understanding of what a renamed DC is. All of you are. It's so pointless.



No I would be left arguing that if I thought that there was some pure "Democratic Centralism" which all organisations should adopt but only my organisation and its carefully chosen predecessors really understood. That's not my view at all. Instead I think that "Democratic Centralism" is a term used by a wide range of organisations to cover a wide range of organisational practices. An argument against what the SWP terms "Democratic Centralism" is not an argument against what the Socialist Party terms (more accurately used to term) "Democratic Centralism" because they are different things.

My own view is that organising according to the principle of freedom of discussion and unity in action is a useful way for a revolutionary group to go about things. The precise organisational structures which that should involve are conjunctural, varying with the circumstances.


----------



## neprimerimye (Jan 10, 2006)

levien said:
			
		

> Leading dissident??? Matt would far from consider himself a leading dissident and trying to turn this into something it isn't is just throwing scraps to the delusional dronings of the Weekly Worker.



The last thing I wish to do is encourage the weakly wanker crew in their idiocies. For what little its worth I regard them as having no real political worth and they know my attitude towards them. I hope thats clear.

But this suspension does have wider ramifications does it not? Matt may well have made an error publically revealing what happened at your conference. But the internal life of a revolutionary organisation should in any case, allowing for legitmate security concerns, be made as public as possible should it not?

And given that Matt did speak at the conference in favour of a minority or, if you like, dissident position then it is fair to decribe him as a leading dissident. Lets not pretend that this suspension is simply about a minor mistake of Matts in posting information that would, presumably, have been made public in the next issue of SW. It goes deeper.


----------



## Fullyplumped (Jan 10, 2006)

neprimerimye said:
			
		

> In one case two members of the branch I was in were attending an anti-fascist mobilisation and were instructed to sell SW by Julie Waterson. They replied to her by allegedly telling her to fuck off.


Dunno who Ms. Waterson is (a social worker?) but the comrades' action seems entirely praiseworthy.  "Instructed", indeed.


----------



## neprimerimye (Jan 10, 2006)

Fullyplumped said:
			
		

> Dunno who Ms. Waterson is (a social worker?) but the comrades' action seems entirely praiseworthy.  "Instructed", indeed.



I was trying to be diplomatic!


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 10, 2006)

Whatever happened to Ms Waterson anyway? She never seems to be mentioned anymore except in fond anecdotes of times past.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 10, 2006)

Nigel Irritable said:
			
		

> Whatever happened to Ms Waterson anyway? She never seems to be mentioned anymore except in fond anecdotes of times past.


 She was useful then - for one reason alone. That reason is more relavent now and she's gone.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 10, 2006)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> She was useful then - for one reason alone. That reason is more relavent now and she's gone.



I don't follow


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 10, 2006)

The face of working class anti-fascism. That's not needed now. It was  thought to be then.


----------



## Pilgrim (Jan 10, 2006)

So Julie Waterson has become an 'unperson' then?

I only ever met her once, and I can't say I was impressed then.

Her entire pitch seemed to consist of how we (Plymouth) weren't doing enough and needed to make yet more sacrifices.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 10, 2006)

Pilgrim said:
			
		

> So Julie Waterson has become an 'unperson' then?
> 
> I only ever met her once, and I can't say I was impressed then.
> 
> Her entire pitch seemed to consist of how we (Plymouth) weren't doing enough and needed to make yet more sacrifices.


 That's not specific to JW. That's a generic CC blast.


----------



## Pilgrim (Jan 10, 2006)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> That's not specific to JW. That's a generic CC blast.



So I'd heard.

Funny how I've never heard of the CC puttingtheir hands up and saying 'Yes, we did this wrong, sorry' or 'Well, we could have done more, and maybe handled things slightly better' isn't it?

It's always the membership who are at fault.

Still, they say a bad workman blames his/her tools.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 10, 2006)

And there are many tools hanging around to blame in the SWP.

I'm waiting on the news if this is isolated or what.


----------



## Pilgrim (Jan 10, 2006)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> And there are many tools hanging around to blame in the SWP.
> 
> I'm waiting on the news if this is isolated or what.



Personally, I wonder.

The SWP CC will probably be pretty concerned about such open dissent as the Molyneux business (any dissent whatsoever being a bad thing in their eyes), so I wouldn't put it past them to have decided in advance that, if there was enough dissent, then some examples needed to be made.

I doubt they'll go after Molyneux directly, he's too senior and they'd end up leaving too much of their own blood on the carpet, but they'll probably take their pound of flesh from people lower down the hierarchy who don't have any comeback.

The sheer speed of their response to what was a pretty minor sin suggests to me that Matt is being used as a sacrificial lamb, and possibly others
as well.


----------



## Barry Kade (Jan 10, 2006)

Sorry Matt, about what happened to you. I'm even shocked, although it should be no surprise to me really. Well, welcome to the largest group of socialists ever, the ex-SWP.

I was going to ask if there was any conference debate about perspectives on the economy, but after this ridiculous and paranoid clampdown obviously no party member can now respond to my questions.

But I still need answers. I gave a decade and a half to building the party, from the end of the miners strike untill 2000. Well, that was my youth.  There are loads of us, ex-swp members still active on the left, but with no current political home. In my union branch, in my anti-war work, all sorts of places, you find the ex-swp. We all deserve a report-back from conference and a decent debate.

Anyway, to the substance of the debate. Molyneux pre-conference bulletin argument helped confirm a few questions I've been puzzling over for a while.

He was right to argue that the 13 years of economic growth from 1992-2005 was not expected and that  the SWP "have not come to terms, theoretically or politically, with this".

Instead without adequate theoretical perspectives, we were rudderless throughout the 1990's, and we squandered the thousands of activists we had recruited. It reminds me of how we used to describe the old SLL/WRP - no understanding of the state of capitalism, perspectives based upon catastrophism, a crisis around the corner and membership driven into the ground.

Unlike Cliff and Kidron's post WW2 explanations, based on understanding the long boom, state capitalism and the permamnent arms economy, the SWP's leading intellectuals after end of the cold war were unable to make the necessary theoretical innovations. Cliff himself no longer had a clue, instead coming out with bloody rubbish like 'the 90's are the 30's in slow motion', etc. 

The SWP have been unable to theoretically account for the nature of contemporary capitalism. Neither have the rest of the Marxist groups done any better. In the absence of such perspectives, the SWP management resort to even less democracy, and ever more shrill commands.

Still, we must carry on the struggle - to understand the nature of contemporary capitalism and its contradictions, and to regroup the left to form a coherent force able to challenge it.

Luckily we have the internet (which the SWP leaders always hated and feared) where we can have these discussions. For, as we must sadly conclude, we no longer have a party within which we can conduct such a debate.


----------



## flimsier (Jan 10, 2006)

belboid said:
			
		

> I once knew someone who was vaguely threatened with disciplinary action for selling speed at Marxism.  The fact that said person also sold hash to two members of the CCC probably protected them somewhat...



We once said to someone they had to stop being the university drug dealer or leave the party. He left.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Jan 10, 2006)

Barry Kade said:
			
		

> He was right to argue that the 13 years of economic growth from 1992-2005 was not expected


I don't think they were expected by anybody on the left, actually. Such is the problem with perspectives.

Re: Nigel v hibee, there's a case for saying that a major problem with both followers of Trotsky (or other figures) _and their critics_ is that they tend to take too seriously individual things said at individual times, in the first instance to create too rigid an ideological edifice than is wise, in the second to misrepresent said figures by claiming their ideas apply in contexts to which they never would have done.

Re: the business with Matt, it seems to me that if an organisation says that given material distributed to its members is not for outside consumption then that needs to be respected: part of being a member of any society is that you adhere to the rules and that other people are entitled to expect you to do so. It also means that if people are aware that other members are breaching confidentiality then somebody needs to be done about it.

The question for me is whether, in making things confidential - for reasons I can appreciate - you end up causing more trouble for yourself than you would do if you just took a more relaxed attitude and worried less about what other people would say. This of course is true of secrecy in general. Sometimes you _do_ need to have secrets, but a presumption _against_ it is healthier than its opposite.


----------



## hibee (Jan 10, 2006)

Nigel Irritable said:
			
		

> Or alternatively you can take the actual practive of the Bolshevik Party between the split with the Mensheviks and the Russian Revolution as your "definition" rather than a single crass comment from Trotsky which (a) suits your prejudice (b) was made under some rather peculiar conditions and (c) doesn't in any case advocate the expulsion of people for saying what went on at a party conference. As I've already pointed out to you, the Bolsheviks in fact never expelled people for that kind of stuff and didn't even expell two of its members who publically announced that they were planning an insurrection a rather more serious offence than telling some punters on a website how many votes John Molyneux got in a leadership election. But yeah, what I say or historical facts, who cares about any of it when you have an agenda to push...
> 
> In fact the Bolsheviks organisational structure had very little in common with that of the SWP, despite the SWP aping the language. They had contested elections, full factional rights, lengthy disputes which didn't lead to splits and no expulsions for petty shit. I don't advocate using the Bolsheviks precise structure because such things are conjunctural, but I do think that the organisational principle of freedom of debate and unity in action is something with much wider application. You don't like "Leninism" so it suits you to pretend that the SWP's structure is Leninism, just as it suits the SWP to pretend the same thing.



I'll admit my interpretation of DC is coloured by the fact that the SWP is the only left group I have belonged to. And while I realise full well it has been interpreted differently by different groups, I would argue the demand for revolutionary discipline and "unity in action" involves a lack of openness with the class. But then I see the only justification for a party as being an instrument of the w/c rather than a body that sits over and above it, composed of its self appointed "advanced elements", giving itself the right to lead them. But then that leads us into the vanguard theory, another serious flaw in Leninism, which takes us right off topic.


----------



## hibee (Jan 10, 2006)

I'm really looking forward to hearing from the swappies on here next time their masters tell them to compalain about BLIAR'S ASSAULT ON FREEDOM OF SPEECH and HOW NEW LABOUR IS DESTROYING CIVIL LIBERTIES


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Jan 10, 2006)

Well, not really. I mean the material in question _was_ actually confidential, was it not? Whether that's a good practice or not is another question.


----------



## hibee (Jan 10, 2006)

Interestingly, here are some comments by our resident Swappies after Walter Wolfgang was chucked out of the Labour Party conference:




			
				rebel warrior said:
			
		

> In fact I compared him to Sergei Kirov - who was a loyal Stalinist - yet was in all likelihood killed by Stalin because he had an independent power base of sorts within the Party.






			
				rebel warrior said:
			
		

> When I saw Blair earlier on the news at Labour conference standing there surrounded by adoring fans / labour party members I thought - can't one person heckle him? That someone did heckle one of the warmongerers does restore my faith in humanity a little.
> 
> This incident explains why no one heckled Blair though - if heckling Straw gets you a one way ticket down to the police station - then if anyone had heckled the Great Leader then I suspect they would have been shot on sight.
> 
> No wonder Gordon Brown is keeping quiet about having to wait a couple more years before replacing Blair - if he came out and told the Party it was time to 'remove Blair' he would have been prosecuted for terrorism, no doubt.







			
				bolshiebhoy said:
			
		

> If it makes you feel any better my mum rang me tonight to tell me she was finally going to resign from her beloved LP. This was the final straw. She was off to email all the cronies in her local party who only get in touch when they want some leafletting.
> 
> Think I'll pop round with Respect membership card in the morning






			
				bolshiebhoy said:
			
		

> These people's mindset is amazing, because they're careerist shits they think everyone else in the party must be too and that if anyone throws their toys out of the pram it must be because they want some attention


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Jan 10, 2006)

It's not really a valid comparison since neither the actions nor the reactions were the same.


----------



## hibee (Jan 10, 2006)

Yes, because heckling at a conference is ok, standing up and speaking against the the leadership is wrong (make no mistake, that's why he got the boot).

And of course kicking someone out for having the temerity to write reports of party conferences is ok, kicking someone out of the conference hall for heckling is virtual fascism


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Jan 10, 2006)

Well no, the point is that leaking confidential material is important in any organisation.


----------



## hibee (Jan 10, 2006)

No, the point is: was the nature of the material such that it should have been considered confidential?


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Jan 10, 2006)

No, that's a secondary point. Whether a given rule _should_ be made, is of course a question: but once it exists, the fact of it existing can't just be ignored because it doesn't suit.


----------



## hibee (Jan 10, 2006)

Bollocks. We've been talking about democratic centralism for the past few pages. I specifically said if Matt leaked the swappie equivelant of nuclear secrets the CC would be within their rights.

The fact that Matt was treated like this for discussing speeches made at a conference about a leadership election shows, in my submission, how terrified the SWP is of scrutiny. The SWP lambasts the Labour party for its dictatorial tendencies but imagine the outcry if the LP tried to get the media to stop reporting its NEC elections.


----------



## flimsier (Jan 10, 2006)

hibee: I'd be interested in your response to my contribution at the tolling gang.


----------



## hibee (Jan 10, 2006)

cool, I'll nip over there flims...


----------



## Groucho (Jan 10, 2006)

The reason SW conf is confidential is because it is the very opposite of e.g. Labour conference. LP conf is a media circus and is thus controlled and stitched up. There is no prospect of conference setting policy of the 
LP. SW conference is a genuine policy setting meeting. Members need to feel free to speak out without fear that their words will be (mis)used against them and their party by the media and other hostile forces. This is so that during debate contributors do not feel they have to have one eye to a wider audience.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Jan 10, 2006)

hibee said:
			
		

> Bollocks. We've been talking about democratic centralism for the past few pages. I specifically said if Matt leaked the swappie equivelant of nuclear secrets the CC would be within their rights.


Well, no. The point is, they _have_ made something confidential. You know that. Now once rules _have_ been made, then there _is_ an issue of respecting them and upholding them. You can pretend there isn't, but all that means is that you're ignoring a point that is real because it doesn't suit you.


----------



## hibee (Jan 10, 2006)

Come on Groucho, that's even more reason why the working class should have a right to know what goes on.


----------



## cockneyrebel (Jan 10, 2006)

Donna I agree that breaching the confidentiality was an issue. But suspending someone for doing so? Have a "trial" at national conference (!!) and not telling the person in question that it was gonna happen....

Sorry but these are marks of a cult.....


----------



## hibee (Jan 10, 2006)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> Well, no. The point is, they _have_ made something confidential. You know that. Now once rules _have_ been made, then there _is_ an issue of respecting them and upholding them. You can pretend there isn't, but all that means is that you're ignoring a point that is real because it doesn't suit you.



Have you read my earlier posts Donna? I am arguing against the strategy of democratic centralism which lends its logic to these rules. 

The SWP has the right to behave how it likes and enforce its own rules, that's implicit; just like Labour had the right to eject Walter Wolfgang. I have the right to say those rules are a load of old wank.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Jan 10, 2006)

cockneyrebel said:
			
		

> Donna I agree that breaching the confidentiality was an issue. But suspending someone for doing so?


My first inclination would be to suspend somebody in the same way that you might suspend somebody at work on full pay, i.e. there's a potential serious issue that has to be addressed but it's important to establish the full facts in good time and the action is taken without prejudice.




			
				hibee said:
			
		

> Have you read my earlier posts Donna? I am arguing against the strategy of democratic centralism which lends its logic to these rules.
> 
> The SWP has the right to behave how it likes and enforce its own rules, that's implicit. I have the right to say those rules are a load of old wank.


So you do. But _as they exist_, the maintenance of those rules is an issue and can't just be ignored.


----------



## cockneyrebel (Jan 10, 2006)

> My first inclination would be to suspend somebody in the same way that you might suspend somebody at work on full pay, i.e. there's a potential serious issue that has to be addressed but it's important to establish the full facts in good time and the action is taken without prejudice.



And you would have a hearing and not tell them that this hearing is gonna take place? Surely that is a breach of basic democracy?

Firstly it's very strange that this was had a debate at the conference, bizarre I'd say.

Also you have to take this in the context of the SWP being a stalinist/cultish organisation for a long time gone.


----------



## hibee (Jan 10, 2006)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> So you do. But _as they exist_, the maintenance of those rules is an issue and can't just be ignored.



I haven't ignored it Donna, do you want me to carve in big letters THE SWP CAN DO WHAT THE FUCK IT WANTS AND ENFORCE ITS RULES BUT I AS AN OUTSIDER AND FORMER MEMBER MAY ALSO STATE MY IDEOLOGICAL OBJECTIONS TO THE BASIS OF THOSE RULES


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Jan 10, 2006)

hibee said:
			
		

> I haven't ignored it Donna, do you want me to carve in big letters THE SWP CAN DO WHAT THE FUCK IT WANTS AND ENFORCE ITS RULES BUT I AS AN OUTSIDER AND FORMER MEMBER MAY ALSO STATE MY IDEOLOGICAL OBJECTIONS TO THE BASIS OF THOSE RULES


No, what I'd like you to do is not say "No, the point is: was the nature of the material such that it should have been considered confidential?" and then say that you haven't denied that maintenance of rules is an issue. If you'd be so good. In any size letters that you choose.

Now, I have to see a man about a storage unit.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Jan 10, 2006)

cockneyrebel said:
			
		

> And you would have a hearing and not tell them that this hearing is gonna take place?


It's not actually clear to me that that's what happened.



			
				cockneyrebel said:
			
		

> it's very strange that this was had a debate at the conference, bizarre I'd say.


Well, not really, since it relates to events that occurred at that conference: if something untoward occurred at a trade union conference then you'd expect it to be discussed at same.

Please note I'm not necessarily agreeing with what was done: I am saying however that where rules exist they need to be followed and that where genuine concerns exist they need to be understood. As I observed in a previous post, it'spartly because things like this happen that I tend to prefer a rather more relaxed apprach to political organisation in most circumstances. But they happen, as many things happen, with good reasons on all sides.

And so to Croydon.


----------



## hibee (Jan 10, 2006)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> No, what I'd like you to do is not say "No, the point is: was the nature of the material such that it should have been considered confidential?" and then say that you haven't denied that maintenance of rules is an issue. If you'd be so good. In any size letters that you choose.
> 
> .



No Donna, I understand all too well that the SWP rules come down on you like a ton of bricks if you so much as report that a mouse farted at conference. It is the fact the SWP's rules clearly state that harmless material such as Matt reported must be confidential that I am taking issue with. Should such facts remain confidential? I say no.

You really have a tendency not to let go even after it's clear you're up a blind alley.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Jan 10, 2006)

hibee said:
			
		

> No Donna, I understand all too well that the SWP rules come down on you like a ton of bricks if you so much as report that a mouse farted at conference. It is the fact the SWP's rules clearly state that harmless material such as Matt reported must be confidential that I am taking issue with. Should such facts remain confidential? I say no.
> 
> You really have a tendency not to let go even after it's clear you're up a blind alley.


No, I have a tendency not to let go when people contradict themselves. I underdstand full well that you don't think this stuff should be confidential and I actually agree with you on this. But that still leave the issue that while a rule exists, it must surely be both respected and enforced. We're _not_ talking about the _right_ to make rules, we're talking about what happens _when those rules exist_. You are ignoring this question. How can organisations have rules and then not enforce them?

I look forward to a cogent reply on my return.


----------



## cockneyrebel (Jan 10, 2006)

> It's not actually clear to me that that's what happened.



Matt talked about what went on at conference on U75. I'd argue that this is different from leaking confidential material i.e. if someone passed on the confernece papers to the Weekly Worker. However I agree that talking about what went on at conference did warrant something being said, but I think the SWP have gone way over the top though. I don't think it's a coincidence that he was one of the people challenging the leadership.

But what I'm saying is that they organised a debate about his suspension on the second day of conference and didn't tell him. Are you seriously gonna argue that's ok?

Also when I was a member of the SWP I was never once given a copy of what the SWPs rules are, has anyone else seen them?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 10, 2006)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> No, I have a tendency not to let go when people contradict themselves. I underdstand full well that you don't think this stuff should be confidential and I actually agree with you on this. But that still leave the issue that while a rule exists, it must surely be both respected and enforced. We're _not_ talking about the _right_ to make rules, we're talking about what happens _when those rules exist_. You are ignoring this question. How can organisations have rules and then not enforce them?
> 
> I look forward to a cogent reply on my return.


 You're arguing that all rules must be obeyed once they've been made and that sanctions against those that break the rules are just...well...tough shit really.


----------



## belboid (Jan 10, 2006)

cockneyrebel said:
			
		

> Also when I was a member of the SWP I was never once given a copy of what the SWPs rules are, has anyone else seen them?


I do think they are included in the first IB of the year actually, they are certainly 'available'.

I think you're right, as well, in pointing out the difference between distributing confidential documents and making comments on a message board - they are clearly very different things - especially when it appears Matt is being lined up to take the blame for leaks to the WW (and I wonder what the odds are of them simply pickng up his comments from here and re-printing them - they've done that to me before.  As have the AWL). Given the latter point, I would be vary very wary of saying Matt _has_ distributed confidential documents.


----------



## hibee (Jan 10, 2006)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> No, I have a tendency not to let go when people contradict themselves. I underdstand full well that you don't think this stuff should be confidential and I actually agree with you on this. But that still leave the issue that while a rule exists, it must surely be both respected and enforced. We're _not_ talking about the _right_ to make rules, we're talking about what happens _when those rules exist_. You are ignoring this question. How can organisations have rules and then not enforce them?
> 
> I look forward to a cogent reply on my return.



Donna, I've already answered this, first implicitly then directly. I'm not going to keep derailing this thread because you want the last word.


----------



## belboid (Jan 10, 2006)

oh yes, and of course, it would be interesting to see what would have happened if someone entirely supportive of the CC had posted up comments re the conference - I doubt very much that there would have been any discussion at conference then.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 10, 2006)

belboid said:
			
		

> oh yes, and of course, it would be interesting to see what would have happened if someone entirely supportive of the CC had posted up comments re the conference - I doubt very much that there would have been any discussion at conference then.


 Exactly, when the rules become a poltical tool for dealing with dissent or oppsosition then i'm afraid the argument that they MUST be followed carries very little weight.


----------



## bristol_citizen (Jan 10, 2006)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> You are ignoring this question. How can organisations have rules and then not enforce them?


Yes but the way the rules have been enforced is, ahem, slightly unusual. You talk about suspension "without prejudice" but a public conference motion hardly achieves this does it? Where's the confidentiality?
Then there's the fact that Matt has received no written statement telling him what he's accused of, what is now happening and what he is able to do about it. Neither has he been supplied with the rules he's alleged to have broken or the process that will now be pursued against him.
In fact the whole thing was conducted in public and then by telephone where he appears to have been bullied into a resignation by somebody clearly senior to him. And also senior SWPers seem to have approached his local branch with these accusations and created a negative campaign against him there. Again, where's the confidentiality? 
If you have rules and choose to enforce them you also need rules about how they are enforced surely? 
Trying to present what is happening to Matt as a bulk standard discipinary process similar to one you might have at work is ludicrous. An Employment Tribunal would have a field day with the SWP over this. They have failed to follow just about any and every process associated with natural justice.
This isn't about upholding rules, it's a witch hunt.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 10, 2006)

Spot on


----------



## articul8 (Jan 10, 2006)

bristol_citizen said:
			
		

> This isn't about upholding rules, it's a witch hunt.



does anyone really believe that Matt would be have dealt with so harshly had he not directly voiced his criticisms of the CC from the conference platform?


----------



## neprimerimye (Jan 10, 2006)

Groucho said:
			
		

> The reason SW conf is confidential is because it is the very opposite of e.g. Labour conference. LP conf is a media circus and is thus controlled and stitched up. There is no prospect of conference setting policy of the
> LP. SW conference is a genuine policy setting meeting. Members need to feel free to speak out without fear that their words will be (mis)used against them and their party by the media and other hostile forces. This is so that during debate contributors do not feel they have to have one eye to a wider audience.



The wider audience is the working class comrade and they have every right to know, allowing for legitimate security concerns, what is happening within their party. That is if the SWP is their party and not just a sect.

In any case you are factually wrong with regard to both the Labour Party and SWP conferences and their functions. First the Labour Party conference of some years ago, note I'm discussing the Labour Party not Nu Labour, was from its very beginning widely covered by the media. Not just reported in its own paper comrade but in the press of the various tendencies within the workers movement and in the bourgeois pres too.

All of which allowed interested workers to understand better what was taking place within the party to which millions of workers were affiliated through their trades unions. Even in as politically muddled and organisationally variegated organisation as labour was that held the potential of educating workers as they were able to follow the very real decision making on the floor of the conference and read the speeches of the leading figures in the workers movement. Some of which speeches would be printed up as pamphlets and were distributed by the various socialist groups of the day.

And make no mistake Labour conference was a genuine deliberative and decision making body. Why else were there such massive pitched battles in the workers movement around issues such as clause 4 not once but twice mark you, unilateral nuclear disarmament and the Militant tendency? because comrade the conference made real decisions which the party, if not the Labour government, was bound to follow. And why was the session of the Labour conference at which the comrades of the Militant EB were expelled closed if not to conceal the injustice that was being done from the working class?

The same cannot be said of the SWP's conference. A body that is presented with one set of perspectives and one slate for the leading commiittees. A body that exists to rubberstamp decisions already made and sometimes implemented by the ruling Central Committee. For example the decision to sell the print works was not made by the conference or by a party council but was actually carried out by the CC behind the backs of the membership wihout any kind of prior discussion. Is this an example of a decision making body or of a sect hiding from the working class? Make no mistake comrade the security services know full well what is happening within the SWP it is the membership and the working class from which you hide yourselves.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 10, 2006)

neprimerimye said:
			
		

> Make no mistake comrade the security services know full well what is happening within the SWP it is the membership and the working class from which you hide yourselves.


 MENE–MENE–TEKEL–UPARSIN


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Jan 10, 2006)

I cannot say I am surprised at the actions of the SWP but it remains depressing.

A true revolutionary organisation encourages wide-ranging debate including public discussion of majority and minority positions.  Despite all the claims to the contrary and the rewriting of history by the Stalinists and Cliff himself, this was actually the practice of the Bolsheviks and Lenin.  There is an excellent historical article on this history by Murray Smith on the Fourth International website.  Smith is an ex-SSP member who is now a member of the French LCR - the SWP periodically heap praise on the LCR, but never copy its highly democratic method of organisation.



> Internal Democracy and Public Debate in Revolutionary Parties  Murray Smith - May 2005
> 
> Murray Smith replies to Doug Lorimer of the Australian DSP on the issue of internal democracy and public debate in revolutionary parties. Contrary to Lorimer, Smith argues that debating party differences in public was the norm, and not the exception, in Lenin’s Bolshevik Party - and by inference should be today, a position fiercely disputed in theory and practice by the DSP. ...
> 
> http://www.internationalviewpoint.org/article.php3?id_article=782



The rules ('statutes') of the Fourth International are publicly available on its website and in pamplets.  The rights of members to put forward positions and where appropriate communicate differences in public are recognised:



> Statutes of the Fourth International
> 
> Article 5
> 
> ...



In the public press of sections, reports of congresses are expected to indicate the extent of disagreement and for decades I've seen reports saying things like "The leadership won 75.3% of the delegate vote.  The largest minority won 16.7% and put forward an alternative based around (brief explanation)....".  

Certainly in the IMG it was customary to agree the public coverage of the conference in the newspaper amongst all the different tendencies/platforms after congress, and ensure that it reflected that there was a debate and gave some indication of the extent of the differences.  I can even remember a special issue where there were boxes indicating the different positions.  Of course there are security issues which is why the leadership has a responsibility to ensure that the public expression of disagreements is properly managed and not suppressed or allowed to come out in a destructive way.

Ex-members of the SWP looking for a political home might want to give the alternative of the FI some serious consideration, especially as the FI is also in favour of Respect
(see: www.socialistresistance.net).  

I think the only realistic alternative to the FI is that of the Socialist Party/CWI, which as Nigel says has allowed minority views to be known and seems to have significantly improved its practice in recent years, but I believe still has major vestiges of sectarianism and a rather over-centralist and leadership dominated method (for more on the history of this see:
http://www.socialistsolidarity.com/docs_mil_ph.htm - especially the section called 'The Methods of Leadership').


----------



## Chuck Wilson (Jan 10, 2006)

I think this is what has happened: Matt gets reported to the CC for 'breach of confidentiality' .He is suspended. The fact that the delegate to the conference has been suspended is relayed to the confernec who are then sked to endorse a decsion that he takes no further part in the conference due to the alleged 'breach of confidentiality'. Confrence endorses this. Matt is spoken to and resigns. If he stayed as a member he would be invited to some form of control commission/disputes comittee.The fact that he continues to discuss it on here would seem to suggest that neither is going to happen.

Is matt a leading dissident, no. Quite the opposite a thinking but very loyal party member. Is there a major revolt in the SWP ? No JM.Promises more 'democracy and inclusivenes' without moving from democratic centralism without actually saying how that would be achieved and his main bone of contention is that more should be recruited to the SWP rather than just the front groups.

Is this expulsion down to democratic centralism? IMO opinion it is certaintly linked with those groups who still use a form of internal party organsiation based on vanguard within the vanguard of revolutionary organisations.

Is this a breach of confidentaility? Probably according to the SWPs customs and practise. But is posting the fact on a website that there was a small disagreement and a vote at  national conference of a party that is a key force in an electoral and campaigning alliance ie RESPECT seeking to have MPs and Councillors elected an offence that warrants such a response.No not in my book but in an organisation cast in and  still governed by the sort of discipline that you might have to have if operating in Czarist Russia probably yes. 

Aside from this bringing out the normal SWP bashers  and critics ( of which Iam one of the former) kets not get into a glass house scenario. With the noticable exception of the WSM I haven't heard of what happened at the last workers power national conference , socialist party or the anarchist ones . Can anyone assist?


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Jan 10, 2006)

cockneyrebel said:
			
		

> But what I'm saying is that they organised a debate about his suspension on the second day of conference and didn't tell him. Are you seriously gonna argue that's ok?


No, I'm arguing that it's not at all clear to me (from comments elsewhere as well as here) that that occurred.




			
				butchersapron said:
			
		

> You're arguing that all rules must be obeyed once they've been made and that sanctions against those that break the rules are just...well...tough shit really.


No I'm not. I am however arguing that rules need to be _upheld_. Of sanctions I have not spoken.




			
				hibee said:
			
		

> Donna, I've already answered this, first implicitly then directly. I'm not going to keep derailing this thread because you want the last word.


In fact you have answered it neither implicitly nor directly.

Let me put it more generally (and perhaps more simply). Societies and organisations make rules - some good, some bad, some indifferent. Often these rules need to be changed and often they need to be challenged. We can argue, for instance, that individuals may refuse to obey given rules for reasosn of conscience or circumstance or what you will - and indeed we should, for without the challenge to authority there is no liberty. Rules may be challenged provided the challenger understands that there may be a penalty for doing so.

What we cannot legitimately do, in my view, is argue that the authorities, whomsoever they may be, should not enforce the rules that exist. Clearly bad laws - by which I mean laws widely felt to be unenforceable by memebers of the given society - will fall into disuse, but _while the rules exist and are accepted by the community they must surely be upheld_. This applies to rules which hibee, myself or Archbishop Desmond Tutu may personally object to and it applies even though in practice the upholding of those rules will be partial in a number of senses.

Hence, if an organisation makes certain documents and proceedings confidential then they _must_ try and enforce that. If they do not, then the rules themselves are a mockery. This applies to controversial rules as much as to uncontroversial rules. _This_ is the point. It is not proper for an organisation to do otherwise. It is of course entirely open to the organisation to look at the matter carefully, decide no serious breach of confidentiality has occurred (or that none was intended) and decide to revoke or reducer any penalty. But it is _right_ to pursue such matters and wrong to pretend that the upholding of existing rules can just be waved away or viewed simply as some sort of repressive act.

(You can of course argue that the the procedure is unfair or the penalty harsh or that had the information been leaked by somebody else with different motives or a different perspective then the action taken would have been different and you may very well be right. But you cannot reasonably argue that the rules should not be upheld by the authorities because _you_ don't like them.)


----------



## cockneyrebel (Jan 10, 2006)

> Aside from this bringing out the normal SWP bashers and critics ( of which Iam one of the former) kets not get into a glass house scenario. With the noticable exception of the WSM I haven't heard of what happened at the last workers power national conference , socialist party or the anarchist ones . Can anyone assist?



Fair enough point. As it goes though I haven't actually criticised the SWP for saying that Matt shouldn't have posted the conference details on U75.

I've said that it has totally overeacted (in all probability because he oppossed the leadership) and that it was totally out of order that Matt wasn't told that he was gonna get disciplined or that it was gonna be discussed at conference but just phoned up and told he was suspended.

As it goes I do have a bit of a problem with internal debates not being made public, but because of democratic centralism I'm not gonna go into it here   

I think Nigel is right though that there are a wide range of democratic centralist organisations, ranging from very open to the totally authoritarian. From my experience the SWP has been the most authoritarian and cultish on the left. But I'm too young to remember the RCP/WRP.

Also to be fair Chuck, does the IWCA publish all of its national conference details, membership numbers etc? I've asked about how many members the IWCA has got and never been told, so the IWCA obviously also thinks some things are confidential as well.


----------



## cockneyrebel (Jan 10, 2006)

> No, I'm arguing that it's not at all clear to me (from comments elsewhere as well as here) that that occurred.



How can it not be clear? The first thing Matt knew about being suspended was when a central committee member phoned him up after conference had finished. You can't get much clearer than that.


----------



## jimmer (Jan 10, 2006)

The British left really is fucking tragic.


----------



## mk12 (Jan 10, 2006)

cockneyrebel said:
			
		

> How can it not be clear? The first thing Matt knew about being suspended was when a central committee member phoned him up after conference had finished. You can't get much clearer than that.



I have now found out that someone tried to ring me on Saturday (according to one person). I didn't get a call on my mobile, or my house phone, and they went ahead with the vote on Sunday anyway.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Jan 10, 2006)

cockneyrebel said:
			
		

> How can it not be clear? The first thing Matt knew about being suspended was when a central committee member phoned him up after conference had finished. You can't get much clearer than that.


Except that that's not what you said in your previous post - you said that he wasn't informed about a debate relating to his explusion.


----------



## mk12 (Jan 10, 2006)

> you said that he wasn't informed about a debate relating to his explusion



I was, yesterday.


----------



## cockneyrebel (Jan 10, 2006)

> Except that that's not what you said in your previous post - you said that he wasn't informed about a debate relating to his explusion.



Well are you clear now? The first thing matt heard about his suspension was after it had been decided and after conference had discussed it. One person now claims they phoned him but he had no missed calls.

So assuming that no-one did try to contact him, will you at least acknowledge that was out of order? Or would you think it would be ok to have a disciplinary at work without informing the employee?


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Jan 10, 2006)

cockneyrebel said:
			
		

> Well are you clear now? The first thing matt heard about his suspension was after it had been decided and after conference had discussed it. One person now claims they phoned him but he had no missed calls.


A bit more clear although my understanding is (and/or was) that Matt was basically not in attendance (through no fault of his own) on the relevant day of the conference.




			
				cockneyrebel said:
			
		

> So assuming that no-one did try to contact him, will you at least acknowledge that was out of order?


Of course I won't. I'm not going to be invited to acknowledge things I've not said.


----------



## mk12 (Jan 10, 2006)

> through no fault of his own



Oh, I was told it was because I 'couldn't be bothered' to go.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Jan 10, 2006)

mattkidd12 said:
			
		

> Oh, I was told it was because I 'couldn't be bothered' to go.


You may have been, but not by me. I am however taking your own account which I accept in its entirety.


----------



## levien (Jan 10, 2006)

mattkidd12 said:
			
		

> Oh, I was told it was because I 'couldn't be bothered' to go.



You would expect delegates to be there for the whole of conference unless told otherwise to be fair.  And I was under the impression that you were not answering your phone/it was switched off or something.  But like I said second hand information and all that.  

If you choose to  you could take it to the DC.  Something you should do if you are serious about the SWP regardless of personal experience or tactical differences.

The conspiracy theorists and sectarians (heres looking at you cockers) using this to try and create some political capital are pretty f**king transparent.


----------



## hibee (Jan 10, 2006)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> In fact you have answered it neither implicitly nor directly.
> 
> Let me put it more generally (and perhaps more simply). Societies and organisations make rules - some good, some bad, some indifferent. Often these rules need to be changed and often they need to be challenged. We can argue, for instance, that individuals may refuse to obey given rules for reasosn of conscience or circumstance or what you will - and indeed we should, for without the challenge to authority there is no liberty. Rules may be challenged provided the challenger understands that there may be a penalty for doing so.
> 
> ...



Donna, I have said I don't know how many times I am arguing against the rules themselves and not the SWP for enforcing them, I don't know if you're being deliberately obtuse. I'm sick of repeating myself for your benefit and its at times like this you can be incredibly irritating.

There is a seperate argument about the SWP applying these rules selectively in the case of matt to punish him for his speech but I wasn't talking about that.


----------



## hibee (Jan 10, 2006)

levien said:
			
		

> You would expect delegates to be there for the whole of conference unless told otherwise to be fair.  And I was under the impression that you were not answering your phone/it was switched off or something.  But like I said second hand information and all that.
> 
> If you choose to  you could take it to the DC.  Something you should do if you are serious about the SWP regardless of personal experience or tactical differences.
> 
> The conspiracy theorists and sectarians (heres looking at you cockers) using this to try and create some political capital are pretty f**king transparent.



Fancy yourself as a chekist?


----------



## jimmer (Jan 10, 2006)

levien said:
			
		

> The conspiracy theorists and sectarians (heres looking at you cockers) using this to try and create some political capital are pretty f**king transparent.


That's funny. 

Do you feel that people are unfairly using this to attack the SWP?


----------



## knopf (Jan 10, 2006)

levien said:
			
		

> You would expect delegates to be there for the whole of conference unless told otherwise to be fair.  And I was under the impression that you were not answering your phone/it was switched off or something.  But like I said second hand information and all that.
> 
> If you choose to  you could take it to the DC.  Something you should do if you are serious about the SWP regardless of personal experience or tactical differences.
> 
> The conspiracy theorists and sectarians (heres looking at you cockers) using this to try and create some political capital are pretty f**king transparent.



.... and the mighty SWP school of falsification trundles into action. It's taken them a while. Tell me, is that last sentence (minus the cockers reference & the expletive) a direct quotation from your party orders?


----------



## neprimerimye (Jan 10, 2006)

Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> Ex-members of the SWP looking for a political home might want to give the alternative of the FI some serious consideration, especially as the FI is also in favour of Respect



A comrade Duncan Hallas leads me to believe that he would like to reply to this daft suggestion. To that end he has enjoined me to post an article which he wrote some time ago. It also serves as an excellent critique of respect he tells me.

I might add that it is a little bombastic and was obviously written in haste lacking Duncans usual bravura style. As it is a little long it appears in two parts.

Electoral Slates and Joint Slates

Duncan Hallas

Socialist Workers Party Bulletin No 3 May 1977

Some comrades have asked if we should reconsider our attitude towards an electoral pact with other organisations on the revolutionary left.
In practice, this is only raised in connection with the IMG, since the other organisations which have run candidates in the past, the WRP, etc, are not interested. The IMG, on the other hand, is making the issue a central feature of its propaganda and is directing 90 per cent of this propaganda at SWP members and sympathisers.
At Stechford, IMG members distributed leaflets at Paul Foot's meetings which deplored competition between Foot and Heron (the IMG candidate) and concluded; "the IMG repeats its call to the SWP to discuss with us the possibility of united far-left slates in the coming elections and especially in the General Election. All socialists will pay a price for needless disunity in the future." They had previously called for a joint candidate in Stechford, a joint slate in GLC elections and so on.
Well, why not? We are certainly in favour of joint action with everyone in the working class movement, whether Labour Party members, CP members, independents or whatever to fight the fascists, to fight hospital closures, to fight the Social Contract and so on and so forth - always provided it is action. We do not, however, form blocs to make propaganda. We put forward our own ideas in our own paper.
The distinction is obvious enough. Unity in action with everyone who can be pulled in to support the particular action, irrespective of their views on other matters. Independent expression of our own ideas at all times. We don't stay out of any genuine working class struggle and we don't make our participation conditional on others agreeing with us. At the same time, we don't hide or dilute our politics or pretend to be other than we are.
How does this apply to parliamentary etc. elections?
Revolutionary intervention in parliamentary elections at present is essentially a propaganda operation, a means of contacting people and involving them in some of our activities and of recruiting.
We judge our success (or failure) in a contest by members recruited, contacts made, SW readers gained and so on and not mainly by votes gained.
Of course, it is very pleasing if we get a better than expected vote, a little disappointing if we get a lower than expected vote. But it is not the main thing. We are not parliamentary roaders.
Even in circumstances where there is a serious prospect of winning a particular contest this remains true. It would be very useful for propaganda and, indeed, agitational purposes to have a revolutionary MP, or even better to have several.
But this will always be secondary to building the party in the workplaces, to fighting for leadership in the day to day struggles of working people and inside the unions.
Our aim in contesting parliamentary elections is to build the SWP. We do not put the emphasis on getting the biggest possible vote for the  'far-left'.
Protest votes, and that is what is being spoken of, are not without significance, but they are incomparably less important than building the party.
Where does this leave us with respect to the IMG? Since many of our  members do not come into contact with this organisation, it may be useful to say a little about it.
The IMG regards itself as a Trotskyist organisation and is affiliated to the biggest of the various bodies claiming to be 'the Fourth International'. It claims top have 680 members. Some of these - I do not know what proportion - operate inside the Labour Party as 'entrists'.
The IMG differs from us politically on a number of matters; for example, it regards Russia, China, etc, as workers' states, although degenerated or deformed and it is keen on slogans like 'the sliding scale of wages', 'open the books' and so on.
But, the most important difference, I believe, is not these disagreements, but the approach to building the revolutionary party. The IMG puts the emphasis on building blocs, fronts, alliances etc with other organisations, and what it calls 'the broad vanguard' (ie unaffiliated left wingers) and within these blocs etc it hopes to establish its own 'hegemony' - meaning dominance. It hopes to dominate a sort of left coalition which will develop, it hopes, into a party.
The IMG regards the SWP as the biggest obstacle in its path - rightly so in view of the relationship of forces - and tries hard to use other (non-IMG) people to put pressure on us. For unless the growth of the SWP can be checked, their strategy can't work.
Thus it has set up a Socialist Teachers Alliance in opposition to Rank and File Teacher )from which the IMG teachers split). The STA includes a fair number of non-IMG people, mostly to the right of the IMG, and, having come out of split, denounces R&F people as 'sectarians' and 'splitters'.
"The time has come", says a writer in a recent issue of the IMG's paper "for the SWP/R&F to break out of its sectarian politics, acknowledge the STA as a force with equal, if not greater influence both in London and nationally, and unite to win a massive vote....etc." But we were united in R&F until they split.
In fact, the STA is an unstable alliance held together by a dislike of unofficial action and hostility to the SWP. Its leaders regard R&F as tending to 'adventurism' - as in the 'no-cover' campaign - and put nearly all their emphasis on work in the union machine. It runs candidates against R&F candidates in union elections.
After the recent NUT conference, the IMG paper claimed that the STA had definitely replaced R&F as 'the main tendency' on the left and had had 50 delegates (15 recruited at conference). The real significance of the conference was the decisive victory of the right on, all issues. The STA is, to some degree, an adaptation to right wing dominance, a soft option for soft lefts.
Similarly, a Socialist Students Alliance has been set up (on much the same basis) as a rival to NOISS, and the IMG paper tells us "the SSA has now replaced NOISS as the major force after the Broad Left", a claim as hollow as those made for other 'fronts' the IMG has sponsored over the years. 
The SSA ran its own slate against NOISS (as well as the Broad Left and the Tories) at the recent NUS conference.
There is no Socialist Engineers Alliance or Socialist Electricians Alliance but that is only because the IMG has few people in industry (although they do support the 'independent Broad Left' paper Engineering Voice against Engineering Charter). In the recent TGWU's General Secretary election the IMG called for a vote for Thornett, not Riley.
Where the IMG has no possibility of setting up a rival organisation, it often 'supports' SWP efforts. The Right to Work Campaign is a good example and it is not unfair to say that IMG 'support' for the Right to Work marches last year was of the sort Lenin called 'support as the rope supports the man being hanged'.


----------



## neprimerimye (Jan 10, 2006)

Electoral Slates and Joint Slates Part Two

Duncan Hallas

For weeks on end, the IMG paper carried attacks from all and sundry on the 'bureaucratic', 'sectarian' and of course, politically hopeless RTW leadership, complete with atrocity stories.
Red Weekly sees this sport of thing as unimportant. Nearly every issue contains attacks on the SWP (three per issue is the norm) alongside calls for 'unity'! Compare the absence of attacks on the IMG in Socialist Worker.
In spite of our forbearance, they continually denounce the SWP as 'sectarian'!
Now we learn that the IMG is going to launch a new weekly paper called Socialist Challenge which will also serve its various front organisations - these now include a Scottish Socialist League and an Asian Socialist League (in Birmingham) as well as the various Alliances and the IMG members in the Labour Party. It will, so Red Weekly tells us, "be a non-sectarian polemical paper". There are no prizes for guessing who most of the polemics will be aimed at!
Some of our comrades understandably get indignant about this kind of thing, but we should not take it too seriously. It does us little damage, but to reply in kind would do us much more damage. And it will not build the IMG.
Hiding your politics, sailing under false colours, never builds in the long run.
The 'electoral unity' proposals have to be seen against this background.
What the IMG has in mind is not a practical arrangement that seeks to avoid, or at any rate minimize, the Stechford type situation of two far-left candidates. What they are after is, as they admit, a 'joint-slate', a common platform and a united campaign - and not only an electoral one.
An article in Red Weekly on the French municipal election agreement  between far-left groups puts the line very clearly: "while Lutte Ouvriere initially saw the agreement as requiring only joint electoral work, the LCR (the French IMG) correctly insisted on the need for a national joint platform...
Our comrades also argued for joint activity to extend beyond the electoral arena, to build the implantation of the revolutionary organisations".
Now this is nonsense. Either there is basic agreement about building the party - in which case the organisations ought to unite in a single party - or there is not, in which case they cannot 'build the implantation'. How can we build jointly with the IMG when, wherever they have the strength, they build blocs against us with forces to the right of us? to repeat, we are out to build the revolutionary arty, not to maximise the vote by alliances Which hinder building.
Is actual unity feasible? The differences on Russia etc are, in principle, containable in a single democratic-centralist organisation provided that there is an agreed approach to building the party in the working class.
In the past, the IMG has put the emphasis on work everywhere except in the working class, but in the last few years it has changed its line and says it agrees with us on this.
Unfortunately, it has moved well to the right at the same time and thinks in terms of blocs with various 'independents' who have official positions, rather than building rank and file movements.
Another problem is that the IMG is a coalition of permanent factions (they call them tendencies), a state of affairs they regard as positively desirable, and are not likely to accept democratic-centralism as we understand it. And, of course, they want to stay affiliated to their 'Fourth International'.
But the basic difficulty, I believe, is that most of them do not want unity at all but only 'unity manoeuvres' to try to strengthen themselves at our expense. Their problem is that we would have a huge majority in a united organisation. If we accept, as we must, that they seriously believe in their own political conceptions, then their attitude is understandable.
Understanding, however, is not the same thing as weakness and it would be both weak and extremely foolish to give countenance to these 'unity manoeuvres.'
The IMG has developed a theory to justify its peculiar tactics. This  theory says that it is 'sectarian' to put the emphasis on building the revolutionary party. 'Unfortunately, the present sectarian course of the SWP placed the needs of their organisation above the best interests of the working class," says the Red Weekly. This goes down well with people who like to be on the left but don't want to commit themselves to an organisation. It is not so new either.
Years ago Trotsky wrote of the SAP, a left breakaway from the German Social Democrats, that when they "criticise the 'party egoism' of the Social-Democracy and of the Communist Party; when Seydewitz (an SAP leader) assures us that so far as he is concerned 'the interests of the class come before the interests of the party,' they only fall into political sentimentalism or, what is worse, behind this sentimental phraseology  they screen the interests of their own party. This method is no good... The interests of the class cannot be formulated otherwise than in the shape of a programme, the programme cannot be defended otherwise than by creating the party."
That is our position and it used to be the position of the IMG too. "We start from a profound conviction that the problem of carrying out a social transformation in Britain requires above all the building of a mass revolutionary party," wrote Pat Jordan, then National Secretary of the IMG, in 1969; "We regard the present fragmentation of the left as arising from the lack of such a party. Once the process of building the revolutionary party proceeds beyond its embryonic stage - that is when a given tendency clearly established its hegemony in theory and practice - regroupment will commence."
This was written, in part, to defend the IMG's rejection of the IS  proposal to unite the to organisations into a single party which was our policy in 1968 and 1969. In those days, they believed that they could build their organisation faster and better than ours could be built. then we would unite when they had the majority.
In the event, we built and they did not - they are little stronger now than they were then. One reason is that we turned our backs on sectarian bickering and they did not.
Jordan also dealt, in this article on Unity and Sectarianism, with the sort of approach the IMG now has, the method of blocs and alliances: "such a project is fraught with dangers. It is one thing to organise a campaign on a single issue such as Vietnam, where for revolutionaries the issue is so clear cut, but another thing once one attempts to cover a whole series of questions, each of which can give rise to political and tactical differences."
This was directed against various 'independents' and 'New Lefts' who wanted a bloc rather than a party.
The IMG has changed its line because of our growth, its marked inferiority to the SWP and its unwillingness to go for real unity. An electoral bloc of the sort they propose is not on. Submerging the SWP in some 'front' is out of the question. We fight under our own colours.
There is a fundamental issue involved. We know that the revolutionary party can only be built by involvement in workers' struggles. In these terms the IMG is irrelevant in most cases. They believe that the way forward is argument - polemic is the word they use - about policies between people who regard themselves as revolutionaries. We left that kind of thing behind years ago.


----------



## jimmer (Jan 10, 2006)

I can't be bothered to read that, could you summarise your cut and paste for me and explain it's relevance to the thread?


----------



## bristol_citizen (Jan 10, 2006)

Comrade Duncan is not one of life's natural entertainers is he?


----------



## revol68 (Jan 10, 2006)

hibee said:
			
		

> Fancy yourself as a chekist?




a good communist must also be a good chekist.


----------



## hibee (Jan 10, 2006)

Typical swappie, don't think, cut and paste


----------



## belboid (Jan 10, 2006)

jimmer said:
			
		

> I can't be bothered to read that, could you summarise your cut and paste for me and explain it's relevance to the thread?


Respect is crap.  Hallas would have said so.


----------



## gurrier (Jan 10, 2006)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> Let me put it more generally (and perhaps more simply). Societies and organisations make rules - some good, some bad, some indifferent. Often these rules need to be changed and often they need to be challenged. We can argue, for instance, that individuals may refuse to obey given rules for reasosn of conscience or circumstance or what you will - and indeed we should, for without the challenge to authority there is no liberty. Rules may be challenged provided the challenger understands that there may be a penalty for doing so.
> 
> What we cannot legitimately do, in my view, is argue that the authorities, whomsoever they may be, should not enforce the rules that exist. Clearly bad laws - by which I mean laws widely felt to be unenforceable by memebers of the given society - will fall into disuse, but _while the rules exist and are accepted by the community they must surely be upheld_. This applies to rules which hibee, myself or Archbishop Desmond Tutu may personally object to and it applies even though in practice the upholding of those rules will be partial in a number of senses.
> 
> ...


Which is all very well, but in practice all rules are applied with a healthy dose of subjectivity, variability and are largely at the discretion of those who apply them.  There is no such thing as a purely objective rule - despite the vast array of legislation that most states arm themselves with, a legal system which did not allow for things like precedence and did not allocate a large amount of discretion to the judges would collapse very quickly.  

So, rather than just saying 'them's the rules' with any situation like this, one needs to ask whether it was an appropriate and sensible use of the rules.  I really do think it is cultic in the extreme to think that a member posting up a harmless account of a particular vote on an internet bulletin board is such a serious matter that it should take up the time of the party's national conference.  If they had any sense about them at all they could just have had a quiet word with him if and when he showed up the next day - I mean what damage was done and what was the potential for further damage that was so serious that it demanded his immediate suspension and exclusion from conference?  

On the other hand, from the point of view of entertainment value, I have to take my hat off to them.  Next time, I think they should consider running live internet streams of their purges.


----------



## belboid (Jan 10, 2006)

bristol_citizen said:
			
		

> Comrade Duncan is not one of life's natural entertainers is he?


he bloody was!  hallas meetings were always great - see how many pints he could sink whilst speaking, swore more than me, quite possibly the best politics of the lot of them.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 10, 2006)

belboid said:
			
		

> he bloody was!  hallas meetings were always great - see how many pints he could sink whilst speaking, swore more than me, quite possibly the best politics of the lot of them.


 I have a book of his (not by him, belonging to him), signed in the unsteadiest hand i think i've ever seen.


----------



## neprimerimye (Jan 10, 2006)

hibee said:
			
		

> Typical swappie, don't think, cut and paste



My apologies for the length of the post. But is is highly relevant to this discussion. What we are seeing from some SWP contributors here is an attempt to claim that Matts suspension is justified on grounds of a breach of discipline. Which is an attempt to divert attention from the very strong probability that his suspension has actually resulted from his voicing criticisms of the leadership of the SWP.

In my opinion Matts suspension is the result of a long process of degeneration within the SWP which dates back a long way. Duncans document, which has not as yet appeared on the MIA I note, represents a politics which in many respects is very different to that of the SWP in 2006. Some aspects of the document are, as i remarked bombastic and overly boastful, but he also raises some excellent arguments against electoral blocs which can easily be applied to Respect today.

Now it should not need pointing out, but it would seem such is the case, that Respect is the most important sphere of 'United Front' work in which the SWP is currently engaged. It follows that any criticism of the leadership for its failure to prioritise the building of the SWP through circulation of its press and recruitment ot its ranks suggests, at very least, a criticism of Respect.

Far less importantly the document also replied to the daft idea that a body called the Fourth International existed in 1977 or exists in 2006. Not only that but it gives amply examples of the sectarian and tailist history of the IMG/ISG in UK PLC. A record which a previous poster offfered as an alternative political home to former SWPers.


----------



## mk12 (Jan 10, 2006)

> You would expect delegates to be there for the whole of conference unless told otherwise to be fair



Fair enough. I sent an email to my branch members explaining I couldn't go on the Sunday. And why did the CC member who rang me decide to claim "i couldn't be bothered to go", when he didn't even ask me why I hadn't gone?



> I was under the impression that you were not answering your phone/it was switched off or something.



Well, I haven't got any missed calls on my phone. And even so, if they couldn't get through to me, do you think it's right that you vote on it on Sunday?

And I will not be taking it to the disputes committee. I do not want to be in a party that suspends people for being honest to other socialists and the general public. "Never lie to the class", someone once said.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 10, 2006)

bristol_citizen said:
			
		

> Comrade Duncan is not one of life's natural entertainers is he?



I quite liked it, but then again I have a weakness for sectariana. Neprimerimye's summary of it below is pretty good. It's one of the founding fathers of the SWP attacking electoralism and arguing that "hiding your politics, sailing under false colours, never builds in the long run".

As a bonus, article is mostly in the form of a sectarian pissing match with the IMG, one remnant of which is now the ISG/Socialist Resistance.


----------



## TeeJay (Jan 10, 2006)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> Well, not really. I mean the material in question _was_ actually confidential, was it not? Whether that's a good practice or not is another question.


So all you have you to do to remove "freedom of speech" questions is make everything confidential? Can you point to any other political parties that forbid reporting of votes from their party conferences on pain of expulsion (outside of countries that have dictatorships that is)?


----------



## TeeJay (Jan 10, 2006)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> No, that's a secondary point. Whether a given rule _should_ be made, is of course a question: but once it exists, the fact of it existing can't just be ignored because it doesn't suit.


You are utterly full of shite. It is the *primary* issue. You are trying to hide behind a jobsworth "just applying the rules" excuse. Utterly pathetic.


----------



## cockneyrebel (Jan 10, 2006)

> The conspiracy theorists and sectarians (heres looking at you cockers) using this to try and create some political capital are pretty f**king transparent.



As it goes I've commented on this far less than other posters, but there you go. Having heard about the way you conduct yourself in Manchester cheap digs like this don't surprise me though. Big man on campus eh.

It's hardly a conspiracy, as it goes I haven't had a go at the SWP for saying that the conference shouldn't be discussed on U75. However there are a number of things which I think are out of order.

1) The total overeaction, which you've even acknowledged yourself.

2) The bollox about people losing their jobs, because by the same rate you better suspend the editor of Socialist Worker who has also printed the same names.

3) The crap about the phone calls, hasn't the person phoning heard of an answer machine if the phone was off? I think it's a basic democratic right to be able to defend yourself at any disciplinary.

4) I think it's a bit strange that such a minor breaking of the rules is considered important enough to have a full conference vote on. This is even more bizarre given it was the last day of the conference and mattkidd wasn't even at it, so there was no need to say he couldn't attend conference. Any disciplinary hearing could have been sorted out afterwards with matt in attendence.

5) The CC member talking to matt in a totally out of order way.

I doubt WP will get any political capital out of this as matt has no intention of joining WP. And in terms of the SWP looking shit, I think you're doing a good enough job of that yourselves.


----------



## Streathamite (Jan 10, 2006)

having now read this thread my disgust at the swappies knows no bounds. matt really has been treated dismally.
is there no-one in swappie central who can see how dismal this cult of secrecy and paranoia makes them look?


----------



## audiotech (Jan 10, 2006)

bristol_citizen said:
			
		

> Comrade Duncan is not one of life's natural entertainers is he?



Yes he was. An inspiring speaker who was immensely proud of his Manchester working class origins. Along with other working class militants he agitated in defence of working class interests at a time when the Communist Party was restraining struggles for the sake of the war effort. Duncan himself cut his teeth as an agitator as one of the leaders of the rank and file movement that developed in the British army in Egypt.







Fucking brilliant for someone who left school at the age of 14 and went to work in a factory. But you wouldn't understand that would you citizen?


----------



## audiotech (Jan 10, 2006)

cockneyrebel said:
			
		

> I doubt WP will get any political capital out of this as matt has no intention of joining WP. And in terms of the SWP looking shit, I think you're doing a good enough job of that yourselves.



Judging by the crap you write, I wont be joining your irrelevant sect either.


----------



## levien (Jan 10, 2006)

cockneyrebel said:
			
		

> As it goes I've commented on this far less than other posters, but there you go. Having heard about the way you conduct yourself in Manchester cheap digs like this don't surprise me though. Big man on campus eh.
> 
> What the fuck are you talking about? Substantiate that or retract it.  Seeing as you aren't from Manchester and your source is a Revo organiser I don't think you have a leg to stand on.
> 
> ...



If you have a problem with my conduct PM me and explain what it is.


----------



## Gumbert (Jan 10, 2006)

levien said:
			
		

> No I had fallen asleep getting a coffee and wasn't in the hall (gumbert snores)


cheeky sod..  

i know i do, i was getting the others back for snoring the night before..  

*goes back to the political isolation of the _real _ world*


----------



## levien (Jan 10, 2006)

Gumbert said:
			
		

> *goes back to the political isolation of the _real _ world*



Lucky bastard - I'm still stuck in Croydon.


----------



## boxinghefner (Jan 10, 2006)

An unaccountable RESPECT MP on celebrity big brother, a Socialist Workers Party CC member condemning those who dare to post here and an ex-member is suspended with little information or clarification provided: clearly a great time to belong to the SWP!


----------



## socialistsuzy (Jan 10, 2006)

hi, 
(i'm in the SP for anyones further knowledge)
this is my first post on this forum and after reading the thread (took ages!!) i think matt was treated very badly, surely if someone had spoken to him and just said that he shouldn't post conference details on a public forum and there may be consequences if he does so again i'm sure he would've obliged, thus problem solved. 



> I believe still has major vestiges of sectarianism and a rather over-centralist and leadership dominated method (for more on the history of this see:http://www.socialistsolidarity.com/docs_mil_ph.htm - especially the section called 'The Methods of Leadership').



in regards to the section 'methods of leadership' (i haven't had time to read the whole thing), this is an extremely unfair portrayal of the SP leadership. 

xsuzyx


----------



## bristol_citizen (Jan 10, 2006)

MC5 said:
			
		

> But you wouldn't understand that would you citizen?


What I didn't understand was his humour-free, tedious, acronym-ridden prose actually.
Whether he left school at 14 and worked in a factory wasn't really my point.


----------



## cockneyrebel (Jan 10, 2006)

> Judging by the crap you write, I wont be joining your irrelevant sect either.



Oh no, what a shame. Don't remember saying you should join in the first place though   



> There was no disaplinary. Get that through your head. Matt has decided - as is his right - not to go to one but to resign.



Telling someone that they're suspended isn't disciplining them   



> But as I said there are factors which made this seem more serious - ie other leaks that did get people into trouble at work



Shouldn't they have found out the facts first?


----------



## audiotech (Jan 10, 2006)

bristol_citizen said:
			
		

> What I didn't understand was his humour-free, tedious, acronym-ridden prose actually.
> Whether he left school at 14 and worked in a factory wasn't really my point.



I know, that point was mine.

It was a polemic and not meant to be humorous. I thought it necessary to defend Hallas from the charge that he was "not one of life's natural entertainers". Because he entertained me on more than one occasion, over a pint of bitter and a capstan full strength.


----------



## articul8 (Jan 10, 2006)

socialistsuzy said:
			
		

> in regards to the section 'methods of leadership' (i haven't had time to read the whole thing), this is an extremely unfair portrayal of the SP leadership.
> 
> xsuzyx



Hi suzy, welcome to the boards.  Out of interest which of Phil Hearse's allegations (he was on the EC of your party at one stage, so might know a thing or two) do you dispute, and why?  

[edit - or anyone else for that matter.  Nigel...?]


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 10, 2006)

articul8 said:
			
		

> Hi suzy, welcome to the boards.  Out of interest which of Phil Hearse's allegations (he was on the EC of your party at one stage, so might know a thing or two) do you dispute, and why?
> 
> [edit - or anyone else for that matter.  Nigel...?]



Hi Suzy, welcome!

Suzy may have her own take on this but in my opinion:

Letting Hearse into the organisation in the first place was a mistake. He never really agreed with most of our ideas and by his own later accounting joined primarily because he saw no point in being in the tiny USFI group. I read his whole piece some years ago and thought it drivel at the time. I have just reread it and had my existing opinion reconfirmed. 

The recommended section amounts to little more than smears and whining about how people were supposedly mean to Phil and some friends of his. As I know most of the people concerned and their political and personal methods at first hand, I have precisely zero faith in his account. Hearse wanted the Socialist Party to embrace the kind of watered-down-politics "left unity" shite which the USFI has specialised in in recent years. He wanted that in Britain, hence his support for the ISM in Scotland and their move towards reformism, and he wanted it internationally, hence his yapping about how terrible it is that the CWI isn't interested in international "socialist renewal". He found no support in the organisation for those views, so he left.

There's not a single thing in the whole account which I agree with or take in any way seriously.


----------



## cockneyrebel (Jan 10, 2006)

> There's not a single thing in the whole account which I agree with or take in any way seriously.



I'm truely shocked


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 10, 2006)

cockneyrebel said:
			
		

> I'm truely shocked



Unpredictability is my middle name. No really it is. Nigel Unpredictability Irritable. My Confirmation name was Xavier though.


----------



## articul8 (Jan 10, 2006)

Nigel Irritable said:
			
		

> Letting Hearse into the organisation in the first place was a mistake.
> 
> There's not a single thing in the whole account which I agree with or take in any way seriously.



FWIW I think that Hearse's "left unity at any price" is vulnerable to the kind of criticism you've levelled.

But he wasn't just "let in" to the organisation.  Hearse et al were let into the leadership at top level - no doubt because you thought you could use them to rout the USFI.  But doesn't this - ironically - confirm Hearse's accusation that your leadership is more a bureaucratic/managerial committee than a body which enjoys the political confidence of its membership?  Or did Hearse EVER enjoy the political support of the majority?  If so, why?  Because Taaffe said so?  And don't forget, this was the organisation that offered us the perspective of the "red nineties".

And to restore the balance of the debate - from what I know, I don't believe that the SP would have treated Matt in the same way, although he would have been pulled up for lack of party discipline.  But given that this has led us to discuss democratic centralist methods of organisation, isn't it right to look at all organisations claiming that particular mantle?


----------



## Pilgrim (Jan 10, 2006)

For those with an interest in the frankly Orwellian attitude of the SWP CC to truth and accuracy check the following link:

http://www.swp.org.uk/building.php

Absolutely nothing about any dissenting voices and some of the claims made are just laughable.

Enjoy...


----------



## rebel warrior (Jan 10, 2006)

Just returned to Urban 75 - and I can't be bothered reading through this thread - though it seems this thread is about SWP Conference. 

Well, I didn't go myself, but if anyone wants to know what happened at conference, there is a report in this weeks SW here:

http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/article.php?article_id=8069

Sounds like there was a fraternal debate with respect to the CC elections, but John Molyneux lost the vote for his alternative slate...


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 10, 2006)

Did you inform anyone about Matkkids posts on here?


----------



## Sorry. (Jan 10, 2006)

hey rebel, which way did you vote re:Mattkidd?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 10, 2006)

It was unanimous. Cheered to the rafters etc


----------



## Sorry. (Jan 10, 2006)

just checking... maybe he stepped out of the room like some of his brave comrades.


----------



## rebel warrior (Jan 10, 2006)

Sorry - I said - I didn't go to conference.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 10, 2006)

rebel warrior said:
			
		

> Sorry - I said - I didn't go to conference.


 Which shows that people no longer bother your reading gareth steadman jones posts.

So. You didn't report Matt then?


----------



## boxinghefner (Jan 10, 2006)

> For those with an interest in the frankly Orwellian attitude of the SWP CC to truth and accuracy check the following link:
> 
> http://www.swp.org.uk/building.php



If I hear another SWPer talk about the need to "build the movement" my head may explode over them.


----------



## gurrier (Jan 10, 2006)

rebel warrior said:
			
		

> Just returned to Urban 75 - and I can't be bothered reading through this thread - though it seems this thread is about SWP Conference.
> 
> Well, I didn't go myself, but if anyone wants to know what happened at conference, there is a report in this weeks SW here:
> 
> ...


You've gotta be joking - that report could have been written before the conference - or it could have been written 20 years ago - it's information content is zero.  You could even have just written "ohmygoshitssoexcitying recruit-papersales-build the party" and saved on the paper.  

Do you never get irritated at having to insult your own intelligence by being expected to push such rubbish?


----------



## rebel warrior (Jan 10, 2006)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> Which shows that people no longer bother your reading gareth steadman jones posts.
> 
> So. You didn't report Matt then?



Gareth Steadman Jones style posts?  I'm intrigued.  

Oh, and is Matt Kidd12 _the_ MattKidd12?  Shit, I thought he had better politics than that...


----------



## sihhi (Jan 10, 2006)

Red Jezza said:
			
		

> having now read this thread my disgust at the swappies knows no bounds. matt really has been treated dismally.
> is there no-one in swappie central who can see how dismal this cult of secrecy and paranoia makes them look?



The CC? They don't particularly care about people who aren't in the SWP or aren't loyal to the CC when inside the SWP.


----------



## articul8 (Jan 10, 2006)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> Which shows that people no longer bother your reading gareth steadman jones posts.



are you saying he is "moti"?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 10, 2006)

articul8 said:
			
		

> are you saying he is "moti"?


 No, just annoyed at the two (and making out a possible future path for RW) . Weasels both


----------



## articul8 (Jan 10, 2006)

just seen this article in the latest issue.  Check out the headline - you couldn't make it up:

http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/article.php?article_id=8108


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 10, 2006)

articul8 said:
			
		

> But he wasn't just "let in" to the organisation.  Hearse et al were let into the leadership at top level



Hearse shouldn't have been let into Militant at any level in my opinion. It's all before my time, but as I understand it that was the view of a minority of members at the time but the majority view was that he was committed, had real organisational talent and experience and was in political agreement with the organisation on the major issues confronting it at the time. I pass no judgement on his commitment or organisational talent, but on the issue of his politics it soon transpired that he hadn't shifted his views towards ours fundamentally. That still didn't mean he was kicked out by the way, members have rights after all.




			
				articul8 said:
			
		

> But doesn't this - ironically - confirm Hearse's accusation that your leadership is more a bureaucratic/managerial committee than a body which enjoys the political confidence of its membership?



The Socialist Party leading committees are a collective leadership with a wide variety of experience and backgrounds. These days for instance the Executive Committee is majority female. I actually find the kind of claims made by Hearse that Peter and Lynn dominate proceedings quite laughable as would anyone who has actually dealt with or known the people concerned.




			
				articul8 said:
			
		

> don't forget, this was the organisation that offered us the perspective of the "red nineties".



I'm not sure quite what this has to to do with any of the other things under discussion?   The single "Red Nineties" quote gives a very one sided and partial impression of Militant's views at the end of the eighties, but It's hardly a secret that the Socialist Party didn't see the collapse of the Soviet Union coming until very late. Neither did anyone else on the left, but we have less excuse given that our basic theory argued that Stalinism couldn't exist indefinitely. It's also hardly a secret that we didn't foresee the effects that that combined with a general capitalist offensive against the working class gains of the post war boom would have. Explaining what happened is something that we have tried to do at some length in the long years since.




			
				articul8 said:
			
		

> And to restore the balance of the debate - from what I know, I don't believe that the SP would have treated Matt in the same way, although he would have been pulled up for lack of party discipline.



Well yes, obviously he wouldn't have been treated like that. As for whether we would regard what he said as a breach of "party discipline", I rather doubt it. Someone might have told him to have a bit more cop on I suppose.




			
				articul8 said:
			
		

> But given that this has led us to discuss democratic centralist methods of organisation, isn't it right to look at all organisations claiming that particular mantle?



The Socialist Party doesn't use the term democratic centralism, but I've got no problem discussing our organisational ideas and methods if you like.


----------



## Pilgrim (Jan 10, 2006)

rebel warrior said:
			
		

> Just returned to Urban 75 - and I can't be bothered reading through this thread - though it seems this thread is about SWP Conference.
> 
> Well, I didn't go myself, but if anyone wants to know what happened at conference, there is a report in this weeks SW here:
> 
> ...



So, you can't be bothered to read the thread, and you didn't go to Conference, yet you are able to comment on what occurred.

Right...

Well, I'd go back and read the thread fully, acquaint yourself with how MattKidd12 was so shamefully and disgustingly treated, and then come back and we can debate fully. And we'll see what line the SWP CC have told you to push about this debacle.

Oh, and my offer of a debate about the Spanish Civil War (the debate which you have so far completely avoided) still stands.


----------



## articul8 (Jan 10, 2006)

Nigel Irritable said:
			
		

> * the majority view * was that he was committed, had real organisational talent and experience and was in political agreement with the organisation on the major issues confronting it at the time. I pass no judgement on his commitment or organisational talent, but on the issue of his politics it soon transpired that he hadn't shifted his views towards ours fundamentally.



But * where * was it the "majority view" - presumably amongst the leadership - how were the members of the party in a position to judge his "commitment and organisational talent", given that the first they knew was when some 'former' Mandelites arrived into the leadership of "their" party practically without pausing for breath.  Even if - as I take you to imply - it was a mistake and one which was regretted later, doesn't it make you at least reflect upon the supposedly 'democratic' structures of the organisation?  

And I wouldn't go so far as to argue that factions are - ipso facto - a sign of a healthy internal regime...but the fact that the Millie/SP tradition has only had EITHER an overwhelmingly homogenous character OR crippling splits (I know you go in for regicide periodically), but very rarely a serious example of divergence within an overall commitment to the party, would also suggest a cult-like mentality.   

And this has an effect on political outlook too - why, given that fact that the "red nineties" perspective was so manifestly out of kilter with reality, does there seem to have been so little opposition from the membership?


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Jan 10, 2006)

socialistsuzy said:
			
		

> hi,
> (i'm in the SP for anyones further knowledge)
> this is my first post on this forum and after reading the thread (took ages!!) i think matt was treated very badly, surely if someone had spoken to him and just said that he shouldn't post conference details on a public forum and there may be consequences if he does so again i'm sure he would've obliged, thus problem solved.
> 
> ...



Hi Suzy - I posted the link to the Hearse article originally.  I'm not in a position to judge the detailed rights and wrongs of Hearse's experience - and I've had my serious disagreements with him in the past before he joined the SP, so I'm always a bit cautious.  I did say in my post I thought the SP had got better since those days but I still think it is over centralist.  

However in the period that I had most contact with it - Militant in the 1980s - my experience was that this was an organisation that had severe shortcomings in the democracy department.  It was extremely dogmatic, sectarian to all other political currents and homogenous, with no indication of a functioning internal democracy and debate. It was no surprise that when the first two serious internal debates in thirty years came along - ending entrism and the dynamic in Scotland, they resulted in major splits and a process that reduced what was at one time one of the largest far left organisations in the world to a shadow of its former self.  

Having observed closely Militant's operation in the LPYS and Labour Party in the 1980s, including the role of Hatton et al in Liverpool, I also can't agree with Nigel's contention that the ISM in Scotland represents a shift to the right.

In terms of why Hearse was allowed to join Militant, Nigel has his own opinion, but there is no doubt that the leadership welcomed him in with open arms, even reporting it in a news story in the paper.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 10, 2006)

Shut up about Hearse. This is why you people never beceome editors, There's a story here and the story is very def not hearse.


----------



## socialistsuzy (Jan 10, 2006)

> The Socialist Party leading committees are a collective leadership with a wide variety of experience and backgrounds. These days for instance the Executive Committee is majority female. I actually find the kind of claims made by Hearse that Peter and Lynn dominate proceedings quite laughable as would anyone who has actually dealt with or known the people concerned.



i agree, the EC has people from a wide range of backgrounds and is very democratic, there is a lot of debate and dicussion within it and i know for a fact that where one or two members have argued against what the others think the discussion has been taken to all levels of the party from EC to the branches and a decision is made that way. in one case an EC member (possibly two) managed to swing the decision of the EC through this democratic debate and discussion. also when certain things are being discussed the EC invites members involved, for instance if the EC was discussing the elections they would probably invite our councillors etc. the idea that peter and lynn dominate is ridiculous, the members on the EC are all very good at what they do and the discussion amongst them is very equal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by articul8
don't forget, this was the organisation that offered us the perspective of the "red nineties". 

everyone makes mistakes, a tiny quote from a book is not the best way to discredit the SP. we in the SP have had many a joke about that quote with tony mulhearn and peter  jokingly claiming it was the other that wrote it.

xsuzannex


----------



## rebel warrior (Jan 10, 2006)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> Shut up about Hearse. This is why you people never beceome editors, There's a story here and the story is very def not hearse.



Yep, the real story here is the apparent new 'reapproachment' between butchersapron and Sorry - its truly beautiful, guys.   I do hope things can be patched up between you two...


----------



## levien (Jan 10, 2006)

rebel warrior said:
			
		

> Oh, and is Matt Kidd12 _the_ Matt Kidd?  Shit, I thought he had better politics than that...



Come on catch up reb - that was fairly obvious.

As to refering Matt to the DC i still think that in itself is resonable.  And voting to remove someone from conference who has broken the rules of said event is normal procedure in any organisation.  As I have said before I know nothing of the contact between Matt and the CC/ Conference Arrangements Committee and can't comment.  As I said before if he choses to stay in the party I'll speak for him at Disputes Committee as I don't think he meant any harm and was at the time a loyal party member.

Anyway the conference reports are infact pretty balanced and a flare represention of both the mildly annoying and the interesting bits of party conference.


----------



## mk12 (Jan 10, 2006)

Well, the SW article doesn't give a true reflection of the conference. And I noticed this:

"Jess, a student at Manchester Metropolitan University..."

Naming names in public? 

And why didn't the paper mention the delegate (she/he'll remain nameless) who said that hopefully she/he could win over "communists" in the branch to the "parliamentary road", as this is the "correct" view? 

Reporting on conference in publications is fine, and should be encouraged. But, as John Molyneux had argued, a little more honest wouldn't go amiss.



> I thought he had better politics than that...



Better politics? Expand for me...


----------



## Pilgrim (Jan 10, 2006)

rebel warrior said:
			
		

> Yep, the real story here is the apparent new 'reapproachment' between butchersapron and Sorry - its truly beautiful, guys.   I do hope things can be patched up between you two...



Finished reading the whole thread yet, RW?

Are we now to be regaled with your (the SWP CC's, TBH) version of what happened to MattKidd12?

When you're ready...


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 10, 2006)

rebel warrior said:
			
		

> Yep, the real story here is the apparent new 'reapproachment' between butchersapron and Sorry - its truly beautiful, guys.   I do hope things can be patched up between you two...


 What an odd post, yeah we love each other but you hope we make it up?! Eh? With some misunderstanding of foerign words/ concepts and what they mean. A corker as ever from RW.


----------



## levien (Jan 10, 2006)

mattkidd12 said:
			
		

> Well, the SW article doesn't give a true reflection of the conference. And I noticed this:
> 
> "Jess, a student at Manchester Metropolitan University..."
> 
> ...



The distinction is that SW will have checked with the comrades concerned and the relevent bodies of the party (in this case the CC will have known that and not refered the author to the DC.)

Better Politics - post up the IB article you wrote as it is the thing RW is working off then it'll be an open debate otherwise its fairly pointless.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 10, 2006)

levien said:
			
		

> The distinction is that SW will have checked with the comrades concerned and the relevent bodies of the party (in this case the CC will have known that and not refered the author to the DC.)
> 
> Better Politics - post up the IB article you wrote as it is the thing RW is working off then it'll be an open debate otherwise its fairly pointless.


 So you're arguing that the rules are applied across the boards consistently? Do you want to open that door?


----------



## Sorry. (Jan 10, 2006)

rebel warrior said:
			
		

> Yep, the real story here is the apparent new 'reapproachment' between butchersapron and Sorry - its truly beautiful, guys.   I do hope things can be patched up between you two...



what the fuck are you on about? Difficult questions to answer and suddenly you're back on your tedious accusation that I happen to agree with another anarchist. Who'da thunk it?


----------



## rebel warrior (Jan 10, 2006)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> What an odd post, yeah we love each other but you hope we make it up?! Eh? With some misunderstanding of foerign words/ concepts and what they mean. A corker as ever from RW.



Shit - clearly touched on a bit of a nerve there...

Actually, I think you need to consult a dictionary.  

Rapproachment (I spelt it wrong) is simply the 'reestablishing of cordial relations, as between two countries' or 'The state of reconciliation or of cordial relations.' 

From the [French, from rapprocher, to bring together  : re-, re- + approcher, to approach (from Old French aprochier. See approach).]

So you and Sorry seemed to have now reestablished cordial relations - I hoped that you might be able to now patch up the remaining differences between you - that was all.

I didn't realise there was love involved too, but well...


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 10, 2006)

rebel warrior said:
			
		

> Shit - clearly touched on a bit of a nerve there...
> 
> Actually, I think you need to consult a dictionary.
> 
> Rapproachment (I spelt it wrong)


 There was never any falling out. You're drivel.


----------



## rebel warrior (Jan 10, 2006)

Sorry. said:
			
		

> what the fuck are you on about? Difficult questions to answer and suddenly you're back on your tedious accusation that I happen to agree with another anarchist. Who'da thunk it?



Yep, clearly struck a raw nerve here.  There is still much to be resolved between both of you indeed.  Still, good luck - hope it works out.


----------



## rebel warrior (Jan 10, 2006)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> There was never any falling out. You're drivel.



Never any falling out?

Hmm - I doubt Sorry saw it that way...


----------



## mk12 (Jan 10, 2006)

levien said:
			
		

> Better Politics - post up the IB article you wrote as it is the thing RW is working off then it'll be an open debate otherwise its fairly pointless.



Can't be bothered with the other thing - it's a new thing i've done wrong, that the CC member who rang me didn't mention on phone.

The issues I raised in IB were about lack of democracy in the party. Very comradely to call it "shit politics".


----------



## Pilgrim (Jan 10, 2006)

rebel warrior said:
			
		

> Shit - clearly touched on a bit of a nerve there...
> 
> Actually, I think you need to consult a dictionary.
> 
> ...



Patronising and irrelevent to the thread in hand as usual.

Well done, RW.

Some questions for you. Now, I've asked them before and you're still pretending they don't exist, but I'll try one more time...

1. Have you actually read the whole thread and familiarised yourself with the discussion at hand?

2. What is your opinion (yours, not the SWP CC's) about the shameful and base treatment meted out to MattKidd12 at Conference?

Simple enough for you?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 10, 2006)

rebel warrior said:
			
		

> Never any falling out?
> 
> Hmm - I doubt Sorry saw it that way...


 Drunken junior trots are not the best at satire i thought to myself...


----------



## mk12 (Jan 10, 2006)

rebel warrior said:
			
		

> Never any falling out?
> 
> Hmm - I doubt Sorry saw it that way...



What has this got to do with anything?


----------



## cockneyrebel (Jan 10, 2006)

> The distinction is that SW will have checked with the comrades concerned and the relevent bodies of the party (in this case the CC will have known that and not refered the author to the DC.)



Levien, the names that Matt mentioned are all in the SW and in the public domain. So how the fuck can it be problem him mentioning them. Can you explain the logic?

And why wasn't Matt told about the suspension/conference discussion before it happened, it's basic democracy. I don't buy that someone phoned him, why wouldn't they have left a message on the answer machine?


----------



## Sorry. (Jan 10, 2006)

mattkidd12 said:
			
		

> What has this got to do with anything?



he'd rather avoid talking about the topic at hand.


----------



## rebel warrior (Jan 10, 2006)

mattkidd12 said:
			
		

> Can't be bothered with the other thing - it's a new thing i've done wrong, that the CC member who rang me didn't mention on phone.
> 
> The issues I raised in IB were about lack of democracy in the party. Very comradely to call it "shit politics".



I didn't say - and nowhere have I ever said - you had 'shit politics' - PM me if you want to know what I really think about it all - I'm not going to go into it here.


----------



## mk12 (Jan 10, 2006)

No, you're right. You said "Shit, I thought he had better politics than that..." Apologies.


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Jan 10, 2006)

neprimerimye said:
			
		

> My apologies for the length of the post. But is is highly relevant to this discussion. What we are seeing from some SWP contributors here is an attempt to claim that Matts suspension is justified on grounds of a breach of discipline. Which is an attempt to divert attention from the very strong probability that his suspension has actually resulted from his voicing criticisms of the leadership of the SWP.
> 
> In my opinion Matts suspension is the result of a long process of degeneration within the SWP which dates back a long way. Duncans document, which has not as yet appeared on the MIA I note, represents a politics which in many respects is very different to that of the SWP in 2006. Some aspects of the document are, as i remarked bombastic and overly boastful, but he also raises some excellent arguments against electoral blocs which can easily be applied to Respect today.
> 
> ...




I found the post interesting though dated.  Some observations:

1) All the rubbish Hallas spouts about the so-called 'Rank&File' Movement and the STA etc was abandoned by the SWP shortly afterwards.  The fact that the STA still exists today, 30 years on, as one of the strongest of the left wing groupings in a british union, indicates how the IMG perspective at the time was right and the SWP's barmy.

2) The stuff on elections is certainly amusing to read but stupid.  Obviously there are some such as neprimerimye with rose-tinted nostalgia for the 'splendid isolation' of revolutionaries.  Fortunately the SWP have abandoned that too, since the days of the Socialist Alliance.  So again I think the IMG were far-sighted and basically right.  Ironically, the best result for Socialist Unity was in Tower Hamlets, where Hilda Kean came second with 20% of the vote in a council by-election in Spitalfields in 1977 beating the tories and the Nazis.  It's important to realise though that the IMG still maintained an entry fraction in the Labour Party throughout the 1970s - one prominent former Labour parliamentary candidate I knew was recruited by the IMG then and remained inside the LP; they also had a member selected for council election in Oxford who nearly won a seat as a Labour candidate on the same day that Socialist Unity were standing in the 1979 general election.  One of the minorities in 1978 actually argued for abandoning SU and going wholesale into the Labour Party then (no surprise it was the one I supported) winning over 10% of the vote at conference (publicly acknowledged in Socialist Challenge I recall.  The mistake the IMG made was believing that the SWP could actually be won to a united organisation and wasting a lot of time and effort on it meant they took their eye off the Labour Party and were too slow there, leaving the terrain free for Militant (and Socialist Organiser to a much lesser extent); plus all the rubbish about the turn to industry imported from the US SWP that decimated the largely public sector membership.

3) Say what you like about the Fourth International, but the fact remains that it is there, it is real, and is the largest grouping of revolutionary socialists in the world.  The LCR is clearly the most significant far left organisation in Europe, and the FI is making ground in Portugal and Denmark, where it has national MPs elected for the broader left parties.  It is the largest opposition group inside the Italian PCR and is the only organised alternative to the SWP in Respect.  While it has made mistakes in Brazil, that it has self-criticised, its member Héloisa Helena is leading the building of an alternative to Lula and is likely to get one of the highest votes every recorded anywhere in the world for a revolutionary candidate in the presidential elections later this year.  That these different revolutionary organisations remain united in a single international is something that none of the sects that fall apart at the slightest disagreement can compare with.


----------



## Pilgrim (Jan 10, 2006)

Sorry. said:
			
		

> he'd rather avoid talking about the topic at hand.



Having asked him simple questions (and on a number of threads apart from this one) and been completely ignored, this seems like a pretty acurate summing up of RW's debating style.


----------



## sihhi (Jan 10, 2006)

mattkidd12 said:
			
		

> What has this got to do with anything?



^^ Ditto.


----------



## mk12 (Jan 10, 2006)

cockneyrebel said:
			
		

> And why wasn't Matt told about the suspension/conference discussion before it happened, it's basic democracy. I don't buy that someone phoned him, why wouldn't they have left a message on the answer machine?



The thing is, they may have tried to ring me. I wasn't aware of this, but even if they did try, and couldn't get hold of me, is it constitutional/in the rules (i havent seen the rules) to go ahead with the suspension anyway?


----------



## Chuck Wilson (Jan 10, 2006)

rebel warrior said:
			
		

> Gareth Steadman Jones style posts?  I'm intrigued.
> 
> Oh, and is Matt Kidd12 _the_ Matt Kidd?  Shit, I thought he had better politics than that...



Makes note not to ever engage rebel as a private detective..................


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 10, 2006)

Chuck Wilson said:
			
		

> Makes note not to ever engage rebel as a private detective..................


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Jan 10, 2006)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> Shut up about Hearse. This is why you people never beceome editors, There's a story here and the story is very def not hearse.



2 short paras about Hearse.  2 longer paras about democracy and political line in Militant/SP as a potential alternative to the SWP.  I don't see what the problem is.  

And it's very rude to tell people to 'shut up' in an open forum debate, not to mention a suppression and disregard of democracy and freedom of expression that ironically is the topic of debate!


----------



## Chuck Wilson (Jan 10, 2006)

mattkidd12 said:
			
		

> The thing is, they may have tried to ring me. I wasn't aware of this, but even if they did try, and couldn't get hold of me, is it constitutional/in the rules (i havent seen the rules) to go ahead with the suspension anyway?



In most circumstances  the decision to suspend is made without involving the person who is to be suspended and has been made before the person is told. I don't think 'constitutionally' is the way to fight it Matt.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 10, 2006)

Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> 2 short paras about Hearse.  2 longer paras about democracy and political line in Militant/SP as a potential alternative to the SWP.  I don't see what the problem is.
> 
> And it's very rude to tell people to 'shut up' in an open forum debate, not to mention a suppression and disregard of democracy and freedom of expression that ironically is the topic of debate!


 I Can i suspend you?  What power do i have Fred? Which body are we voting to mvoe someting to? The analogy is a joke.


----------



## levien (Jan 11, 2006)

Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> I found the post interesting though dated.  Some observations:



1) By definition rank and file movements will not survive a period of trade union retreats and defeats as well as a broad left but thats not a convincing argument for one over the other.  A really odd argument.

2) The idea of a revolutionary election platform for elections in either the 70's or now is a stratergy the SWP still rejects and criticised LCR-LO platform in France for adopting. Our analysis of electorial work has always been either one of profiling or an attempt to attract left-reformist elements into a centrist organisation that can break the hegenomy of the Labour Party.  a stratergy the 4th has completely failed to get its head around.


3)  I wasn't under the impression from the 4th international camp that they considered themselves much bigger or smaller then the IST but I could be wrong.  More important is the fact that the 4th is very weak on the question of the party focusing on constant pleas for unity and reducing the political clarity of the organisations in it.  The main problem is that the 4th has (despite being on of the best currents to survive the downturn) a lot of weak politics around oppression, party and class and the social basis of reformism.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 11, 2006)

levien said:
			
		

> 1) *By definition rank and file movements will not survive a period of trade union retreats and defeats as well as a broad left* but thats not a convincing argument for one over the other.  A really odd argument.



Yes it is, Have another go, What do you mean? With your experience of  'mass work'. of course. Hard day at campus cliffy? Lev? RW? Summer job?


----------



## Chuck Wilson (Jan 11, 2006)

Very disapointed to read this about the way in which Workers Power also treat members who disagree:



> In 1991 Brian Green and eight other comrades in Workers Power launched a tendency. Challenging the leadership’s confused line that the disintegration of Stalinism had opened up a world revolutionary period, within which however a counter-revolutionary situation had simultaneously developed, this tendency proposed that the world period was fundamentally counter-revolutionary. Brian Green went on to argue that the ex-Stalinist countries had restored capitalism and that it was wrong to continue calling them workers’ states. He wrote a major book on world economy, but the League vetoed its publication. He was removed from every commission and ostracised. Later on, the LRCI forbade members to live in the same house as him.



Seems it bit draconian as well.


----------



## mk12 (Jan 11, 2006)

From SW:



> After that debate, which the whole conference agreed was conducted in the best democratic traditions of the party, delegates voted by 208 to 57 with 11 abstentions for the leadership’s proposal.



Why was this published in the paper?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 11, 2006)

A generally interesting post up until point 3 where it all goes crazy.




			
				Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> 3) Say what you like about the Fourth International, but the fact remains that it is there, it is real, and is the largest grouping of revolutionary socialists in the world.



If you are talking about the USFI, one of the many supposed "Fourth Internationals", it is certainly there and real, but I don't see by what criteria it can be judged the largest grouping of revolutionary socialists in the world even if you imagine them to be revolutionaries in the first place. One of the other "Fourth Internationals", that of the Lambertists has more members than it for instance. And that's assuming we limiting ourselves to self proclaimed Trotskyists as the only revolutionary socialists we consider.




			
				Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> The LCR is clearly the most significant far left organisation in Europe



Except that it isn't even the most significant far left organisation in France, let alone Europe.




			
				Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> It is the largest opposition group inside the Italian PCR



Except that (a) it isn't an opposition group but spends most of its time sucking up to the reformist leadership and (b) it is in any case smaller than the Ernesto and Progetto groups amongst others.




			
				Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> and is the only organised alternative to the SWP in Respect.



There is no organised alternative to the SWP in Respect of any weight whatsoever.




			
				Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> While it has made mistakes in Brazil,



This is a rather understated way of saying that it took Ministerial office in a right wing government and that its members still include the Minister for making sure that the Brazilian landless poor stay both landless and poor!




			
				Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> That these different revolutionary organisations remain united in a single international



They are united only by the shared delusion that they are *The* *Fourth* *International*, an aversion towards building revolutionary organisations and a lack of any international structure which does anything of note.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 11, 2006)

articul8 said:
			
		

> how were the members of the party in a position to judge his "commitment and organisational talent", given that the first they knew was when some 'former' Mandelites arrived into the leadership of "their" party practically without pausing for breath.



As I said this was a long time before my time so I'm not up on the details, but as I understand it there was quite a wide discussion in the organisation about Hearse joining and his role.




			
				articul8 said:
			
		

> doesn't it make you at least reflect upon the supposedly 'democratic' structures of the organisation?



I don't follow this. If Hearse had promptly been booted back out on his hole then it might make we worry about the democratic structures of the organisation, but he wasn't. I don't think that allowing people from other socialist traditions to join and then trying to make use of their experience and abilities has anything much to do with a lack of democracy. The only thing it might make me worry about is some people's character judgement!




			
				articul8 said:
			
		

> but the fact that the Millie/SP tradition has only had EITHER an overwhelmingly homogenous character OR crippling splits (I know you go in for regicide periodically), but very rarely a serious example of divergence within an overall commitment to the party



Firstly a point of information - there are regularly factions in the Committee for a Workers International although most are limited to one section or another. They have rarely led to splits. In Britain there was very little history of serious factional disagreements for a long period essentially because the organisation had a very long term perspective, which was what people joined on the basis of, and which seemed to be working. It was only towards the end of the 1980s, with the drastic move to the right by the Labour Party, that things began to change and all kinds of disagreements arose. Since then there have been two major outbreaks of factional debate, both around what were real and serious issues.

The first was over leaving the Labour Party. The second was over whether or not a revolutionary party was necessary. Both of these discussions were prolonged and detailed and I think very informative. But in both cases there was no conceivable way that the two sides could have stayed in the same organisation afterwards. That isn't because they had some disagreements within an overall framework of commitment to the party. It's because the things they were were arguing for were completely incompatible. There was no way that people who think that working outside of the Labour Party is a disastrous idea can or should stay in the same political group as people who are determined to work outside of that party. In the long run it would be equally counterproductive for people who don't think building a revolutionary party is necessary to stay as members of an organisation which is centrally about building a revolutionary party!

But anyway, the details of both discussions and the documents from all sides are freely available on our websites and people are free to make up their own minds: http://www.marxist.net




			
				articul8 said:
			
		

> And this has an effect on political outlook too - why, given that fact that the "red nineties" perspective was so manifestly out of kilter with reality, does there seem to have been so little opposition from the membership?



Firstly, I've already explained to you that the "red nineties" quote gives a very one sided and partial picture of what Militant's perspective at the time was. Secondly, I've also pointed out that nobody on the left, including our leadership or our rank and file, saw the collapse of the Soviet Union and the attendant problems of the 1990s coming. No massive opposition developed because as circumstances changed the organisation as a whole set about analysing what was actually happening and developing a new set of perspectives - culminating in the idea of a new workers party to redevelop working class political representation. 

If we'd spent the 1990s banging on about how wonderful everything was and nobody had said a thing we'd be talking about a completely different situation.

Anyway, butchers has a point that maybe this discussion would be better off elsewhere to avoid further derailment. I've no problem going to PMs or if you want you could start a new thread?


----------



## Pilgrim (Jan 11, 2006)

mattkidd12 said:
			
		

> From SW:
> 
> 
> 
> Why was this published in the paper?



This confirms my previous suspicion that you are a sacrificial lamb.

There was too much dissent, and open dissent at that (and in the eyes of the SWP CC, all dissent is bad) and the CC decided to make an example of someone. They couldn't take on someone as senior as Molyneux directly, so you got picked.

And the speed with which this was done suggests to me that the SWP CC had something like this in mind even before Conference. They waited to see if there was enough dissent to require some sort of cull, and when there was, you (having spoken out openly against the CC line) were the obvious choice.

This is basically the CC's way of letting the rank and file know what will happen to people who don't fall in line immediately and on every issue.


----------



## mk12 (Jan 11, 2006)

I don't think it's as much of a "conspiracy" as you are saying, but I am interested to know why I have been suspended for saying the same things as it says in the SW report. Is it because I didn't ask beforehand?


----------



## sihhi (Jan 11, 2006)

mattkidd12 said:
			
		

> I don't think it's as much of a "conspiracy" as you are saying, but I am interested to know why I have been suspended for saying the same things as it says in the SW report. Is it because I didn't ask beforehand?



Expressing too many critical thoughts about the SWP CC here and elsewhere???


----------



## mk12 (Jan 11, 2006)

I mean officially though. (going by the phone call), I was suspended for posting up some things about the conference on this web-board. Then SW prints near enough the same things as me in public. So basically, it's because _I didn't ask if i could_.


----------



## catch (Jan 11, 2006)

Groucho said:
			
		

> Members need to feel free to speak out without fear that their words will be (mis)used against them and their party by the media and other hostile forces.


Hostile forces like the CC you mean?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 11, 2006)

"Members need to feel free to speak out without fear that their words will be (mis)used against them..."


----------



## sihhi (Jan 11, 2006)

mattkidd12 said:
			
		

> I mean officially though. (going by the phone call), I was suspended for posting up some things about the conference on this web-board. Then SW prints near enough the same things as me in public. So basically, it's because _I didn't ask if i could_.



I Reckon They would have "done you" on something else at some other point in time.


----------



## cockneyrebel (Jan 11, 2006)

> Later on, the LRCI forbade members to live in the same house as him.



I've read that before, and from everything I've known about WP this has to be bollox. If I thought for a minute that WP would do things like stop people living with ex members then I'd leave on the spot.

As it goes the arguments from that tendency about what was happening around that time seem pretty spot on. Indeed WP took on those arguments in the early 90s.

Chuck you didn't get back to me about the IWCA. Does it have a national leadership body, does it publish membership figures, publish internal disagreements etc


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 11, 2006)

sihhi said:
			
		

> I Reckon They would have "done you" on something else at some other point in time.


Exactly, which is why talk of 'the rules' on this is bollocks. Once the rules are owned by a clique then you should probably stop obeying them on principle.


----------



## mk12 (Jan 11, 2006)

> Chuck you didn't get back to me about the IWCA. Does it have a national leadership body, does it publish membership figures, publish internal disagreements etc



I had a look around their site. It's not on there. But if a member of the IWCA said who was in the leadership, or publically declared what the membership was, then I don't think they'd get disciplined. I remember one Hackney Independent member criticising some aspects of the HI on here, and seemed completely at ease in doing so.


----------



## Sorry. (Jan 11, 2006)

mattkidd12 said:
			
		

> I had a look around their site. It's not on there. But if a member of the IWCA said who was in the leadership, or publically declared what the membership was, then I don't think they'd get disciplined. I remember one Hackney Independent member criticising some aspects of the HI on here, and seemed completely at ease in doing so.



It's under structure 

and even has a diagram


----------



## mk12 (Jan 11, 2006)

But no names. Or reports of previous meetings.


----------



## where to (Jan 11, 2006)

rebel warrior you seem to be happy to make petty jibes, but you're not going to read the thread or comment on events, why? given some of the accusations in this thread, i'd have thought you'd want to answer them.


----------



## Pilgrim (Jan 11, 2006)

where to said:
			
		

> rebel warrior you seem to be happy to make petty jibes, but you're not going to read the thread or comment on events, why? given some of the accusations in this thread, i'd have thought you'd want to answer them.



Hnag around for a while, and you'll pretty soon realise that RW isn't one to indulge in debate where he has even the tiniest chane of losing. 

Which is most of the time.

I've challenged RW a number of times, on this thread and others, to debate on various issues. His usual response has been to disappear until he thinks the debate has moved on to other issues, rather than take on whoever offers the challenge. Either that or simply ignore any questions posed as though the posters asking them don't exist.

RW won't comment on what happened to mattkidd12 simply because he knows that what was done by the SWP is completely and utterly indefensible. That and RW is utterly incapable of giving out anyhting that hasn't been approved by his masters at SWP HQ.

So, if you want a reasonable debate with RW, then you may be in for a long wait.


----------



## Mr T (Jan 11, 2006)

its late and i'm in a bad mood because i'm going to fail my exam tomorrow so heres a couple of interesting/ridiculous quotes from this weeks SW:



> Alex Callinicos, moving the leadership’s proposal, welcomed a contested election as a useful way of clarifying those questions.
> 
> As some of the difference between the two positions was an assessment of the party’s performance during the 1990s, he said, “After the fall of the Berlin Wall much of the left globally and in Britain were paralysed by what they saw as an historic defeat.
> 
> “The SWP resisted that conclusion… We came out of the 1990s larger and stronger than when we went in.”





> Later in the conference, Sue Bond from the PCS civil service workers’ union executive told delegates, “There is often a pessimism at the top of unions that underestimates the mood of the membership.



Discuss.


----------



## flimsier (Jan 11, 2006)

Moira Nolan is on the CC. Holy shit! I used to live with her!


----------



## mutley (Jan 11, 2006)

mattkidd12 said:
			
		

> I don't think it's as much of a "conspiracy" as you are saying, but I am interested to know why I have been suspended for saying the same things as it says in the SW report. Is it because I didn't ask beforehand?



You posted up peoples names without asking them or anyone else. The names in sw eg 'Jess the student' will be people for whom there is no risk of victimisation at work or whatever, and that will have been checked by the journalists.

Also there's a strong suspicion in some quarters that you are the ww mole. I know from ur posts on here that you aren't, but as you don't want to fight the issue..


----------



## flimsier (Jan 11, 2006)

Errm, SW have printed my name without permission and without checking with me (or anyone).


----------



## mk12 (Jan 11, 2006)

mutley said:
			
		

> Also there's a strong suspicion in some quarters that you are the ww mole. I know from ur posts on here that you aren't, but as you don't want to fight the issue..



Guilty until proven innocent...


----------



## neprimerimye (Jan 11, 2006)

Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> I found the post interesting though dated.  Some observations:
> 
> 1) All the rubbish Hallas spouts about the so-called 'Rank&File' Movement and the STA etc was abandoned by the SWP shortly afterwards.  The fact that the STA still exists today, 30 years on, as one of the strongest of the left wing groupings in a british union, indicates how the IMG perspective at the time was right and the SWP's barmy.
> 
> ...



Frankly I posted up Duncan's old article for the information of the SWP and former SWPers on these boards. The contrast between the practice of the SWP in 1977 and 2006 is something that needs drawing out if an understanding of what the SWP is today can be arrived at. In no sense should it be presumed that I agree with every value judegement that Duncan makes in his article. As I originally noted there is more than a hint of bombast in what was an article for internal use only and some of Duncans views exhibit politics at variance with those he had fought for only a few years previously. If I have  roseat view of any period of the IS/SWP it is this earlier period and not the early years of the SWP which I experienced in person.

As for the specific points you raised they are easily dispensed with.

1/ Say what you will the facts of the IMG led sectarian split in Teachers Rank and File are as presented in the doc. The SWP did abandon attempts to build R&F groups a few years later in 1981 and we should have done so earlier. But such groups could not be built in the conditions of the 1980's something which was far from clear in 1977. Yes the STA still exists but it is not in any sense a R&F grouping but a Broad Left type formation a very different creature more concerned with winning positions than forging an alternative in the schools.

2/ The section on elections is the weakest part of the article. Duncan bends the stick somewhat in a style more typical of Cliff than his more polished contributions. But the general thrust that revolutionaries stand in elections to build a revolutionary alternative not an unstable unprincipled coalition stands. In fact that applies with far more force to Respect than it ever did to 'Socialist Unity' (sic). What I think you fail to note is the balance of forces between the far left groups and more importantly between the classes then and now both. No wonder given that spurious unity projects are a fetish for the USFI!

3/ What rubbish you write concerning the USFI. The fact is that this international tendency is held together by inertia and little else. Your series of boasts concerning it are just that empty boasts far worse than Duncans in 1977. The fact is that most revolutionaries claiming to stand in the tradition of Trotsky are not in the USFI and that such groups have equally as valid, or invalid as the case may be, claims to political continuity with the real FI which the founders of the USFI destroyed politically.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jan 11, 2006)

mattkidd12 said:
			
		

> Guilty until proven innocent...



And as such neatly in step with Tony Blair's new Respect Agenda.

Louis Mac


----------



## Pilgrim (Jan 11, 2006)

mutley said:
			
		

> You posted up peoples names without asking them or anyone else. The names in sw eg 'Jess the student' will be people for whom there is no risk of victimisation at work or whatever, and that will have been checked by the journalists.
> 
> Also there's a strong suspicion in some quarters that you are the ww mole. I know from ur posts on here that you aren't, but as you don't want to fight the issue..



And what precisely would be the point in fighting the issue?

The SWP CC already seem to have made their decision, and I doubt very much that they will change their mind.

Personally, I'd like to see Matt fight this issue as hard as possible and expose to all and sundry precisely what kind of shabby, undemocratic and unaccountable behaviour the SWP CC like to indulge in. But he probably won't, because he's a much nicer person than that.

If Matt had been PM'd and asked to delete the offending post, then I'm sure he would have been happy to do so. Instead of a simple PM and, more than likely, a quick response, the repulsive little rat responsible for this little farrago immediately went and informed on Matt to the SWP CC like the lowlife grass they are.


----------



## articul8 (Jan 11, 2006)

Nigel Irritable said:
			
		

> Anyway, butchers has a point that maybe this discussion would be better off elsewhere to avoid further derailment.



True.  I think there is a need for an open debate about the realities of the present-day parties which adhere to Leninist forms of organisation (whether you call it "DC" or something else).   

But, for now, let's watch the SWP try to justify the unjustifiable...


----------



## cockneyrebel (Jan 11, 2006)

> You posted up peoples names without asking them or anyone else. The names in sw eg 'Jess the student' will be people for whom there is no risk of victimisation at work or whatever, and that will have been checked by the journalists.
> 
> Also there's a strong suspicion in some quarters that you are the ww mole. I know from ur posts on here that you aren't, but as you don't want to fight the issue..



Mutley what you're saying doesn't make sense. The names that matt put up were already in the public domain and have all be published by Socialist Worker several times, including recently. It's nonsense to say that permission was needed.

As for the WW mole I think I might know who it is by the way. And it's certainly not matt. But as matt says, the CC seems to have decided the guilty until proven innocent line.

On a side note if there were 275 delegates at the conference, and if the SWP still has a 10:1 ratio for delegates, doesn't that make their membership claims a nonsense?


----------



## where to (Jan 11, 2006)

fuck all this stuff about names - they've stuck up PHOTOS of people attending conference ffs!

pilgrim- i've been a spectator for years. i know its in rebels nature to go into hiding at this point, but this issue is different from the usual ones. this isn't his being forced to excuse the indefensible, this is him more personal.

i've never had you down as a RAT before rebel warrior. i might not have taken your politics terribly seriously, but i always thought you were a wellmeaning guy, with just a little too much faith in yr ideology/ masters. right now thats going out the window. i'm starting to think you're a cunt of the highest order. you might not really care, but i do. i really don't want my perception of you to change after reading yr posts for three years, i want you to defend your position and hopefully i can find a way of understanding where you're coming from without having to label you a cunt.

i reckon i am speaking for a few other non-alligned silent spectators who read like me but don't generally post in UK P+P. 

if you won't do that for yourself, do it for the sect you represent.


----------



## flimsier (Jan 11, 2006)

Yep, Rebel's revealed himself as something of a cunt.


----------



## Pilgrim (Jan 11, 2006)

where to said:
			
		

> fuck all this stuff about names - they've stuck up PHOTOS of people attending conference ffs!
> 
> pilgrim- i've been a spectator for years. i know its in rebels nature to go into hiding at this point, but this issue is different from the usual ones. this isn't his being forced to excuse the indefensible, this is him more personal.
> 
> ...



I wonder whether RW's tendency to disappear when challenged is a product of his usually pisspoor debating style, or is it that he is only allowed to post with the consent of the SWP CC, who will of course have approved to the letter whatever cobblers he's posting at any given time?

In fairness to RW, we still don't know, as far as I'm aware anyway, who actually turned informer and caused this mess. Although if we can find out, it'd be nice to expose them as publicly and widely as possible.


----------



## Streathamite (Jan 11, 2006)

errmm...i don't wanna wade through the whole damn thread again, for fear I'll lose the will to live....so  can anyone please tell me if Rebel Warrior has been DEFINITELY ID'ed as the grass who tucked matt up?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 11, 2006)

Red Jezza said:
			
		

> errmm...i don't wanna wade through the whole damn thread again, for fear I'll lose the will to live....so  can anyone please tell me if Rebel Warrior has been DEFINITELY ID'ed as the grass who tucked matt up?


 He hasn't no. Mutley has said that he agrees with the CC's action.  All other SWP members have drawn their brakes in a very principled manner.


----------



## Streathamite (Jan 11, 2006)

ahhh....ta for that. it just leaves me wondering if any of 'em realise they look so bad after this.


----------



## Matt S (Jan 11, 2006)

Do SWP members really believe that their jobs could be in jeopardy from being 'outed'? Are they really that self-important, or am I missing something?

It's not as if they are a threat to the state or anything! 

Matt


----------



## Pilgrim (Jan 11, 2006)

Matt S said:
			
		

> Do SWP members really believe that their jobs could be in jeopardy from being 'outed'? Are they really that self-important, or am I missing something?
> 
> It's not as if they are a threat to the state or anything!
> 
> Matt



Hardly a threat to the State indeed.

You can measure, with some but not total accuracy, how big a threat a group is deemed to be by the amount of State harrassment accorded to  its activists and operations.

Harrassment of the SWP, during my membership, none whatsoever that I could see.

Harrassment of Anarchists and direct action crews I've known and worked with, very significant.

That doesn't rule out the possibility of employers taking a dislike to SWP members, but I seriously doubt that there is some organised campaign to pick on the poor little Swappies in the same way that Anarchists and direct action crews seem to be targetted.


----------



## cockneyrebel (Jan 11, 2006)

Pilgrim not being bad but if you really think that state see a few hundred anarchos as a threat then you've got another thing coming.


----------



## belboid (Jan 11, 2006)

Matt S said:
			
		

> Do SWP members really believe that their jobs could be in jeopardy from being 'outed'? Are they really that self-important, or am I missing something?
> 
> It's not as if they are a threat to the state or anything!
> 
> Matt


it has happened before, and could very well do so again. Someone not confirmed in post could well find themselves with cards marked if they become a 'known troublemaker' (as many bosses would automatically assume an SWP member to be, knowing no better themselves).  (I can imagine in many places where their is existing 'industrial tension' (post office for example) it would go down very badly indeed.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 11, 2006)

That's not what he said CR, he said

"how big a threat a group *is deemed to be* by the amount of State harrassment accorded to its activists and operations."

i.e what the state thinks not those activists.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 11, 2006)

belboid said:
			
		

> it has happened before, and could very well do so again. Someone not confirmed in post could well find themselves with cards marked if they become a 'known troublemaker' (as many bosses would automatically assume an SWP member to be, knowing no better themselves).  (I can imagine in many places where their is existing 'industrial tension' (post office for example) it would go down very badly indeed.


 True, but we're talking about Pat Stack, JM and HL here! Not some anon little toiler. There is  no one who doesn't known who they belong to. And we're talking about the politically motivated decision to enforce the rules against one person and not others.


----------



## belboid (Jan 11, 2006)

oh absolutely, as an excuse in this instance, it's utterly laughable, as a general principle tho, I would agree.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 11, 2006)

Me too.


----------



## mutley (Jan 11, 2006)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> He hasn't no. Mutley has said that he agrees with the CC's action.  All other SWP members have drawn their brakes in a very principled manner.



Wasn't me. I'd have posted something saying it's out of order and PM'd him. But you're assuming that the person posts on here. Could be someone logging in regularly to see who's saying what and never posting.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 11, 2006)

Are you pointing the finger at moti? You think it was him/her?


----------



## jimmer (Jan 11, 2006)

Pilgrim said:
			
		

> You can measure, with some but not total accuracy, how big a threat a group is deemed to be by the amount of State harrassment accorded to  its activists and operations.


I don't think so, plenty of activist groups get a lot of hassle from the cops because they're a threat to public order, which is all a lot of activists seem able to threaten.


----------



## mutley (Jan 11, 2006)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> True, but we're talking about Pat Stack, JM and HL here! Not some anon little toiler. There is  no one who doesn't known who they belong to. And we're talking about the politically motivated decision to enforce the rules against one person and not others.



Look that's obviously bollocks. There's 'noone' that doesn't know these things?
Even quite a well known (on the left) swp member might leave full time swp work and have a period of keeping their nose keen with some boss who doesn't know the hard left 'who's who'.

Point is, Matt never asked the members he named, or the conference delegates in general, what it would be in oredr to publish. Speaking as someone else who was a delegate at the conference and who spoke it's out of order.


----------



## jimmer (Jan 11, 2006)

mutley said:
			
		

> Speaking as someone else who was a delegate at the conference and who spoke it's out of order.


 Were you speaking out against the CC?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 11, 2006)

mutley said:
			
		

> Look that's obviously bollocks. There's 'noone' that doesn't know these things?
> Even quite a well known (on the left) swp member might leave full time swp work and have a period of keeping their nose keen with some boss who doesn't know the hard left 'who's who'.
> 
> Point is, Matt never asked the members he named, or the conference delegates in general, what it would be in oredr to publish. Speaking as someone else who was a delegate at the conference and who spoke it's out of order.



No it's not. Do you really think Pat Stack or JM are in any way 'hidden' as SWP members - even when they've got their name in the SWP journals year after year (decade after decade in JMs case). Hl was standing as a candidate not less rhan ayear ago, he wass on the TV , the Radio and in the papers ffs! This faux naivity on your pert only makes it look even worse. 

Are you arguing for a full enfoprcement of those rule against every person who breaks them? If you were i would have some respect for your position - but you're not, you are defending a partial and poltically motivated enforcement of those rules. There is no way out of this.


----------



## rebel warrior (Jan 11, 2006)

Ok, this is briefly as I see it - given I did not go to Conference and have never met MattKidd12.  




			
				mattkidd12 said:
			
		

> I was suspended for posting up some things about the conference on this web-board. Then SW prints near enough the same things as me in public. So basically, it's because _I didn't ask if i could_.



No, it is not 'because you didn't ask if you could'.  It is, as I see it, _because while Conference was still going on_, you posted up a report about what was happening and had happened at Conference on a public webboard which is not just read by 'ex-socialists/the wider working class movement/etc' but by class enemies, fascists, the state and enemies of the SWP in general.  So before the rest of the membership of the SWP - to whom you were accountable as a delegate to conference after all - themselves had had any kind of report of the conference (whether through the paper or via meetings etc) - non members and enemies of the SWP already knew what was happening.  

As you admitted yourself on here afterwards, 'it's a breach of party discipline, talking about conference to non-members.'  Mentioning comrades names in full also hardly helped your case.   

As Cockneyrebel pointed out 'To be honest on that level they've kind of got you bang to rights. Agree or disagree, that is democratic centralism.'

Okay - so you breached democratic centralism.  Given that, the SWP, like any other working class organisation, had no choice but to discipline you - and it seems they chose to suspend you pending an enquiry.  They could have expelled you on the spot, but they wanted to hear your side of the story.  

You then had a choice.  As Cockney Rebel said, 'what you did was a pretty minor "breach"'.  If you had apologised to the SWP, and basically showed that you did understand that it was a breach of democratic centralism then it seems to me highly likely that the SWP would have reinstated you.  After all, you are still young.  The wider context of leaks to the WW hardly helped you, but as Mutley said, it is obvious to anyone who has read your posts on here you are not the WW mole.  You would have been able to prove you were not the mole.  

Rather than argue your case through the proper Party channels, you chose to leave the SWP at that point - which is your right.   However, for me at least - and again this is only how it seems to an ordinary SWP member looking at it from the outside - it seems the Party itself acted perfectly above board with respect to yourself - and indeed the only way any working class organisation can act in such circumstances.  It has nothing to do with clamping down on dissent in the Party, it is about ensuring that SWP members can say what they like at SWP conference, after all the sovereign body of the Party, without enemies of the working class also being privy to the debate.   We are, after all, a Leninist party committed to socialist revolution - not a debating society.


----------



## jimmer (Jan 11, 2006)

You're a moron.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 11, 2006)

rebel warrior said:
			
		

> Ok, this is briefly as I see it - given I did not go to Conference and have never met Matt Kidd.


 You just named him. Is mutley going to call for your suspension?


----------



## rebel warrior (Jan 11, 2006)

jimmer said:
			
		

> You're a moron.



If I don't say anything, I'm a cunt - if I give my opinion I'm a moron.  

Nice.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 11, 2006)

rebel warrior said:
			
		

> If I don't say anything, I'm a cunt - if I give my opinion I'm a moron.
> 
> Nice.


 Well to be fair you are both a cunt and a moron. So yep,fairplay.


----------



## Pilgrim (Jan 11, 2006)

rebel warrior said:
			
		

> Ok, this is briefly as I see it - given I did not go to Conference and have never met Matt Kidd.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Did you think that up all by yourself, or did someone from the SWP CC just dictate it down the phone to you?

You don't do yourself or your party any favours, do you RW?


----------



## jimmer (Jan 11, 2006)

Maybe he's in the CC?


----------



## rebel warrior (Jan 11, 2006)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> Well to be fair you are both a cunt and a moron. So yep,fairplay.



And a weasel too?  Any other insults while I'm here?


----------



## jimmer (Jan 11, 2006)

Only if you continue to display shit politics.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 11, 2006)

rebel warrior said:
			
		

> Ok, this is briefly as I see it - given I did not go to Conference and have never met Matt Kidd.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 You missed the others bits that CR raised - about the failure to impose the rule againsts those who agree with the CC, about the fact that this enforcement was motivated by the need to get rid of a political oppenent, that it challenges a whole seris of previous CC actions (or inactions). Are you, like Mutley going to to do your utmost ensure that these rules are followed 100%?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 11, 2006)

jimmer said:
			
		

> Only if you continue to display shit politics.


 Nah, i think his chararcter exists independent of his politics. He'd be a cunt whatevr sect he was in.


----------



## articul8 (Jan 11, 2006)

Nigel Irritable said:
			
		

> And where exactly did Lenin or Trotsky advocate that people should be kicked out for revealing what happened at a conference?  I can recall that Lenin advocated kicking Zinoviev and Kamenev out of the Bolsheviks for publishing the fact that the Bolsheviks were planning an insurrection, which is perhaps slightly more serious than announcing that John Molyneux got 50 something votes. Of course despite Lenin's advocacy, they weren't actually expelled even then.



So the Bolsheviks didn't 'expel' people who publilshed in advance direct plans for an insurrection - whilst the SWP rush to suspend someone who merely reports from a conference debate on a web board.  Spot the difference?

And which remarks of Matt's could - even conceivably - have been used by 'class enemies', fascists, the State etc.?  The names he gave are all well known SWPers.  He didn't even give details of the conference venue.

And, yes, I can see that his actions are a very minor breach of party discipline - but remember, Matt was posting here about his * loyality * to the party, and explaining why he thought it could be reformed in a positive direction.

[and PS you are just as guilty - revealing people's real names - Ok it wasn't hard to guess, but Mattkidd12 could have been a pure pseudonym]


----------



## jimmer (Jan 11, 2006)

articul8 said:
			
		

> explaining why he thought it could be reformed in a positive direction.


 That's the problem though isn't it!


----------



## articul8 (Jan 11, 2006)

jimmer said:
			
		

> That's the problem though isn't it!



well it seems to have been, yes!  They would rather have pliant drones than good activists willing to contribute ideas and think for themselves.


----------



## jimmer (Jan 11, 2006)

That suits me fine...


----------



## cockneyrebel (Jan 11, 2006)

Rebel Warrior please don't try and use my words to help your justifications for the way Matt has been treated.

What Matt did was a minor breach of democratic centralism. Indeed it shows how minor it was in the fact that the SWPs own reports contained the same information. To make matters worse Matt was actually using this information to try and make the SWP look good.

And all you can say is that they could have expelled him? Why stop there, I suppose he was lucky he didn't get a kicking. Instead of someone having a word with him and explaining why it was a breach the SWP decides to have a kangeroo court at conference, without even telling him (the bollox about phoning him doesn't add up, where was the answer machine message?). And there was no need to have this debate at conference as it was the last day and he didn't turn up, it's not like the conference had to make a decision to throw him out. It's a basic right to be told about being disciplined before it happens. Would you be ok with bosses disciplining workers without their knowledge?

And all this stuff about naming names is absolute crap. While as a general principle this might be true, in the case of these three people they have all recently been in SW. Also it's funny you going on about security when the SWP puts pictures of people up. Did you ask those people if it was ok?

Lastly why do you have to write your posts like we're in 1917?


----------



## flimsier (Jan 11, 2006)

Rebel Warrior: I didn't know the poster known as mattkidd12 had the real name **** **** - but you've pointed it out twice now.

Twat.

Revealing people's real life identity is not only against the SWP rules, it's also against the FAQ here.

Aside from that, you really are a weasel. A contemptable one at that.


----------



## dennisr (Jan 11, 2006)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> Nah, i think his chararcter exists independent of his politics. He'd be a cunt whatevr sect he was in.



 got to concur 100% with this


----------



## Streathamite (Jan 11, 2006)

rebel warrior said:
			
		

> And a weasel too?  Any other insults while I'm here?


a grass? or am I being totally unfair here?


----------



## Groucho (Jan 11, 2006)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> Well to be fair you are both a cunt and a moron. So yep,fairplay.



Rebel Warrior has done no more than express an opinion. It is clear that he has not been responsible for (mis)informing the SWP cc about the nature of his posts here. 

This kind of name calling is well out of order and is in breach of this sites FAQ. I suggest you take that back.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 11, 2006)

Groucho said:
			
		

> Rebel Warrior has done no more than express an opinion. It is clear that he has not been responsible for (mis)informing the SWP cc about the nature of his posts here.
> 
> This kind of name calling is well out of order and is in breach of this sites FAQ. I suggest you take that back.


 Not a chance. 

I didn't suggest that he is the grass either (i belieive that's moti) and went on the record to say so in post #440. It's my settled opinion (and that of many other posters) that he is indeed a cunt and a moron.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jan 11, 2006)

rebel warrior said:
			
		

> Okay - so you breached democratic centralism.  Given that, the SWP, like any other working class organisation, had no choice but to discipline you - and it seems they chose to suspend you pending an enquiry.



RW you are wrong - they had all sorts of choices. These included:

1. doing nothing about a very minor, consequence free breaking of a rule;
2. not seeking to punish Matt for the sins of the 'WW mole';
3. not lying about his reasons for not attending conference on the Sunday;
4. not puting accusations re. his behaviour to conference in his absence;
5. not phoning up members of his branch and spreading misinformation about him...

You have had choices too; the ones who have made so far speak volumes about your lack of integrity.

Louis Mac


----------



## bristol_citizen (Jan 11, 2006)

rebel warrior said:
			
		

> It has nothing to do with clamping down on dissent in the Party, it is about ensuring that SWP members can say what they like at SWP conference, after all the sovereign body of the Party, without enemies of the working class also being privy to the debate.


Is it possible to be any more pompous and up-youself than this? 



			
				rebel warrior said:
			
		

> We are, after all, a Leninist party committed to socialist revolution - not a debating society.


Er, yes!


----------



## Groucho (Jan 11, 2006)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> Not a chance.
> 
> I didn't suggest that he is the grass either (i belieive that's moti) and went on the record to say so in post #440. It's my settled opinion (and that of many other posters) that he is indeed a cunt and a moron.



And it is such pointless abuse that makes the UK P/C area inhospitable to the vast majority of Urban posters. That says a great deal about your politics.


----------



## Pilgrim (Jan 11, 2006)

Groucho said:
			
		

> And it is such pointless abuse that makes the UK P/C area inhospitable to the vast majority of Urban posters. That says a great deal about your politics.



This farrago says a lot more about the politics of SWP posters, to be honest.

Our resident Swappies have had the chance to distance themselves from the frankly shabby, devious, underhand and downright horrendous treatment meted out to mattkidd12 by their superiors, and instead they meekly fall in line like good little sheep and defend this godawful mess.

Baaaaaaaaaaaaa....


----------



## bristol_citizen (Jan 11, 2006)

Louis MacNeice said:
			
		

> RW you are wrong - they had all sorts of choices. These included:
> 
> 1. doing nothing about a very minor, consequence free breaking of a rule;
> 2. not seeking to punish Matt for the sins of the 'WW mole';
> ...


You can also add to the list that this so-called disciplinary process was conducted over the phone and not in writing and he was supplied with no information regarding rules or process.
If a member of the SWP's oh-so-precious 'working class' was treated like this by an employer they'd ranting away forever more in their daft newspaper.
But lets face it. This is boss class-style action from a boss class grouping.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 11, 2006)

Groucho said:
			
		

> And it is such pointless abuse that makes the UK P/C area inhospitable to the vast majority of Urban posters. That says a great deal about your politics.


 You manange to work youurself up into a fine state about me agreeing with RWs characterisation of himself as a cunt and a moron, but you happily cut Matt adrift with barely a whimper. That says it all about you ánd your politics comrade.


----------



## knopf (Jan 11, 2006)

Groucho said:
			
		

> This kind of name calling is well out of order and is in breach of this sites FAQ. I suggest you take that back.



Report the posts, then. Cunt. And this one if you like. 

It'd be worth getting banned, just for the joy of having a go at fuckwits like you and your sorry cult.


----------



## shandy (Jan 11, 2006)

You know your trouble, you SWP hacks? You don't know what you are. You see, I fucking know what you are, but you don't know what you are.

You're *cunts*.


----------



## Streathamite (Jan 11, 2006)

rebel warrior said:
			
		

> Given that, the SWP, *like any other working class organisation*, had no choice


HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! the tears of laughter are rolling down my face right now.
I've seen greater proletarian authenticity in the royal enclosure at Ascot!
ETA: I was challenging RW earlier, rather than making a straight accusation. I now accept I was being a tad unfair.


----------



## Pilgrim (Jan 11, 2006)

Red Jezza said:
			
		

> HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! the tears of laughter are rolling down my face right now.
> I've seen greater proletarian authenticity in the royal enclosure at Ascot!



Ascot?

I'd have thought the crowned heads of Europe were more proletarian than the SWP.

In fact, I reckon Prince Edward is probably a pompous, arrogant, airheaded enough oxygen thief to be a secret Swappie infiltrator.

Remember posters, you heard it here first.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jan 11, 2006)

rebel warrior said:
			
		

> ...the SWP, like any other working class organisation...











			
				rebel warrior said:
			
		

> ...We are, after all, a Leninist party committed to socialist revolution - not a debating society.


----------



## Streathamite (Jan 11, 2006)

Pilgrim said:
			
		

> Ascot?
> 
> I'd have thought the crowned heads of Europe were more proletarian than the SWP.
> 
> ...


   
ooh stop, me sides....


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jan 11, 2006)

bristol_citizen said:
			
		

> This is boss class-style action from a boss class grouping.



if it looks like shit, if it smells like shit, if it _tastes_ like shit, then, by jove...


----------



## Solidarnosc (Jan 11, 2006)

bristle-krs said:
			
		

> if it looks like shit, if it smells like shit, if it _tastes_ like shit, then, by jove...


 Are you telling me you've _eaten_ an SWP member?


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jan 11, 2006)

Solidarnosc said:
			
		

> Are you telling me you've _eaten_ an SWP member?



it would be a breach of basic principles of democratic sexualism for me to admit to eating _anyone's_ member, swp or no


----------



## Larry O'Hara (Jan 11, 2006)

Pilgrim said:
			
		

> Ascot?
> 
> I'd have thought the crowned heads of Europe were more proletarian than the SWP.
> 
> ...



1) Is not Callinicos related to some obscure European aristocrats?

2) And the late Rt Hon Paul Foot's dad was Lord Caradon, was he not??


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 11, 2006)

Alexander Lyon-Dalberg-Acton von und zu Arco auf Valley Callinicos


----------



## mk12 (Jan 11, 2006)

Or, Ally Cally as I liked to call him (not to his, or anyone elses, face).


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jan 11, 2006)

but lest we forget:




			
				rebel warrior said:
			
		

> ...the SWP, like any other working class organisation...


----------



## Nigel (Jan 11, 2006)

*Shit Wind And Piss*

I know this is going off the point a bit, but in all the times I was in the SWP I have never seen a copy of their constitution.

I remember in the Eighties, on the back of membership cards, their was an article of the constitution saying that all members must buy and sell the paper.

I've asked several times during the years, but have always been fobbed off.

By the way is there anything in their mad Internal Bulletins about democricisation of the 'Party', or Matts case?????


----------



## mk12 (Jan 11, 2006)

There are 3 internal bulletins, before the conference. And the constitution is written in the first internal bulletin.

PDF file link: http://www.swp.org.uk/resources/Conference2004.pdf


----------



## audiotech (Jan 11, 2006)

Pilgrim said:
			
		

> Hardly a threat to the State indeed.
> 
> You can measure, with some but not total accuracy, how big a threat a group is deemed to be by the amount of State harrassment accorded to  its activists and operations.
> 
> ...



According to this in the 80's "virtually every SWP branch had an agent" and the SWP HQ had a phone tap. Tony Cliff also had his home phone tapped. Class War were targeted after the poll tax riot on the insistence of Thatcher and Militant was also a "main" target.


----------



## articul8 (Jan 11, 2006)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> Alexander Lyon-Dalberg-Acton von und zu Arco auf Valley Callinicos



really?  or is my irony detector not working?  Chances of being related to "big Phil", the Duke of Edinburgh?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 11, 2006)

articul8 said:
			
		

> really?  or is my irony detector not working?  Chances of being related to "big Phil", the Duke of Edinburgh?


 It's something along those lines - i believe the above one is the full entitlement - not that he uses it.

http://www.thepeerage.com/p198.htm#i1974


----------



## Nigel (Jan 11, 2006)

mattkidd12 said:
			
		

> There are 3 internal bulletins, before the conference. And the constitution is written in the first internal bulletin.
> 
> PDF file link: http://www.swp.org.uk/resources/Conference2004.pdf



Its a conspiracy.
I can't getthrough to the link (honest)


----------



## mk12 (Jan 11, 2006)

It works for me - that's the only link to it on the web I think. I won't C+P it, it's too long.


----------



## audiotech (Jan 11, 2006)

Nigel said:
			
		

> Its a conspiracy.
> I can't getthrough to the link (honest)



Right click and open in new window.


----------



## mk12 (Jan 11, 2006)

I've PMed it to him.


----------



## Larry O'Hara (Jan 11, 2006)

mattkidd12 said:
			
		

> I've PMed it to him.



You always seemed far to reasonable to be standard SWP paper-fodder.  Where next for you politically??


----------



## mk12 (Jan 11, 2006)

Independent for now.


----------



## Larry O'Hara (Jan 11, 2006)

mattkidd12 said:
			
		

> Independent for now.



Fair enough: although sadly most ex-SWP drift out of politics/to the Right.


----------



## audiotech (Jan 11, 2006)

mattkidd12 said:
			
		

> I've PMed it to him.



Can you send PM attachments then? Btw he doesn't have Adobe installed and he has an old Mac.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 11, 2006)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> It's something along those lines - i believe the above one is the full entitlement - not that he uses it.
> 
> http://www.thepeerage.com/p198.htm#i1974



His grandparents include Richard M. Lyon-Dalberg-Acton, 2nd Baron Acton of Aldenham and Maria Anna Ludmilla Euphrosina von und zu Arco auf Valley  .


----------



## Nigel (Jan 11, 2006)

What are you trying to recruit him to the Green Party....?


----------



## Nigel (Jan 11, 2006)

Why are you trying to recruit him to the Green Party.....?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 11, 2006)

How are you trying to recruit him to the Green Party.....?


----------



## mk12 (Jan 11, 2006)

MC5 said:
			
		

> Can you send PM attachments then? Btw he doesn't have Adobe installed and he has an old Mac.



cut and pasted it into PMs. 



> What/how/why are you trying to recruit him to the Green Party....?



No - and I wouldn't accept anyway!


----------



## Nigel (Jan 11, 2006)

You could set up an independent faction.
Then bide your time and rejoin with others who have been victimiced!!!!!!


----------



## mk12 (Jan 11, 2006)

Not much point. Most of them are anarchos now anyway


----------



## Nigel (Jan 11, 2006)

Most anarcho's hold on to the idea that USSR was State Capitalist.
Most accept Marx's critique of capitalism in Capital as opposed to other perspectives, such as Proudhons & Kropotkins.

Why can't you get a libertarian faction in something like Globalise Resist, putting pressure on the


----------



## Nigel (Jan 11, 2006)

swp beaurocracy to allow you to rejoin?
Thereby democraticing the SWP and making it more dynamic.
Even use their Fist symbol.
I'm sure their are other groups doing this; possibly ISG and some Sottish Republican Group that escapes my mind!!!


----------



## Pilgrim (Jan 11, 2006)

mattkidd12 said:
			
		

> Not much point. Most of them are anarchos now anyway



Well, if you decide to stay in politics (and I hope you do, because I reckon you'd be an asset to any decent group and you shouldn't let the SWP bastards grind you down) then I'm sure you'd be welcome in the AF.

I would take a couple of months out, though.

Give it some thought, look around at the various groups on offer and try the one whose politics you most agree with.


----------



## mk12 (Jan 11, 2006)

> Even use their Fist symbol.



 He's even thought of the logo. I had a go at democratising the party.


----------



## Sorry. (Jan 11, 2006)

Nigel said:
			
		

> swp beaurocracy to allow you to rejoin?
> Thereby democraticing the SWP and making it more dynamic.
> Even use their Fist symbol.
> I'm sure their are other groups doing this; possibly ISG and some Sottish Republican Group that escapes my mind!!!



You mean the Revolutionary Democratic Group (and they jacked in being an external faction of the SWP to join Scargill's lot...)


----------



## Nigel (Jan 11, 2006)

I know I sat in a Pub with this guy trying to crawl up Pat Sirkowskys ass, completely pissed going on about Partic Thistle. But I thought they/he left. I imagined they were still hanging around the outskirts of the SWP.
Obviously not!!!


----------



## nwnm (Jan 11, 2006)

Well its been a joy reading the mock indignation at the suspension of someone you would also have been hating and berating if he'd stayed in the SWP, (and who is no konger a member because some of you anarcho fuckers goaded him into publishing names/details of his party's conference)

Well done and keep up the good work - I'm sure your (cyber) actions on this website will lead to the demise of capitalism    What a bunch of wankers


----------



## Sorry. (Jan 11, 2006)

yeah they left again to join the SA.


----------



## Nigel (Jan 11, 2006)

nwnm said:
			
		

> Well its been a joy reading the mock indignation at the suspension of someone you would also have been hating and berating if he'd stayed in the SWP, (and who is no konger a member because some of you anarcho fuckers goaded him into publishing names/details of his party's conference)
> 
> Well done and keep up the good work - I'm sure your (cyber) actions on this website will lead to the demise of capitalism    What a bunch of wankers



why do you think your organisation is so small with a high turnover membership?

Do hacks like yourself ever stop and think of the consequences of you and the SWP's actions and attitudes???


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 11, 2006)

Obviously this is childish shite from nwnm but at least one point is worth taking up:




			
				nwnm said:
			
		

> Well its been a joy reading the mock indignation at the suspension of someone you would also have been hating and berating if he'd stayed in the SWP,



Matt posted here for a long time while a member of the SWP. I don't think anyone can make a serious case that he was "hated and berated" during that period. Yes he took some stick for whatever the SWP were up to on any given week but by and large he seemed to be pretty well liked around here.


----------



## Nigel (Jan 11, 2006)

I don't hate individuals in the SWP (well some I do) but the nature of the organisation itself, which in my opinion could have been one of the most dynamic workers'/socialist organisations in Western Europe if it had taken a different direction in the late seventies/early eighties!!!!!!!!


----------



## Pilgrim (Jan 11, 2006)

nwnm said:
			
		

> Well its been a joy reading the mock indignation at the suspension of someone you would also have been hating and berating if he'd stayed in the SWP, (and who is no konger a member because some of you anarcho fuckers goaded him into publishing names/details of his party's conference)
> 
> Well done and keep up the good work - I'm sure your (cyber) actions on this website will lead to the demise of capitalism    What a bunch of wankers



You really haven't been followingthis thread at all, have you.

I was the 'anarcho fucker' as you put it (CUNT that you are) who supposedly goaded Matt into revealing the details that brought his membership to and end. I have apologised to Matt and we have communicated by PM on the subject. I flatter myself that there's no hard feeling between me and Matt. It was certainly never my intention to cause any trouble, especially not this much.

You also missed entirely the fact that it was someone on this site who informed on Matt to the SWP CC. A simple PM requesting the deletion of the offending items would have been entirely sufficient.

Furthermore, you also missed entirely the underhand, snide, treacherous and downright shoddy way in which the SWP CC handled this situation. They have shown themselves up to be the duplicitous, manipulative, poisonous little CUNTS they are by what they've done to Matt recently. 

So go back, read the thread (PROPERLY this time) and come up with a reasoned and balanced opinion on the facts of the matter.

Oh, and while we're at it, you seem to think that Anarchists don't achieve anything. Well I've seen direct action crews achieve more with one action than a couple of years of conventional lobbying. I've been there and witnessed it with my own eyes. 

So get your facts straight you miserable little pusbag.


----------



## nwnm (Jan 11, 2006)

"Do hacks like yourself ever stop and think of the consequences of you and the SWP's actions and attitudes???" Nope! sorry, can't hang around here too long have REAL people to talk to, caucus's to organise, and my wife wants a cuppa. enjoy yourselves in LaLa land


----------



## bristol_citizen (Jan 11, 2006)

nwnmI said:
			
		

> you *anarcho fuckers* goaded him into publishing names/details of his party's conference)


Surely that's *enemies of the working class*?




			
				nwnm said:
			
		

> [Well done and keep up the good work - I'm sure your (cyber) actions on this website will lead to the demise of capitalism


Well we can't all be, *after all, a Leninist party committed to socialist revolution - not a debating society * can we now?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 11, 2006)

nwnm suddenly finds a pressing engagement elsewhere some 232 posts later...


----------



## Pilgrim (Jan 11, 2006)

nwnm said:
			
		

> "Do hacks like yourself ever stop and think of the consequences of you and the SWP's actions and attitudes???" Nope! sorry, can't hang around here too long have REAL people to talk to, caucus's to organise, and my wife wants a cuppa. enjoy yourselves in LaLa land



So SWP hacks don't think of the consequences of the SWP's actions and attitudes?

What a surprise! And there was me wondering why the SWP has become such a standing joke, not only within the activist milieu but in the wider world, if people bother to think of the SWP at all.

Tell, is it because SWP hacks are so blinded by their own egotism and arrogance that they assume whatever they do is right and justifiable?

Or is it just that SWP hacks are simply too stupid to consider the consequences of their actions and just blunder along thinking that everything's lovely?


----------



## bristol_citizen (Jan 11, 2006)

nwnm said:
			
		

> can't hang around here too long have REAL people to talk to, caucus's to organise, and my wife wants a cuppa. enjoy yourselves in LaLa land


So why you been hanging around for the last 5 minutes? Have you got imaginary real people, an imaginary wife and an imaginary caucus to go with your imaginary revolution and your imaginary working class credentials?


----------



## Nigel (Jan 11, 2006)

If the SWP was democratic, it would be accountable for some of the silly bollox tactics over the last twenty years+ or so.

E.G. Rank+ File Trade Unionism, alowing factions to exist, Poll Tax, ANL(mark 2), etc,etc, etc.

If it allowed diversity in the Broad parameters of its organisation, it would become more dynamic, creative, and aspirational to its members, supporters, and people who come into contact with it. As a cult it stifles and dissullusions. Until people either leave, or become Psycophantic Hacks.

Through democratic proccesses it would become more credible in workers organisations, people in struggle, and oppressed. At the moment it just jumps on any band wagon thats going, it cannot control it and fuck it up that way takes it over sabotages it and tries to gain members on the basis of the faliar are because of a sell out by the group, in a down turn, or some personalityt assasination of individuals involved (usually the best political activists)

If you want to stop being the smallest mass party in the world, asses your problems and work towards a more positive strategy!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Pilgrim (Jan 11, 2006)

bristol_citizen said:
			
		

> So why you been hanging around for the last 5 minutes? Have you got imaginary real people, an imnaginary wife and an imaginary caucus to go with your imaginary revolution and your imaginary working class credentials?



Sounds like a typical SWP hack to me.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 11, 2006)

His 'real life' involves making lots of posts to indycymru as it goes...


----------



## nwnm (Jan 11, 2006)

just waiting for the kettle to boil


----------



## bristol_citizen (Jan 11, 2006)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> His 'real life' involves making lots of posts to indycymru as it goes...


Isn't that the weirdo one man and his dog operation?


----------



## bristol_citizen (Jan 11, 2006)

nwnm said:
			
		

> just waiting for the kettle to boil


Your kettle's attached to the internet?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 11, 2006)

bristol_citizen said:
			
		

> Isn't that the weirdo one man and his dog operation?


 Maybe this is the man (though he writes more like the dog).


----------



## Pilgrim (Jan 11, 2006)

nwnm said:
			
		

> just waiting for the kettle to boil



So you won't have had time to actually read the thread and come up with some sort of reasoned and cogent arguments then?

Why am I not surprised?


----------



## nwnm (Jan 11, 2006)

kettle is in the kitchen, pc's in the next room, have advertised meetings on indycymru. The bloke who runs it would be well pissed off he saw that u thought he was me. Kettles boiled - must go and whatch soap star superstar
ta ta


----------



## mk12 (Jan 11, 2006)

Nobody goaded me into anything by the way. It was entirely my decision.


----------



## bristol_citizen (Jan 11, 2006)

He's still there. His kettle must be as crap as his politics.


----------



## shandy (Jan 11, 2006)

nwnm said:
			
		

> kettle is in the kitchen, pc's in the next room, have advertised meetings on indycymru. The bloke who runs it would be well pissed off he saw that u thought he was me. Kettles boiled - must go and whatch soap star superstar
> ta ta



you not watching galloway in Big Brother?


----------



## Pilgrim (Jan 11, 2006)

nwnm said:
			
		

> kettle is in the kitchen, pc's in the next room, have advertised meetings on indycymru. The bloke who runs it would be well pissed off he saw that u thought he was me. Kettles boiled - must go and whatch soap star superstar
> ta ta



Nice to see you've made a highbrow viewing choice there.

Any chance of a highbrow debate on the issues at hand, you know, one where you actually come up with cogent, coherent argument and debate the issues of the hour?

I'm not holding my breath...


----------



## Nigel (Jan 11, 2006)

So he's gone onto another Web Site, made a cup of Tea, and gone to watch Big Brother.

How is he iterelating with real people????

Is his wife real I wonder, or did he buy her from some Adult Toy Shop???

How does that fit into the objectification of women???


----------



## Zippo (Jan 11, 2006)

mattkidd12 said:
			
		

> No - and I wouldn't accept anyway!



New to this thread, but scanning thru it makes me realise why so many ex-swappies I meet are so bitter. Also makes me realise I made right decision when I joined SP instead of SWP who were camped on my doorstep for about 3 months getting increasingly hysterical in trying to get me to join.


----------



## Nigel (Jan 11, 2006)

Zippo said:
			
		

> New to this thread, but scanning thru it makes me realise why so many ex-swappies I meet are so bitter. Also makes me realise I made right decision when I joined SP instead of SWP who were camped on my doorstep for about 3 months getting increasingly hysterical in trying to get me to join.



Was this for reasons of Politics, culture of the organisation, or just because you found someone who liked you?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 11, 2006)

What's with the sudden influx of Socialist Party members? 

For years Trotboy was the only one around. Then he went off to argue with people on various lefty lists instead and dennisr and I were left holding the fort with a few others drifting in from time to time. Suddenly four of you show up!


----------



## hibee (Jan 11, 2006)

Nigel Irritable said:
			
		

> What's with the sudden influx of Socialist Party members?
> 
> For years Trotboy was the only one around. Then he went off to argue with people on various lefty lists instead and dennisr and I were left holding the fort with a few others drifting in from time to time. Suddenly four of you show up!



Hmmm.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 11, 2006)

hibee said:
			
		

> Hmmm.



We're planning a takeover. And like Zinoviev and Kamenev I've gone and leaked it.


----------



## shandy (Jan 11, 2006)

Zippo said:
			
		

> New to this thread, but scanning thru it makes me realise why so many ex-swappies I meet are so bitter. Also makes me realise I made right decision when I joined SP instead of SWP who were camped on my doorstep for about 3 months getting increasingly hysterical in trying to get me to join.



Lucky escape.


----------



## Zippo (Jan 11, 2006)

Nigel said:
			
		

> Was this for reasons of Politics, culture of the organisation, or just because you found someone who liked you?



Political - ie. the far superior intervention of SP during the campaign we were involved in, plus the very evident internal democracy when we had to make tactical decisions.


----------



## Nigel (Jan 11, 2006)

Do you think its a personality thing with the two organisations, at on time it was difficult to distinguish the culture of either organisation (mid to late eighties) but now their is an abundence of difference!

Do certain persoalities join one oraganisation or the other, is it political, or is it pier pressure or who gets their first??????


----------



## articul8 (Jan 11, 2006)

Nigel Irritable said:
			
		

> Suddenly four of you show up!



maybe - or it could be you with 4 new pseudonyms


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 11, 2006)

articul8 said:
			
		

> maybe - or it could be you with 4 new pseudonyms



Or 4 new personalities.


----------



## articul8 (Jan 11, 2006)

Nigel Irritable said:
			
		

> Or 4 new personalities.



you can never have too many personalities


----------



## Zippo (Jan 11, 2006)

Nigel said:
			
		

> Do certain persoalities join one oraganisation or the other, is it political, or is it pier pressure or who gets their first??????



_It's a class thing_. I've yet to meet a swappie that wasnt m/c, sometimes trying to get down to w/c credentials, but never with any success. Thankfully, I found plenty of normal w/c people in SP. Another reason to join.

.


----------



## gurrier (Jan 11, 2006)

Nigel Irritable said:
			
		

> What's with the sudden influx of Socialist Party members?


I think word of the SWP making a gawdalmighty show of themselves in public might be travelling....


----------



## Nigel (Jan 11, 2006)

Yeah, I can understand that.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 11, 2006)

gurrier said:
			
		

> I think word of the SWP making a gawdalmighty show of themselves in public might be travelling....


 Yes, we really should thank moti, NWNM and the others for filling their allotted roles so perfectly.


----------



## sihhi (Jan 11, 2006)

nwnm said:
			
		

> Well its been a joy reading the mock indignation at the suspension of someone you would also have been hating and berating if he'd stayed in the* SWP, (and who is no konger a member because some of you anarcho fuckers goaded him into publishing names/details of his party's conference)*
> 
> Well done and keep up the good work - I'm sure your (cyber) actions on this website will lead to the demise of capitalism    What a bunch of wankers



Are you for real?

(Are you posing as SWP to show how insane the SWP is)

Mattkid12 revels the identity of secret militant Pat Stack never been mentioned before his name or his face over SW.

Besides didn't John Rees say this back in 2004:




			
				Morning Star August 19 said:
			
		

> The Manchester branches of the Respect coalition, Unite Against Fascism and the Socialist Workers Party discovered that two of their activists - students Joe Finnon and Diane Stoker - are really far-right moles.
> ...
> However, campaigners said that they are not worried about any vital or confidential information being leaked by Mr Finnon and Ms Stoker "because our activities are public knowledge."
> ...
> ...


----------



## Pilgrim (Jan 11, 2006)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> Yes, we really should thank moti, NWNM and the others for filling their allotted roles so perfectly.



I'll bet the folk at the Weekly Worker will be wanking themselves cross-eyed over this debacle.

They're probably salivating over this very thread as we type.

They'll probably bring out a special laminated issue this week.


----------



## articul8 (Jan 11, 2006)

Pilgrim said:
			
		

> wanking themselves cross-eyed .



i wondered why I started looking like that


----------



## nwnm (Jan 11, 2006)

"I'll bet the folk at the Weekly Worker will be wanking themselves cross-eyed over this debacle.
They're probably salivating over this very thread as we type.
They'll probably bring out a special laminated issue this week."

If the first parts true they won't have to laminate it........


----------



## audiotech (Jan 11, 2006)

Zippo said:
			
		

> _It's a class thing_. I've yet to meet a swappie that wasnt m/c, sometimes trying to get down to w/c credentials, but never with any success. Thankfully, I found plenty of normal w/c people in SP. Another reason to join.
> 
> .



That word 'normal' again (referring to another poster on another thread). You should read your parties website sometimes.



> Capitalism has led to the concentration of wealth and power in ever decreasing numbers of hands at the top. Meanwhile at the bottom, more and more previously middle-class people are forced downwards into the ranks of the working class. This process is taking place in a particularly harsh and barbaric way in Argentina.
> 
> The heart-rending economic crisis is devastating the lives of the population. The Financial Times declared that "Argentina can no longer afford its middle class" and it is, in fact, rapidly disappearing. The shanty towns are strewn with banners marked ‘welcome middle classes’ as teachers, lecturers, and bank workers are forced into the ghetto.
> http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/socialism21/soc21frame.htm?ch4.htm


----------



## audiotech (Jan 11, 2006)

Pilgrim said:
			
		

> You also missed entirely the fact that it was someone on this site who informed on Matt to the SWP CC.



Could you give a link to that "fact" please?


----------



## gurrier (Jan 11, 2006)

MC5 said:
			
		

> Could you give a link to that "fact" please?


You can't read the site without having an account.


----------



## moti (Jan 11, 2006)

*I spy with my little eye...*

only 115 pages? oh butchers, pilgrim, gurrier, nigel you little fun bundles you keep going hey see if you can make it to 500! I'll pop back in 2007 and see if your still going...

btw we're having a right laugh here at MI5 about this...


----------



## Chuck Wilson (Jan 12, 2006)

cockneyrebel said:
			
		

> I've read that before, and from everything I've known about WP this has to be bollox. If I thought for a minute that WP would do things like stop people living with ex members then I'd leave on the spot.
> 
> As it goes the arguments from that tendency about what was happening around that time seem pretty spot on. Indeed WP took on those arguments in the early 90s.
> 
> Chuck you didn't get back to me about the IWCA. Does it have a national leadership body, does it publish membership figures, publish internal disagreements etc



Just before you pack your bags cockers, the IWCA; when you join or make an enquiry you get the constitution and structure map of how decisions are made.Area delegates are elected and directly accountable to the local branch.I think the entire philosophy behind the IWCA is as far removed from the factions, democratic centralism, programme infected  'revo' left as it could be.

'Internal disagreements' conjurs up those tedious Bolshevik debates where the entirely enthuiastic but anorak obsessed quoting of what trostky said to Zinoviev mode dominates a discussion about what font size the leaflet is printed in and what colour its printed in becomes a reform versus revolution deabte. So thanks but no thanks.As Louis and others have said the IWCA is as much method as it is anything else and the IWCA doesn't claim to be the only franchise holder .It is simply about advancing working class self activity in the areas where it has members, I suppose there may be different points of view or ideas put in discussions about how to take a local issue forward but as the issue will have been identifiued by local consultation its the decision of the local branch rather than some CC and therefore has to carry the support of the branch.

Never seen the membership figures but then again I have never asked to .Have you tried emailing the site? i dare say they will send you an info pack if you request it.


----------



## shandy (Jan 12, 2006)

MC5 said:
			
		

> The shanty towns are strewn with banners marked ‘welcome middle classes’ as teachers, lecturers, and bank workers are forced into the ghetto.




But that's Argentina's w/c welcoming the m/c who are now in the same boat after the neo-liberal meltdown. 

That's a bit different to m/c SWP folk here shouting through a megaphone at w/c people, telling them what's good for them, as they have done here for years.


----------



## gurrier (Jan 12, 2006)

moti said:
			
		

> only 115 pages? oh butchers, pilgrim, gurrier, nigel you little fun bundles you keep going hey see if you can make it to 500! I'll pop back in 2007 and see if your still going...
> 
> btw we're having a right laugh here at MI5 about this...


Hey moti, was it you who reported matt to the CC?


----------



## hibee (Jan 12, 2006)

moti said:
			
		

> only 115 pages? oh butchers, pilgrim, gurrier, nigel you little fun bundles you keep going hey see if you can make it to 500! I'll pop back in 2007 and see if your still going...
> 
> btw we're having a right laugh here at MI5 about this...



No, you're a different kind of tout.


----------



## Top Dog (Jan 12, 2006)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> Alexander Lyon-Dalberg-Acton von und zu Arco auf Valley Callinicos


wonder if there's any linkage to the Bowes Lyons? What a delicious idea


----------



## dennisr (Jan 12, 2006)

Zippo said:
			
		

> _It's a class thing_. I've yet to meet a swappie that wasnt m/c, sometimes trying to get down to w/c credentials, but never with any success. Thankfully, I found plenty of normal w/c people in SP. Another reason to join.
> 
> .



<old git digresses>That was the clincher for me to - i probably could not see much difference between the Swappies, Militant (as then was) and the anarchists I was sniffing around at the time. The politics was - superfically - similer enough for a 16 year old who wanted to build support for the miners (yep... that long ago...). It may seem superficial but the Militants I met at the time just came across as 'normal' - as in - working class normal. No affected accents or obsessions with pseudo prol credentials or students dumbing down to 'impress' - they were part of the class. Part of that was that they seemed serious about what they were doing - for the miners not just for thier own organisation. That was my impression then and it still holds true today.</old git digresses>


----------



## socialistsuzy (Jan 12, 2006)

the reason I chose the SP rather than the SWP was similar to the reasons given by other people but also the lack of democracy. in the SP i have a role in the decision making process whereas in the SWP i would not. also the SWP seem to put little or no emphasis on analysing past events and relating them to future ones, this is vital if you don't plan on making the same mistakes. they seem to have no ability to admit they have ever even made mistakes. I have also spoken to many youth that have either left or are leaving the SWP (for one reason or another, mainly lack of democracy and harrasment) which have said that they were never told what it actually means to be in a revolutionary party. 
anyway, theres a few of my reasons.


----------



## cockneyrebel (Jan 12, 2006)

Can someone change the name of this thread to:

"Why I joined the Socialist Party"


----------



## dennisr (Jan 12, 2006)

cockneyrebel said:
			
		

> Can someone change the name of this thread to: "Why I joined the Socialist Party"



Its the SP love in thread


----------



## socialistsuzy (Jan 12, 2006)

hehe


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 12, 2006)

cockneyrebel said:
			
		

> Can someone change the name of this thread to:
> 
> "Why I joined the Socialist Party"



Well seeing as you asked...  

I've actually got the worst reason of anyone I know: The CPGB/Weekly Worker people advised me to over a pint. Really.


----------



## dennisr (Jan 12, 2006)

Nigel Irritable said:
			
		

> Well seeing as you asked...
> 
> I've actually got the worst reason of anyone I know: The CPGB/Weekly Worker people advised me to over a pint. Really.



*feck, he's ruined the whole ambience now*

you realise advice from such a source should be a reason not to join mate


----------



## cockneyrebel (Jan 12, 2006)

If this carries on much longer I might have to bring up the PCS  

And maybe the Poll Tax......


----------



## cockneyrebel (Jan 12, 2006)

Just as an aside I have heard people talk about how people in Militant used to put on scouse and London accents in the 1980s, is that bollox, where does that rumour come from?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 12, 2006)

dennisr said:
			
		

> you realise advice from such a source should be a reason not to join mate



I realise that now. I've always thought of it as evidence in favour of the old proverb about stopped clocks. They also wanted me to write reports for them from inside the Socialist Party, so I've always found it amusing when they try to deny that they run spies in other left wing groups.




			
				cockneyrebel said:
			
		

> Just as an aside I have heard people talk about how people in Militant used to put on scouse and London accents in the 1980s, is that bollox, where does that rumour come from?



Every word of it is true. Of course these days we favour west country accents. Our educational schools feature special classes on how to say "Ooo arr, ger orrf moi laaaand" with just the right pronunciation and emphasis.


----------



## dennisr (Jan 12, 2006)

cockneyrebel said:
			
		

> Just as an aside I have heard people talk about how people in Militant used to put on scouse and London accents in the 1980s, is that bollox, where does that rumour come from?



no its all true, know what i mean, likkke

(the other answer would be - maybe its because we have loads of scousers as members and everybody in london ends up putting on a london accent as far as i can tell...)




			
				Nigel Irritable said:
			
		

> Of course these days we favour west country accents. Our educational schools feature special classes on how to say "Ooo arr, ger orrf moi laaaand" with just the right pronunciation and emphasis.



(forms dissident faction)


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 12, 2006)

nwnm's kettle must take a very long time boiling because he/she/it is back on the list of people viewing the forum below.


----------



## cockneyrebel (Jan 12, 2006)

You might laugh, but I blatantly have heard people on the left putting on accents before.....



> Every word of it is true. Of course these days we favour west country accents. Our educational schools feature special classes on how to say "Ooo arr, ger orrf moi laaaand" with just the right pronunciation and emphasis.



Seems a strange thing to do in Ireland.....


----------



## belboid (Jan 12, 2006)

Nigel Irritable said:
			
		

> Every word of it is true. Of course these days we favour west country accents. Our educational schools feature special classes on how to say "Ooo arr, ger orrf moi laaaand" with just the right pronunciation and emphasis.


I hope you're still doing the 'Hand gestures for revolutionaries' sessions too, getting the 'Ted Grant grapple' right always seemed a must for any of your speakers.  Or did you lose that in the split too?


----------



## cockneyrebel (Jan 12, 2006)

> nwnm's kettle must take a very long time boiling because he/she/it is back on the list of people viewing the forum below.



I hope it's not the same kind of kettle that that NF bloke in Oldham used


----------



## knopf (Jan 12, 2006)

cockneyrebel said:
			
		

> Just as an aside I have heard people talk about how people in Militant used to put on scouse and London accents in the 1980s, is that bollox, where does that rumour come from?



IIRC, it was South African accents & choppy hand gestures. Oh yes, and the phrase "sectarian groupings on the fringes of the labour movement." And the word "youth" to mean "young people."


----------



## dennisr (Jan 12, 2006)

cockneyrebel said:
			
		

> Seems a strange thing to do in Ireland.....



they tend to put on Irish accents over the water


anyway - were is moti roti and co?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 12, 2006)

belboid said:
			
		

> I hope you're still doing the 'Hand gestures for revolutionaries' sessions too, getting the 'Ted Grant grapple' right always seemed a must for any of your speakers.  Or did you lose that in the split too?



Yeah Socialist Appeal have custody of the hand gestures, but we get visiting rights every second Saturday. Normally we bring them to McDonalds and give them presents Socialist Appeal can't afford to try and win their affection.




			
				knopf said:
			
		

> Oh yes, and the phrase "sectarian groupings on the fringes of the labour movement." And the word "youth" to mean "young people."



The picking up phrases thing really does happen, particularly to very enthusiastic young people (er... youth). It happens in all social groupings but the embrace by new generations of lefty jargon always makes me wince. I once had to leave the room during a public meeting as a very keen young lad gave a speech so filled with leftist jargon and cliche as to be utterly incomprehensible to anyone who hadn't been a member of a left wing political group. I knew I wouldn't be able to hold the laughter in much longer and I didn't want to hurt his feelings.


----------



## nwnm (Jan 12, 2006)

It could also be called the "why I'm completely ignoring those fucking Chartists, Ted Grant/Socialist Appeal, Phl Hearse/Socialist Democracy Group (bit of a give away in the title there), Independent Panther UK, and Tommy Sheridan/ISM, Labour party Pakistan, etc - splitters - 'cause every member of the party has a voice - bury your heads in the sand thread"


----------



## dennisr (Jan 12, 2006)

belboid said:
			
		

> I hope you're still doing the 'Hand gestures for revolutionaries' sessions too, getting the 'Ted Grant grapple' right always seemed a must for any of your speakers.  Or did you lose that in the split too?



Absolutely true story - (long before the split) in the Militant print shop we had a huge poster of Ted with a seperate moving arm on a string for companeros to admire. 

No expulsions as far as i know despite such 'transgressions' - which, I hope, brings as back to the situation facing poor old Matt...


----------



## dennisr (Jan 12, 2006)

nwnm said:
			
		

> It could also be called the "why I'm completely ignoring those fucking Chartists, Ted Grant/Socialist Appeal, Phl Hearse/Socialist Democracy Group (bit of a give away in the title there), Independent Panther UK, and Tommy Sheridan/ISM, Labour party Pakistan, etc - splitters - 'cause every member of the party has a voice - bury your heads in the sand thread"



kettle boiled?


----------



## nwnm (Jan 12, 2006)

not yet good nights sleep after reading this thread though - will look in again before bed time


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 12, 2006)

dennisr said:
			
		

> No expulsions as far as i know despite such 'transgressions' - which, I hope, brings as back to the situation facing poor old Matt...



There once was a swap named Matt
but a "comrade" acted the rat
now he's out on his arse
the whole thing's a farce
And Galloway called Soli fat.


----------



## cockneyrebel (Jan 12, 2006)

> It happens in all social groupings but the embrace by new generations of lefty jargon always makes me wince.



Totally agree, it's fucking embarassing. I think younger middle class members are the worst for that kinda thing.


----------



## cockneyrebel (Jan 12, 2006)

> There once was a swap named Matt
> but a "comrade" acted the rat
> now he's out on his arse
> the whole thing's a farce
> And Galloway called Soli fat.



Fucking hell, you been taking poetry lessons from Guy Taylor


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 12, 2006)

cockneyrebel said:
			
		

> Fucking hell, you been taking poetry lessons from Guy Taylor



 everyone's a critic


----------



## moti (Jan 12, 2006)

*tickets for sale...*

>No, you're a different kind of tout.

funny you should say that I've got some spares for the Brits if you wan' 'em

£200 quid to you love

 

no gurrier, just to put your little mind at rest and all the other democrats on this list, who get in a flap about people getting accused of things in their absence then accuse me in my absence (oh your narcs and your contradictions!)

...but then whose to say I'm in the SWP?

...or that I'm a lecturer?

...or that I'm the big bad wolf come to blow your house down?

oops got to go school bell's just rang got to get out of the playground!


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 12, 2006)

Is that you gareth?


----------



## belboid (Jan 12, 2006)

moti said:
			
		

> just to put your little mind at rest and all the other democrats on this list, who get in a flap about people getting accused of things in their absence then accuse me in my absence (oh your narcs and your contradictions!)


you're not absent - you're here.

and what disciplinary powers do the 'narcs' hold over you on these boards?


----------



## chilango (Jan 12, 2006)

did nwnm shop matt?

...wouldn´t put it past him.


----------



## flimsier (Jan 12, 2006)

GJ: did you shop matt?


----------



## cockneyrebel (Jan 12, 2006)

> Is that you gareth?



I hope not for his sake, the bloke is one of the most disliked members of the SWP. Couldn't stand him when I was an SWP member, gave me the creeps.


----------



## hibee (Jan 12, 2006)

moti said:
			
		

> >No, you're a different kind of tout.
> 
> funny you should say that I've got some spares for the Brits if you wan' 'em
> 
> ...



That's our grass confirmed then. Lowest of the fucking low.


----------



## bristol_citizen (Jan 12, 2006)

moti said:
			
		

> ...but then whose to say I'm in the SWP?
> 
> ...or that I'm a lecturer?



You did dickhead:


> I'm also one of the people who joined in the 90's





> (I am a lecturer you know)


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jan 12, 2006)

bristol_citizen said:
			
		

> You did dickhead:


----------



## flimsier (Jan 12, 2006)

cockneyrebel said:
			
		

> I hope not for his sake, the bloke is one of the most disliked members of the SWP. Couldn't stand him when I was an SWP member, gave me the creeps.



Yep, no-one likes him, inside or outside the organisation. 

He's useful to them, but personally, he has few friends.


----------



## cockneyrebel (Jan 12, 2006)

Mind you wouldn't gareth have joined way before the 1990s?


----------



## flimsier (Jan 12, 2006)

I never thought of that. I think so.


----------



## editor (Jan 12, 2006)

I think I'd lose my will to live if I had to trawl through all this and try to make sense of who's in the wrong, but I've had a reported post, so would posters please edit out any personal info that shouldn't be here, please (if there is any).


----------



## flimsier (Jan 12, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> I think I'd lose my will to live if I had to trawl through all this and try to make sense of who's in the wrong, but I've had a reported post, so would posters please edit out any personal info that shouldn't be here, please (if there is any).



Classic  

moti at it again!


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 12, 2006)

It seems to be habit forming with moti...where will it end?


----------



## dennisr (Jan 12, 2006)

flimsier said:
			
		

> moti at it again!



this just gets more and more shameful    ... "i'm a lecturer you know"  no, you are a ........


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jan 12, 2006)

the only instance of a poster's real name being revealed on this thread that i can think of is when rebel warrior did it to mattkidd12


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 12, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> I think I'd lose my will to live if I had to trawl through all this and try to make sense of who's in the wrong, but I've had a reported post, so would posters please edit out any personal info that shouldn't be here, please (if there is any).



It would probably make it easier if you said which post out of the 618 and counting in the thread had been reported!


----------



## catch (Jan 12, 2006)

Nah that was me reporting the post.

Don't like the idea of that report post button, but since this is  a long thread I didn't want Rebel Warrior getting away with leaving MattKidd12's real name up in the same post he had a go at him for posting up people's real names. The cunt.

Post 456, page nine by the way. Still there.


----------



## Streathamite (Jan 12, 2006)

moti said:
			
		

> no gurrier, just to put your little mind at rest and all the other democrats on this list, who get in a flap about people getting accused of things in their absence then accuse me in my absence (oh your narcs and your contradictions!)


then why not say definitively, one way or another?


----------



## catch (Jan 12, 2006)

bristle-krs said:
			
		

> the only instance of a poster's real name being revealed on this thread that i can think of is when rebel warrior did it to mattkidd12



Bristle's on the money.


----------



## audiotech (Jan 12, 2006)

gurrier said:
			
		

> You can't read the site without having an account.



Which site?


----------



## audiotech (Jan 12, 2006)

shandy said:
			
		

> But that's Argentina's w/c welcoming the m/c who are now in the same boat after the neo-liberal meltdown.
> 
> That's a bit different to m/c SWP folk here shouting through a megaphone at w/c people, telling them what's good for them, as they have done here for years.



By that I take it you know the class origins of all SWP posters here?


----------



## catch (Jan 12, 2006)

Can the SWP members on here, after defending an expulsion at least in part based on the mentioning of three prominent members of the party by name, also defend their own breaching of the same rules on this forum as recently as 2005?

Pat Stack[/url] being outed by Groucho on the 7th December 2005. Has he gone silent since then?

levien also mentions Pat Stack by name.

Groucho
 mentions John Molyneux, including arguments and decisions made a conference (albeit a while back but I see no difference in principle). Worth quoting that one.



> The thread leader is misinformed or made up. I thought ernesto was simply trolling but if there is something he is exagerating I do hope after all this it doesn't turn out to be a huge anti-climax.
> 
> On the debate within the SWP raised by Flimsier (much more interesting IMO)
> 
> ...


----------



## mk12 (Jan 12, 2006)

The probably asked before hand though catch.


----------



## knopf (Jan 12, 2006)

So Groucho "outs" Molyneaux and tells us all where he lives, too. Nice.


----------



## gurrier (Jan 12, 2006)

MC5 said:
			
		

> Which site?


It's called urban75.net - I think you've probably heard of it.  A pit of vipers and sectarians, or so I'm told.


----------



## catch (Jan 12, 2006)

mattkidd12 said:
			
		

> The probably asked before hand though catch.



The posting of their names on this forum by SWP members sets a precedent.


----------



## audiotech (Jan 12, 2006)

Nigel Irritable said:
			
		

> Every word of it is true. Of course these days we favour west country accents. Our educational schools feature special classes on how to say "Ooo arr, ger orrf moi laaaand" with just the right pronunciation and emphasis.



A relation of mine runs a pub in Leeds and recently she was surprised to see Derek Hatton stood at the bar ordering drinks for some wealthy business associates of his. I'm not sure if he was talking scouse at the time.


----------



## knopf (Jan 12, 2006)

catch said:
			
		

> The posting of their names on this forum by SWP members sets a precedent.



..... and also raises the interesting question of who they had to ask.


----------



## rosa (Jan 12, 2006)

MC5 said:
			
		

> A relation of mine runs a pub in Leeds and recently she was suprised to see Derek Hatton stood at the bar ordering drinks for some wealthy busines associates of his. I'm not sure if he was talking scouse at the time.


i was surprised when the fucker nearly ran me over in his Lexus with the wanky personalised 'Degsy' reg plate just before Christmas. And i'm surprised he can talk at all with those ridiculous cheek implants.

But we digress.


----------



## audiotech (Jan 12, 2006)

gurrier said:
			
		

> It's called urban75.net - I think you've probably heard of it.  A pit of vipers and sectarians, or so I'm told.



You don't need an "account" though?


----------



## audiotech (Jan 12, 2006)

rosa said:
			
		

> i was surprised when the fucker nearly ran me over in his Lexus with the wanky personalised 'Degsy' reg plate just before Christmas. And i'm surprised he can talk at all with those ridiculous cheek implants.
> 
> But we digress.



We do. Was this the vehicle and are these the implants you refer to?


----------



## belboid (Jan 12, 2006)

MC5 said:
			
		

> You don't need an "account" though?


yes you do, to actually read the threads.


----------



## rosa (Jan 12, 2006)

MC5 said:
			
		

> We do. Was this the vehicle and are these the implants you refer to?


No the one he was driving was silver. Same fucking orange hamster cheeks though.


----------



## audiotech (Jan 12, 2006)

belboid said:
			
		

> yes you do, to actually read the threads.



Where do I pay?


----------



## belboid (Jan 12, 2006)

it's alright, my corrections service is  provided for free.


----------



## Nigel (Jan 12, 2006)

That was never the case in all branches of the Mllies!!!


----------



## audiotech (Jan 12, 2006)

belboid said:
			
		

> it's alright, my corrections service is  provided for free.



OK Miss Whiplash.


----------



## In Bloom (Jan 12, 2006)

mattkidd12 said:
			
		

> The probably asked before hand though catch.


Are you suggesting that SWP members have to ask before they can post up the names of well known party figures on an internet bulletin board?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 12, 2006)

I think he was suggesting that hadn't actually asked at all.


----------



## mk12 (Jan 12, 2006)




----------



## In Bloom (Jan 12, 2006)

There's always one, isn't there? 

*tries to leave quietly*


----------



## catch (Jan 13, 2006)




----------



## ferndale (Jan 14, 2006)

cogg said:
			
		

> That's a really good point which I'd completely forgotten about. All the people I knew who came from a working class background (with 2 exceptions) drifted away some time ago.
> 
> The 2 or 3 people who sell socialist worker in walthamstow definitely aren't working class. The socialist party sellers are, even though some of them seem a bit barking...Friendly though.



If you see someone selling a paper in the street, how do you actually decide whether they are working class or not? What criteria do you use?


----------



## ferndale (Jan 14, 2006)

durruti02 said:
			
		

> you know what we mean/is meant generally by w/c .. in hackney they had a large contigent of scots who staffed many a paper sale .. they have all but gone .. and been replaced by some VERY m/c looking/sounding people ...
> 
> 
> and in the 8ts militant were correct, that they were much more w/c and locally based than the swp .. it just goes 2 show how bad things have got ..
> ...



Sorry, but I think it's this sort of idea that I have problems with - I don't think that a person's social class is determined by how they "look" or "sound", or even on whether you are very "locally based" to a particular area. Social class is to do with economics. A lot of ordinary workers may have lived in different areas, and have lost the regional accents that their parents may have had. I've known bosses who deliberately ham up the regional accent, and dress in a particular way, to present the "ordinary bloke/woman" image. 

If you try to make social class to be just down to accent, locality and behaviour, you lose the analytical power that thinking in terms of social classes can have. I don't think that ppl would be out on a freezing cold day selling socialist newspapers for hours on end if they had a vested interest in capitalism.


----------



## osterberg (Jan 14, 2006)

chilango said:
			
		

> did nwnm shop matt?
> 
> ...wouldn´t put it past him.


 No he bloody didn't because he was nowhere near a computer last weekend to read this drivel of a thread.
 By the way I don't blame the SWP getting upset with Matt posting comrades'  names on the internet. Fair play to them.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 14, 2006)

So why then weren't groucho, levien, RW, Udo, RMP3, mutley and others suspended for doing _exactly the same thing_? Do you really think people don't know that Pat Stack, John Molyneux andf Huw Williams are SWP members? People who have been named in the SWP owns paper and journals, who've spoke at meetings in the name of the SWP, who've had sections of the SWP mag named after them, who've published books _for_ the SWP - no one really had clue that they were SWP? Leave off.


----------



## osterberg (Jan 14, 2006)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> So why then weren't groucho, levien, RW, Udo, RMP3, mutley and others suspended for doing _exactly the same thing_? Do you really think people don't know that Pat Stack, John Molyneux andf Huw Williams are SWP members? People who have been named in the SWP owns paper and journals, who've spoke at meetings in the name of the SWP, who've had sections of the SWP mag named after them, who've published books _for_ the SWP - no one really had clue that they were SWP? Leave off.


And so the drivel continues.Are we going to get a report bacck from whatever tiny sect it is that you belong to?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 14, 2006)

So no actual comeback - only a steaming pile of one-eyed hypocrisy. Keep it up you lot, keep digging that hole deeper with each vaccuous reply - keep on proving people right about you. Why aren't you calling for groucho, levien, RW, Udo, RMP3, mutley and others to be sanctioned for naming well known SWP members on here?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 14, 2006)

Ooh look, here's *you* doing it as well...


----------



## osterberg (Jan 14, 2006)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> So no actual comeback - only a steaming pile of one-eyed hypocrisy. Keep it up you lot, keep digging that hole deeper with each vaccuous reply - keep on proving people right about you. Why aren't you calling for groucho, levien, RW, Udo, RMP3, mutley and others to be sanctioned for naming well known SWP members on here?



 *yawn* 
If the SWP aren't consistent in 'sanctioning' their comrades it's hardly my problem.


----------



## osterberg (Jan 14, 2006)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> Ooh look, here's *you* doing it as well...


 Yeah an SWP fulltimer  unlikely to get in trouble with his employers.
You have to try harder than that.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 14, 2006)

You mean exactly the same siutuation as with the ones named by Matt. No, _you're_ the one who's going to have to improve - and by a hell of a lot -  i'm afraid.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 14, 2006)

osterberg said:
			
		

> *yawn*
> If the SWP aren't consistent in 'sanctioning' their comrades it's hardly my problem.


 So why come on an applaud that inconistency you oaf? You made it your 'problem' when you decided to do that didn't you? You can't even keep the line straight for 5 minutes.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 14, 2006)

The point of quoting _you_ naming names is to highlight the absolutely normal nature of naming _well known_ SWP members on here - amongst the SWP and others. It's standard behaviour. I'm forced to point this out to you as you seem to have missed the point of that post somewhat.


----------



## osterberg (Jan 14, 2006)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> You mean exactly the same siutuation as with the ones named by Matt. No, _you're_ the one who's going to have to improve - and by a hell of a lot -  i'm afraid.



 No sorry but you've been misinformed.Those named were not all fulltimers.One or more have jobs in the real world.Not saying who or any more.


----------



## mk12 (Jan 14, 2006)

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=4056167&postcount=624


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 14, 2006)

osterberg said:
			
		

> No sorry but you've been misinformed.Those named were not all fulltimers.One or more have jobs in the real world.Not saying who or any more.


 Being or not being fulltimers isn't the point, that's a fairly transparent attempt at introducing a red herring - the others are all _already known_ far and wide as SWP members, writing in their jornals, speaking at meetings and even writing books on their behalf - that's the point, the central point where your posts fall down.


----------



## Fullyplumped (Jan 14, 2006)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> So no actual comeback - only a steaming pile of one-eyed hypocrisy.


Is one-eyed hypocrisy somehow worse?


----------



## catch (Jan 14, 2006)

Rebel Warrior posting up Huw Williams name six months ago.

this is so easy.


----------



## catch (Jan 14, 2006)

mattkidd12 said:
			
		

> http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=4056167&postcount=624



So Pat Stack, John Molyneux, and Huw Williams all recently named by regular SWP posters on this forum. And Matt, probably the youngest of them, follows their example.

Then we get this response by osterberg:



> No sorry but you've been misinformed.Those named were not all fulltimers.One or more have jobs in the real world.Not saying who or any more.


Despite it being very clear that the self-same people have had their names (and in the case of Groucho's post a lot of details about their political history) posted up on here several times before.


----------



## ferndale (Jan 14, 2006)

shandy said:
			
		

> Unfortunately not. My friend was expelled from the SWP after he and other members of SWP complained about the actions of a long-time local SWP full-timer. They complained that the person a) had bullied SWP members (this had been witnessed) and b) that the person was ineffective in the role of full-timer and had continually blocked local initiatives to promote SWP and RESPECT
> 
> A member of the CC came to hear their complaint and adjudicated that all those who brought the complaint were expelled.  The full-timer was left in post.



This is similar to my experience with the SWP. Members of about five different branches complained about the actions of a long standing member, including bullying. They took their complaint first to the District Organiser who did nothing. They sat on the complaint for a while, before finally taking it to CCC, when things failed to get better. There was a hearing of CCC: one of the complainants was not seen at all, and in the end had to leave to collect children; complainants were kept waiting for hours; complainants were interviewed separately, being held in kind of isolation for half an hour up to an hour before being seen; one complainer (a leading Stop the War activist) was then expelled; before finally the rest (minus the expelled, and the parent who had had to leave) were told that their branch would either be disbanded, or "leading comrades" would be coming in to sort them out, pending a decision of the CC that they were to wait for. The three CCC ppl said they would not discuss these decisions as they had a train to catch. The question of the bullying behaviour was never addresssed or mentioned. Needless to say the awaited decision never came, and anyway, the comrades resigned in disgust, as did a no of other ppl when they heard about it.


----------



## JHE (Jan 14, 2006)

ferndale said:
			
		

> Members of about five different branches complained about the actions of a long standing member, including bullying.


Would you like to name the long-standing member?


----------



## ferndale (Jan 14, 2006)

JHE said:
			
		

> Would you like to name the long-standing member?



Come off it, against the rules, innit?


----------



## JHE (Jan 14, 2006)

ferndale said:
			
		

> Come off it, against the rules, innit?


Is it?  What rule would it break?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 14, 2006)

ferndale said:
			
		

> Come off it, against the rules, innit?


 Maybe you could tell either groucho, levien, RW, Udo, RMP3, mutley or any other SWP who could then pass it on to the rest of us as they seem to enjoy some kind of immunity?


----------



## shandy (Jan 14, 2006)

ferndale said:
			
		

> This is similar to my experience with the SWP. Members of about five different branches complained about the actions of a long standing member, including bullying. They took their complaint first to the District Organiser who did nothing. They sat on the complaint for a while, before finally taking it to CCC, when things failed to get better. There was a hearing of CCC: one of the complainants was not seen at all, and in the end had to leave to collect children; complainants were kept waiting for hours; complainants were interviewed separately, being held in kind of isolation for half an hour up to an hour before being seen; one complainer (a leading Stop the War activist) was then expelled; before finally the rest (minus the expelled, and the parent who had had to leave) were told that their branch would either be disbanded, or "leading comrades" would be coming in to sort them out, pending a decision of the CC that they were to wait for. The three CCC ppl said they would not discuss these decisions as they had a train to catch. The question of the bullying behaviour was never addresssed or mentioned. Needless to say the awaited decision never came, and anyway, the comrades resigned in disgust, as did a no of other ppl when they heard about it.



Was this in West Yorkshire?


----------



## ferndale (Jan 14, 2006)

shandy said:
			
		

> Was this in West Yorkshire?



Certainly was.


----------



## shandy (Jan 14, 2006)

ferndale said:
			
		

> Certainly was.



Ah, thanks, that's the one my friend was involved in.  You're not still in the SWP are you?  After seeing all that malarkey going on?


----------



## ferndale (Jan 14, 2006)

shandy said:
			
		

> Ah, thanks, that's the one my friend was involved in.  You're not still in the SWP are you?  After seeing all that malarkey going on?



Definitely not still in it. Now I don't trust the SWP leadership as far as I could throw them. I think there is an "inner circle" within the SWP which is considered to be above reproach.


----------



## neprimerimye (Jan 15, 2006)

Nigel said:
			
		

> So he's gone onto another Web Site, made a cup of Tea, and gone to watch Big Brother.
> 
> How is he iterelating with real people????
> 
> ...



Terrible the lack of respect shown to the elite of the SWP on these boards. Nwnm is a Fulltimer you know. A very important person don't you know.

Although on the basis of the obseqious attitude Nwnm displays towards Huw Williams, whose twig (one can hardly describe it as a branch) may be included in Nwnm fiefdom, he lacks respect within his incredibly shrinking party.


----------



## nwnm (Jan 15, 2006)

Ah 27 pages of pure wank - just what you'd expect as most of the people who've written it are.......


----------



## ferndale (Jan 15, 2006)

nwnm said:
			
		

> Ah 27 pages of pure wank - just what you'd expect as most of the people who've written it are.......



Hardly erudite, nwnm, whoever you are. Very ad hominem. Which points in particular do you have the problem with?


----------



## Pilgrim (Jan 15, 2006)

nwnm said:
			
		

> Ah 27 pages of pure wank - just what you'd expect as most of the people who've written it are.......



Blowing your party out of the water and exposing the SWP CC (and their various toady's, both online and off) for the ultra authoritarian, corrupt, undemocratic, incompetent, underhand, snide, devious, spiteful, medacious, deceitful, hypocritical trash that they are?

Yep, I think that sums up the situation pretty well.

Well done nwnm, you get a gold star and a cookie.


----------



## bristol_citizen (Jan 15, 2006)

nwnm said:
			
		

> Ah 27 pages of pure wank - just what you'd expect as most of the people who've written it are.......


Haven't you got some sort of caucus of paranoid beared weirdoes and delusional polytechnic lecturers to be organising?


----------



## JHE (Jan 15, 2006)

nwnm said:
			
		

> Ah 27 pages of pure wank - just what you'd expect as most of the people who've written it are.......


Never mind, nwnm.  Just look forward to the happy day - the day the Social Workers take state power, inshallah.  Then the wretches won't dare mock you, insult you, answer back or speak ill of The Party and Its Historic Birthright.  They'll be sorry they ever posted on this thread!


----------



## Pilgrim (Jan 15, 2006)

JHE said:
			
		

> Never mind, nwnm.  Just look forward to the happy day - the day the Social Workers take state power, inshallah.  Then the wretches won't dare mock you, insult you, answer back or speak ill of The Party and Its Historic Birthright.  They'll be sorry they ever posted on this thread!



No, no, don't mock the mighty Stalinist Workers Party!

They're probably saving any critical posts for the files!

Then, come the Glorious Revolution, all enemies of 'The Party' will be sent to labour camps for 'political re-education'.

Or simply be 'vaporised', having spent considerable time in the basement at the Ministry Of Love.

"Room 101!"


----------



## bristol_citizen (Jan 15, 2006)

Pilgrim said:
			
		

> No, no, don't mock the mighty Stalinist Workers Party!
> 
> They're probably saving any critical posts for the files!
> 
> ...


Worse than that. We'll be forced to attend one of NWNM's caucuses in perpetuity - with Moti and Rebel Warrior as keynote speakers.


----------



## Pilgrim (Jan 15, 2006)

bristol_citizen said:
			
		

> Worse than that. We'll be forced to attend one of NWNM's caucuses in perpetuity - with Moti and Rebel Warrior as keynote speakers.



Suddenly, a bullet in the back of the head doesn't seem like such a bad thing after all.

At least, not when compared to that anyway.


----------



## rebel warrior (Jan 15, 2006)

Pilgrim said:
			
		

> Then, come the Glorious Revolution, all enemies of 'The Party' will be sent to labour camps for 'political re-education'



Nah, we'll let them hang around on U75 and continue with their 'critical criticism'.   They are no threat to the capitalist state now, why should they be any threat to a workers' state in the future?


----------



## Pilgrim (Jan 15, 2006)

rebel warrior said:
			
		

> Nah, we'll let them hang around on U75 and continue with their 'critical criticism'.   They are no threat to the capitalist state now, why should they be any threat to a workers' state in the future?



Don't try satire, RW, it doesn't suit you.

Besides, when was the last time the SWP was viewed as a threat by the State?

Can't say I ever got any hassle from the plods when I was a Swappie.

Zilch.

NONE AT ALL.

I've had a lot more since I involved myself with a direct action crew, though.

What does that tell you, RW?

Oh, and the debate on the Spanish Civil War you've been conspicuously running away from, that offer still stands.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 15, 2006)

That wasn't really satire - that was an attempt to make himself look intellectual by making an allusion to Marx - wasn't it snowball? Unless he was actually imagining himself _as_ Marx....


----------



## Pilgrim (Jan 15, 2006)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> That wasn't really satire - that was an attempt to make himself look intellectual by making an allusion to Marx - wasn't it snowball? Unless he was actually imagining himself _as_ Marx....



Fair enough, my mistake.

I always confuse satire with snide, pseudo-intellectual bullshit.


----------



## ferndale (Jan 15, 2006)

rebel warrior said:
			
		

> Nah, we'll let them hang around on U75 and continue with their 'critical criticism'.   They are no threat to the capitalist state now, why should they be any threat to a workers' state in the future?



So "come the revolution" you see yourself in a position where you will be able to allow/forbid us to do things such as post on U75? I think I'd rather have things the way they are at the moment: at least at the moment I don't need your permission to use a bulletin board.

Also, I thought the idea was fighting *international * capitalism, for *international * socialism, not a "workers' state", ie: socialism in one country. (See, I do remember something of my swappie days).


----------



## audiotech (Jan 15, 2006)

Pilgrim said:
			
		

> Can't say I ever got any hassle from the plods when I was a Swappie.



fwiw, I did. 1984 miners strike. Made me paranoid for a while, but that was the point wasn't it?


----------



## Pilgrim (Jan 15, 2006)

MC5 said:
			
		

> fwiw, I did. 1984 miners strike. Made me paranoid for a while, but that was the point wasn't it?



I can see why people would get hassle back then, but I haven't come across much harassment, if any for that matter, of SWP types these days.

That doesn't mean it doesn't happen, just that it doesn't even compare with the general harassment that Anarchists and direct action crews seem to get nowadays.

Which begs the question, who does the State seemingly consider to be the greater threat.

Thw SWP or Anarchists/direct action crews?


----------



## audiotech (Jan 16, 2006)

Pilgrim said:
			
		

> I can see why people would get hassle back then, but I haven't come across much harassment, if any for that matter, of SWP types these days.
> 
> That doesn't mean it doesn't happen, just that it doesn't even compare with the general harassment that Anarchists and direct action crews seem to get nowadays.
> 
> ...



None of them would be my answer.


----------



## Pilgrim (Jan 16, 2006)

MC5 said:
			
		

> None of them would be my answer.



Then why the frequent police harrassment and intimidation of Anarchists and direct action people, while Swappies are seemingly ignored?

And if the State aren't concerned at all about the activities of Anarchists and direct action crews, then why cause us so much trouble?

It seems to me, from personal observation, that SWP events attract little or no scrutiny from the plods, while I have been watched, filmed, photographed and so on when attending Anarchist events.

I'm not for a moment saying that we are on the verge of an Anarchist revolution, or that we are even anywhere near that stage, but the fact remains that the State responds much more to Anarchists and direct action crews than it does to the Swappies.

Given that the plods always seem to be moaning about their lack of resources and such, it seems rather odd that they would devote so much to events like DSEI, Trident Ploughshares events, and others, and not bother with what claims to be a party devoting itself to revolution and the destruction of the old order.

There seems to be a discrepancy here.


----------



## nwnm (Jan 16, 2006)

"Haven't you got some sort of caucus of paranoid beared weirdoes and delusional polytechnic lecturers to be organising?" No! Your all on here calling yourselves 'anarchists' mainly.

"So "come the revolution" you see yourself in a position where you will be able to allow/forbid us to do things such as post on U75?" 'Come the revolution' you lot will still be posting/posturing on here whilst everyone else has taken to the streets! You sad, sad wankers....


----------



## revol68 (Jan 16, 2006)

Pilgrim said:
			
		

> Then why the frequent police harrassment and intimidation of Anarchists and direct action people, while Swappies are seemingly ignored?
> 
> And if the State aren't concerned at all about the activities of Anarchists and direct action crews, then why cause us so much trouble?
> 
> ...



god you direct actionista fuckwits are as dillusional as the Swappies.

threat to fuck all, youse just allow peelers to afford bigger mortgages from the extra overtime.


----------



## nwnm (Jan 16, 2006)

but their dads bigger'n yours....


----------



## Pilgrim (Jan 16, 2006)

nwnm said:
			
		

> "Haven't you got some sort of caucus of paranoid beared weirdoes and delusional polytechnic lecturers to be organising?" No! Your all on here calling yourselves 'anarchists' mainly.
> 
> "So "come the revolution" you see yourself in a position where you will be able to allow/forbid us to do things such as post on U75?" 'Come the revolution' you lot will still be posting/posturing on here whilst everyone else has taken to the streets! You sad, sad wankers....



Oh, I'm glad I wore a corset, for I fear my sides have split.


----------



## Pilgrim (Jan 16, 2006)

revol68 said:
			
		

> god you direct actionista fuckwits are as dillusional as the Swappies.
> 
> threat to fuck all, youse just allow peelers to afford bigger mortgages from the extra overtime.



Nothing intelligent to contribute, I see.

Well, the more things change, the more they stay the same.


----------



## nwnm (Jan 16, 2006)

" I fear my sides have split." Ah splits within the anarchist movement. Now theres something that ISN'T news......


----------



## Pilgrim (Jan 16, 2006)

nwnm said:
			
		

> " I fear my sides have split." Ah splits within the anarchist movement. Now theres something that ISN'T news......



Like the Trots, you mean?

57 Varieties of Trotskyism: And ALL Unfit For Human Consumption.


----------



## audiotech (Jan 16, 2006)

Pilgrim said:
			
		

> Then why the frequent police harrassment and intimidation of Anarchists and direct action people, while Swappies are seemingly ignored?
> 
> And if the State aren't concerned at all about the activities of Anarchists and direct action crews, then why cause us so much trouble?
> 
> ...



'watched', 'filmed and photographed' - wow! When you get a truncheon over your head, arrested, finger printed and locked up, as well as being watched, filmed and photographed get back to me.


----------



## nwnm (Jan 16, 2006)

and how many varieties of 'anarchism'? Give my regards to Prince Peter (Kropotkin) by the way. He's one of yours isn't he?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 16, 2006)

Pilgrim said:
			
		

> Then why the frequent police harrassment and intimidation of Anarchists and direct action people, while Swappies are seemingly ignored?



The primary difference is to do with "law and order". Direct actionistas are considered more likely to engage in what the state regards as petty criminality than the SWP are. That's what most of the in your face policing is about. As far as the by its very nature lower key political policing is concerned neither are top priority in the greater scheme of things but as "subversives" both come in for their share of attention.


----------



## Pilgrim (Jan 16, 2006)

MC5 said:
			
		

> 'watched', 'filmed and photographed' - wow! When you get a truncheon over your head, arrested, finger printed and locked up, as well as being photographed get back to me.



Hasn't happened to me yet.

Has happened to others I've worked with though. 

And you didn't answer my point that Swappie gatherings and events are seemingly almost completely ignored while Anarchist and direct action events are well attended by the plod.

What does that tell you?


----------



## Pilgrim (Jan 16, 2006)

nwnm said:
			
		

> and how many varieties of 'anarchism'? Give my regards to Prince Peter (Kropotkin) by the way. He's one of yours isn't he?



Peter Kropotkin was one of ours, yes. And, if memory serves, he renounced his position and spent much of his life in exile.

I have a copy of 'Mutual Aid' in front of me if you'd like to debate with me.

Or will you just run away or ignore the offer to debate, like RW usually does?


----------



## neprimerimye (Jan 16, 2006)

nwnm said:
			
		

> No! Your all on here calling yourselves 'anarchists' mainly.
> 
> 'Come the revolution' you lot will still be posting/posturing on here whilst everyone else has taken to the streets! You sad, sad wankers....



The funny thing is that in person Nwnm is a pleasant ordinary chap. But as soon as one criticises his faith, I use that word as his belief in the SWP is essentially religious in character, he becomes an abusive rather boorish individual. Like many a believer before him he is more a victim than those he would like to persecute if only he had any power.


----------



## Pilgrim (Jan 16, 2006)

neprimerimye said:
			
		

> The funny thing is that in person Nwnm is a pleasant ordinary chap. But as soon as one criticises his faith, I use that word as his belief in the SWP is essentially religious in character, he becomes an abusive rather boorish individual. Like many a believer before him he is more a victim than those he would like to persecute if only he had any power.



People's online persona is often different from their real one.

I suppose everybody has their own sacred cows.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 16, 2006)

Pilgrim said:
			
		

> And you didn't answer my point that Swappie gatherings and events are seemingly almost completely ignored while Anarchist and direct action events are well attended by the plod.
> 
> What does that tell you?




That direct actionistas are regarded as more likely to go around breaking shit or throwing things at cops mainly. 

How much repression you get is not in direct proportion to the political threat you pose. The Weather Underground for example were more of a threat to themselves than to the American government but they got enormous state pressure put on them because of first things like their proto-black block "Days of Rage" and then their particularly ineffectual use of individual terrorism. The MOVE organisation actually managed to get themselves massacred by the cops and believe me it wasn't because they posed a clear and present danger to the survival of capitalism.


----------



## neprimerimye (Jan 16, 2006)

nwnm said:
			
		

> and how many varieties of 'anarchism'? Give my regards to Prince Peter (Kropotkin) by the way. He's one of yours isn't he?



I believe that the Bolsheviks honoured Kropotkin for his services to the social revolution despite his Francophile position in the Great War of 1914-18. Unlike you they recognised Kropotkins greatness and humanity. When you denigrate him all you do is reveal the immense distance between yourself and Bolshevism.


----------



## nwnm (Jan 16, 2006)

"Swappie gatherings and events are seemingly almost completely ignored while Anarchist and direct action events are well attended by the plod.
What does that tell you?"

A) Anarchists are very popular with the police

B) There are a lot of undercover cops who pretend to be anarchists

C) Anarchists are very stupid - and their attempts to be more 'in your face then thou' rebound on them a lot


----------



## JHE (Jan 16, 2006)

neprimerimye said:
			
		

> The funny thing is that in person Nwnm is a pleasant ordinary chap. But as soon as one criticises his faith, I use that word as his belief in the SWP is essentially religious in character, he becomes an abusive rather boorish individual. Like many a believer before him he is more a victim than those he would like to persecute if only he had any power.


The Social Workers support the bill to prohibit 'insults' to religion.  Perhaps they hope that slagging off Trots will become punishable by seven years in prison.  (If they do, they'll be disappointed - though their 'slamist mates will be protected.)


----------



## audiotech (Jan 16, 2006)

Pilgrim said:
			
		

> Hasn't happened to me yet.
> 
> Has happened to others I've worked with though.
> 
> ...



Your biased.


----------



## catch (Jan 16, 2006)

Pilgrim said:
			
		

> Hasn't happened to me yet.
> 
> Has happened to others I've worked with though.
> 
> ...



Direct action events are less of threat to the state than football matches or stadium concerts?


----------



## Pilgrim (Jan 16, 2006)

nwnm said:
			
		

> "Swappie gatherings and events are seemingly almost completely ignored while Anarchist and direct action events are well attended by the plod.
> What does that tell you?"
> 
> A) Anarchists are very popular with the police
> ...



A) Anarchists are anything BUT popular with the police.

I should know, I was Plymouth Trident Ploughshares police liaison for two camps. Nonstop hassle, all day, every day.

B) There are some undercover plods who infiltrate Anarchist groups. But the affinity group structure is, I'll wager, a rather harder nut to crack than that of a completely top-down and utterly authoritarian organisation such as the SWP. One infiltrator on the SWP CC would be in a position not only to know every change in policy even before the rank and file membership did, but would also be in a position to formulate policy. 

We saw, in perfect detail, that even a couple of BNP moles managed to infiltrate in Manchester, and obtain senior positions at that! They even had to out themselves because SWP security was so lame it hadn't worked out their game. If a couple of rank amateurs could do so effective a job, then I doubt very much that MI5 or Special Branch would have any difficulty if they so chose.

Of course, groups opting for the affinity group structure can be infiltrated, nobody is saying they are immune. But an infiltrator within an affinity group will have to work much harder to gain valuable information outside of his/her own group. In a national group, with say, twenty or so individual affinity groups dotted around the country, each acting with the maximum amount of autonomy and minimum reliance on central command, then more agents would be needed to gather as much information as maybe two or three agents might in a rigidly authoritarian, top-down group.

Neither system is impregnable to infiltrators. No system is. But I feel infinitely more secure in an affinity group setup than in a top-down group like the SWP.

C) Some people who call themselves Anarchists can be idiots. I'm not denying that. But the same could be applied to Swappies. Or any other group of people for that matter. Some people I have time for, some I don't. To have this blanket idea that all Anarchists are thick is simply betraying your own ignorance I'm afraid. Either that or you've been believing the tripe routinely peddled by a certain Pat Stack.

And Anarchists aren't all gung ho, more balls than brains loonies either. Some are hardcore, there's no denying that. Some go way too far for my liking, there's no denying that either. But most of the ones I've met and worked with have been pretty well-adjusted and grounded people. And how many Anarchists have you actually met, by the way?


----------



## Pilgrim (Jan 16, 2006)

catch said:
			
		

> Direct action events are less of threat to the state than football matches or stadium concerts?



I'm not saying that Anarchists and direct action crews are regarded as being a huge threat by the State. I already made that clear in a previous post.

But I AM saying that, comparatively speaking, they are regarded as more of a threat than the Swappies.


----------



## nwnm (Jan 16, 2006)

Now my sides are splitting - less threat more irritant (much easier to deal with)


----------



## Pilgrim (Jan 16, 2006)

nwnm said:
			
		

> Now my sides are splitting - less threat more irritant (much easier to deal with)



nwnm, please, make some effort to try and keep up with the debate.

I NEVER said that we are on the point of an Anarchist revolution.

I NEVER said that Anarchists and direct action crews were the biggest threat going at the moment.

I DID say that, comparatively speaking, Anarchists and direct action crews garner infinitely more State attention than Swappies do these days.

And feel free to answer the points made in my previous post, if you'd be so kind.


----------



## catch (Jan 16, 2006)

catch said:
			
		

> Rebel Warrior posting up Huw Williams name six months ago.
> 
> this is so easy.


.


----------



## catch (Jan 16, 2006)

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=4056167&postcount=624


...


----------



## nwnm (Jan 16, 2006)

"I DID say that, comparatively speaking, Anarchists and direct action crews garner infinitely more State attention than Swappies do these days." No, you said they were more of a threat. I said they were an irritant (i.e. whilst they may cause problems in and of themselves they are easy to 'contain/deal with)
I also pointed out that some anarchists have a tendency to be 'more in your face than thou' and get more police attention because of this. I could walk around town naked, the increased attention I got (from the police) would not however represent a growth in stature of the SWP (and in this weather my 'stature' would almost certainly shrink!)

The only time Anarchist or Socialist groups can be deamed as a 'threat' to the state is when they connect with a more generalised anger/ an explosion of class struggle. There is no way of pre planning these. All we can do is carry on building/supporting protests/strikes etc. and building our organisations (or in your case loose affinity groups) in the way we do. Having a discussion which seems to centre around statements such as "the SWP are part of the boss class" as one of the posters here put it makes posting anything other than counter insults on this thread pointless. Which is a shame as I found some of your contribution probably the first interesting comment on the whole thread- 
"B) There are some undercover plods who infiltrate Anarchist groups. But the affinity group structure is, I'll wager, a rather harder nut to crack than that of a completely top-down and utterly authoritarian organisation such as the SWP. One infiltrator on the SWP CC would be in a position not only to know every change in policy even before the rank and file membership did, but would also be in a position to formulate policy. 

We saw, in perfect detail, that even a couple of BNP moles managed to infiltrate in Manchester, and obtain senior positions at that! They even had to out themselves because SWP security was so lame it hadn't worked out their game. If a couple of rank amateurs could do so effective a job, then I doubt very much that MI5 or Special Branch would have any difficulty if they so chose.

Of course, groups opting for the affinity group structure can be infiltrated, nobody is saying they are immune. But an infiltrator within an affinity group will have to work much harder to gain valuable information outside of his/her own group. In a national group, with say, twenty or so individual affinity groups dotted around the country, each acting with the maximum amount of autonomy and minimum reliance on central command, then more agents would be needed to gather as much information as maybe two or three agents might in a rigidly authoritarian, top-down group.

Neither system is impregnable to infiltrators. No system is. But I feel infinitely more secure in an affinity group setup than in a top-down group like the SWP.

C) Some people who call themselves Anarchists can be idiots. I'm not denying that. But the same could be applied to Swappies. Or any other group of people for that matter. Some people I have time for, some I don't. To have this blanket idea that all Anarchists are thick is simply betraying your own ignorance I'm afraid. Either that or you've been believing the tripe routinely peddled by a certain Pat Stack.

And Anarchists aren't all gung ho, more balls than brains loonies either. Some are hardcore, there's no denying that. Some go way too far for my liking, there's no denying that either. But most of the ones I've met and worked with have been pretty well-adjusted and grounded people. And how many Anarchists have you actually met, by the way?"


----------



## nwnm (Jan 16, 2006)

have to get some sleep now - might return to the above if it doesn't get buried in pages of wankery before I get back.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jan 16, 2006)

anyone offering odds on who this delightful nnnnnnnn sort is?


----------



## catch (Jan 16, 2006)

Can the SWP members on here, after defending an expulsion at least in part based on the mentioning of three prominent members of the party by name, also defend their own breaching of the same rules on this forum as recently as 2005?

Pat Stack[/url] being outed by Groucho on the 7th December 2005. Has he gone silent since then?

levien also mentions Pat Stack by name.

Groucho
 mentions John Molyneux, including arguments and decisions made a conference (albeit a while back but I see no difference in principle). Worth quoting that one.



> The thread leader is misinformed or made up. I thought ernesto was simply trolling but if there is something he is exagerating I do hope after all this it doesn't turn out to be a huge anti-climax.
> 
> On the debate within the SWP raised by Flimsier (much more interesting IMO)
> 
> ...


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 16, 2006)

bristle-krs said:
			
		

> anyone offering odds on who this delightful nnnnnnnn sort is?


 Whoever the south wales organiser is. Shall we out it?


----------



## bristol_citizen (Jan 16, 2006)

nwnm said:
			
		

> Having a discussion which seems to centre around statements such as "the SWP are part of the boss class" as one of the posters here put it


I actually said, with reference to your treatment of your member: "This is boss class-style action from a boss class grouping" 
Leaving aside the selective misquotation, can you tell me how the SWP's laughable disciplinary effort differs from an employer constructively dismissing an employee?
If you behave like the boss class...


----------



## Groucho (Jan 16, 2006)

catch said:
			
		

> Can the SWP members on here, after defending an expulsion at least in part based on the mentioning of three prominent members of the party by name, also defend their own breaching of the same rules on this forum as recently as 2005?
> 
> Pat Stack[/url] being outed by Groucho on the 7th December 2005. Has he gone silent since then?
> 
> ...



Firstly MK12 was suspended pending an inquiry into allegations passed by someone to the cc. He was not expelled but resigned rather than meet with the Disputes Committee to whom the matter was referred. It is a shame, I think, that he resigned. Secondly, I have not defended anything.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jan 16, 2006)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> Whoever the south wales organiser is. Shall we out it?



but... but... we might get expelled from the party!


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 16, 2006)

Groucho said:
			
		

> Firstly MK12 was suspended pending an inquiry into allegations passed by someone to the cc. He was not expelled but resigned rather than meet with the Disputes Committee to whom the matter was referred. It is a shame, I think, that he resigned. Secondly, I have not defended anything.


 He was suspended, which prompted the resignation - and that suspension was largely based on his naming well known SWP figures on here, something which you, Levien, RW, RMP3, Udo, Mutley and almost every other SWP member had engaged in before without being suspended - this you have not delt with, nor can you. It's clear to everyone observing this that the action was a a bureaucratic and politically motivated  move to get rid of one of the few people who had dared publically challenge the SWP CC at conference (a conference at which, as you yourself helpfully pointed out, misrepresentations and untruths were spread about him) _the previous_ day. It' sutter dishonesty to pretend otherwise - we're not all naive mugs.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jan 16, 2006)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> Whoever the south wales organiser is. Shall we out it?


You know the rules about that sort of thing.


----------



## nwnm (Jan 16, 2006)

if that was true there would have been 50 odd suspensions at the same time.
He was suspended for posting an internal discussion on here before even the membership of the SWP had even got a report back. Being a bit of an arsehole this probably sounds strange to you.... but other people live more structured lives and observe things like erm... etiquette


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jan 16, 2006)

ooo! personal abuse 

i hope you're not involved in recruitment or publicity


----------



## editor (Jan 16, 2006)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> Whoever the south wales organiser is. Shall we out it?


Please remember the rules regarding personal information being given out on the boards.


----------



## nwnm (Jan 16, 2006)

"ooo! personal abuse" Seems to be the main method of communication on this thread


----------



## lewislewis (Jan 16, 2006)

Shouldn't you be away 'building' the revolution?


----------



## bristol_citizen (Jan 16, 2006)

nwnm said:
			
		

> "ooo! personal abuse" Seems to be the main method of communication on this thread


Such as (note the the obssession with wanking):



			
				nwnm said:
			
		

> you anarcho fuckers






			
				nwnm said:
			
		

> hacks like yourself






			
				nwnm said:
			
		

> Ah 27 pages of pure wank - just what you'd expect as most of the people who've written it are.......






			
				nwnm said:
			
		

> You sad, sad wankers....


And so on...


----------



## spartacus mills (Jan 16, 2006)

neprimerimye said:
			
		

> But as soon as one criticises his (nwnm) faith, I use that word as his belief in the SWP is essentially religious in character, he becomes an abusive rather boorish individual.



I've seen him literally froth at the mouth when he sees a SP paper seller!


----------



## nwnm (Jan 16, 2006)

At least I keep my insults simple eh? not like these - 

“Haven't you got some sort of caucus of paranoid beared weirdoes and delusional polytechnic lecturers”

“the SWP CC (and their various toady's, both online and off) for the ultra authoritarian, corrupt, undemocratic, incompetent, underhand, snide, devious, spiteful, medacious, deceitful, hypocritical trash that they are?”

“That's our grass confirmed then. Lowest of the fucking low.”

“They have shown themselves up to be the duplicitous, manipulative, poisonous little CUNTS they are by what they've done to Matt recently“

“So get your facts straight you miserable little pusbag”

“Report the posts, then. Cunt. And this one if you like”

“You know your trouble, you SWP hacks? You don't know what you are. You see, I fucking know what you are, but you don't know what you are.You're cunts”

“if it looks like shit, if it smells like shit, if it tastes like shit, then, by jove…”

“Well to be fair you are both a cunt and a moron. So yep,fairplay.”

“Nah, i think his chararcter exists independent of his politics. He'd be a cunt whatevr sect he was in.”


----------



## nwnm (Jan 16, 2006)

"I've seen him literally froth at the mouth when he sees a SP paper seller!" LOL


----------



## neprimerimye (Jan 16, 2006)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> Whoever the south wales organiser is. Shall we out it?



While I have no idea at all what Nwnm's actual title is but I very much doubt that his writ runs outside his own home in any meaningful sense. I find it absurd to even suggest that the 'leading comrades' in Blackwood and Swansea would submit to Nwnm. They might allow him to set up a bookstall for them or to 'organise' transport for a demo but that about it. That said he is, in person, a far nicer chap than either of the 'leading comrades' concerned albeit utterly lacking in moral fibre.


----------



## Nigel (Jan 16, 2006)

IF THE SWP DID NOT EXIST IT WOULD BE NECESSARY TO INVENT IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 16, 2006)

spartacus mills said:
			
		

> I've seen him literally froth at the mouth when he sees a SP paper seller!



He's overcome with sexual desire presumably?


----------



## Nigel (Jan 16, 2006)

How is he lacking in moral fibre,
He has'nt been out in the Welsh Pastures with his wellies again!!!!


----------



## nwnm (Jan 16, 2006)

"He's overcome with sexual desire presumably?" now wheres that dirty raincoat and packet of sweets gone? Must find them by Saturday....


----------



## Nigel (Jan 16, 2006)

Are you saying that the Socialist Party has had more success in recruiting 'YOUTH' membership, than dirty old fuckers like you in the SWP??????


----------



## neprimerimye (Jan 16, 2006)

Nigel Irritable said:
			
		

> He's overcome with sexual desire presumably?



With all due respect to your comrades in this fair city, which I share with Nwnm, that is very unlikely!


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 16, 2006)

nwnm said:
			
		

> "He's overcome with sexual desire presumably?" now wheres that dirty raincoat and packet of sweets gone? Must find them by Saturday....



Nothing dirty about it. Any healthy young man would feel a rush of blood to the groin at the stirring sight of hardy proletarians braving the Welsh wind and rain to bring "the socialist" to a grateful working class...


----------



## nwnm (Jan 16, 2006)

Actually we don't get on that badly locally. Been to each others public meetings and occasionally shared the odd pint.


----------



## Nigel (Jan 16, 2006)

Nigel Irritable said:
			
		

> Nothing dirty about it. Any healthy young man would feel a rush of blood to the groin at the stirring sight of hardy proletarians braving the Welsh wind and rain to bring "the socialist" to a grateful working class...



Think I'll move to Wales!!!!!


----------



## nwnm (Jan 16, 2006)

"Are you saying that the Socialist Party has had more success in recruiting 'YOUTH' membership, than dirty old fuckers like you in the SWP??????" 

I think we are slightly ahead due to our work with SSAW and tightening up on recruitment rather than just building the movements. But I would rather people be active socialists than just gettin' angry in their armchairs


----------



## socialistsuzy (Jan 16, 2006)

i'm in SSAW as well as SPand ISR.  in SSAW i'd say a majority of active members are leaving, have left or want to leave the SWP.


----------



## nwnm (Jan 16, 2006)

on that we differ.


----------



## Nigel (Jan 16, 2006)

I suppose that the SWP has always been a high turnover organisation.
Hard sell being a saving grace.


----------



## chilango (Jan 16, 2006)

nwnm said:
			
		

> "Haven't you got some sort of caucus of paranoid beared weirdoes and delusional polytechnic lecturers to be organising?" No! Your all on here calling yourselves 'anarchists' mainly.
> 
> "So "come the revolution" you see yourself in a position where you will be able to allow/forbid us to do things such as post on U75?" 'Come the revolution' you lot will still be posting/posturing on here whilst everyone else has taken to the streets! You sad, sad wankers....



  Ahhh nwnm. I take it you forget the occasion when two of your housemates quit the SWP to become anarchists? who was "on the streets" more you or them? Or when the then fulltimer came around to try and convince them to rejoin, they politely declined but extended an invitation to said fulltimer to join them, who equally politely declined....

or indeed said anarchists having the SWP exclude them ANL meetings because they were "too violent"?

or the threat to call the police on them (by SWP activists) when they engaged in independant antifascist activity?

or the campaign to cold shoulder loyal and active SWP members who were seen as a threat to the leadership cabal? leading to the loss of several non anarchist activists?

or the resignation of the entire SWSS group after anarchists were banned from SWSS meetings?

maybe the state doesn´t see the anarchists as much of a threat (and why should it?), but you lot certainly did.

...as you know, I could go on appealing to your memory, but that´d be kicking a man while he was down  

..but a quick question  - why do_ you _ think so many people despise the SWP?


----------



## osterberg (Jan 16, 2006)

socialistsuzy said:
			
		

> i'm in SSAW as well as SPand ISR.  in SSAW i'd say a majority of active members are leaving, have left or want to leave the SWP.


Forgive my ignorance but what's SSAW?


----------



## neprimerimye (Jan 16, 2006)

chilango said:
			
		

> Ahhh nwnm. I take it you forget the occasion when two of your housemates quit the SWP to become anarchists? who was "on the streets" more you or them? Or when the then fulltimer came around to try and convince them to rejoin, they politely declined but extended an invitation to said fulltimer to join them, who equally politely declined....
> 
> or indeed said anarchists having the SWP exclude them ANL meetings because they were "too violent"?
> 
> ...



The funny thing about the above - all of which is true - is that even those SWPers who lined up behind the leadership clique of the day are now bitterly hostile to the SWP.

Of a branch of the SWP which a dozen years ago could claim nearly 50 members only Nwnm remains an active committed member of the SWP.

I seriously doubt that the recruitment of one 15 yr old boy, the son of an ex-member, will remedy the problems of the SWP in Nwnm's tiny fiefdom.


----------



## nwnm (Jan 16, 2006)

chilango I don't know where you live - but I hope its a hospitable planet.


----------



## chilango (Jan 16, 2006)

neprimerimye said:
			
		

> The funny thing about the above - all of which is true - is that even those SWPers who lined up behind the leadership clique of the day are now bitterly hostile to the SWP.
> 
> Of a branch of the SWP which a dozen years ago could claim nearly 50 members only Nwnm remains an active committed member of the SWP.
> 
> I seriously doubt that the recruitment of one 15 yr old boy, the son of an ex-member, will remedy the problems of the SWP in Nwnm's tiny fiefdom.



...or that a long, long record of treating loyal (if critical) activists like this or as happenned to mattkidd12 or countless others can´t be brushed aside with cheap swipes at anarchists.

Sad thing is nwnm knows better than this, yet carries on. Says a lot about the current state of the SWPs.


----------



## chilango (Jan 16, 2006)

nwnm said:
			
		

> chilango I don't know where you live - but I hope its a hospitable planet.



The sun is shining, a clear blue sky and a great view of the mountains seeing as you ask!  

I take it you´re denying the above then?


----------



## nwnm (Jan 16, 2006)

"...or that a long, long record of treating loyal (if critical) activists like this " yeah right! My sides they split again


----------



## chilango (Jan 16, 2006)

nwnm said:
			
		

> "...or that a long, long record of treating loyal (if critical) activists like this " yeah right! My sides they split again



Why?

As "fulltimer" surely you´d want to keep your good activists...?

...or am I missing something?


----------



## nwnm (Jan 16, 2006)

am doing and am adding to them thanks - never had you down as one though...


----------



## bristol_citizen (Jan 16, 2006)

neprimerimye said:
			
		

> Of a branch of the SWP which a dozen years ago could claim nearly 50 members only Nwnm remains an active committed member of the SWP.


Ha, ha, ha, ha.
This "caucus" is actually just himself then? 
Doesn't look like this future workers' state will be happening anytime soon in Wales then.


----------



## nwnm (Jan 16, 2006)

"This "caucus" is actually just himself then? 
Doesn't look like this future workers' state will be happening anytime soon in Wales then."

If you wish to believe Nep thats your business - He's more comfortable with being a one man party then I would be


----------



## Nigel (Jan 16, 2006)

*Students With Placards!!!!!!!*

Thankfully with the demise of the SWP it will be sooner coming!!!!


----------



## chilango (Jan 16, 2006)

nwnm said:
			
		

> am doing and am adding to them thanks - never had you down as one though...



A) That not true though is it? Are you alone bucking the trend that sees the SWP collapse from 10 000 members to about 2500? maybe you and not Molyneux should´ve stood for fuhrer?

B) Wasn´t talking about myself never claimed to be "a good, loyal activist" *shudders at thought* however Neppy? P or K? for example driven out...nice work.


----------



## nwnm (Jan 16, 2006)

"Thankfully with the demise of the SWP it will be sooner coming!!!!"
Yeah and without trade unions the workers would be better off, without the welfare state workers would be better off.... OMG Its the rebirth of the RCP


----------



## chilango (Jan 16, 2006)

nwnm said:
			
		

> "Thankfully with the demise of the SWP it will be sooner coming!!!!"
> Yeah and without trade unions the workers would be better off, without the welfare state workers would be better off.... OMG Its the rebirth of the RCP



Are you now claiming the SWP and the trade unions are somehow equateable?

...funny you should mention the RCP though given the content of this thread....


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 16, 2006)

osterberg said:
			
		

> Forgive my ignorance but what's SSAW?



School Students Against the War. It was set up by the Stop the War Coalition at the instigation of the SSP after ISR started organising the first wave of school student strikes. It was SWP controlled for a period but the number of actual SWP members involved was small so control was tenuous and now slipping.


----------



## neprimerimye (Jan 16, 2006)

chilango said:
			
		

> A) That not true though is it? Are you alone bucking the trend that sees the SWP collapse from 10 000 members to about 2500? maybe you and not Molyneux should´ve stood for fuhrer?
> 
> B) Wasn´t talking about myself never claimed to be "a good, loyal activist" *shudders at thought* however Neppy? P or K? for example driven out...nice work.



No, no. no! "A good loyal activist" is by definition uncritical for Nwnm.   

Both P and myself have always argued that only critical activists are good activists. Which goes some way to explaining why we're not in the SWP I guess.


----------



## nwnm (Jan 16, 2006)

"maybe you and not Molyneux should´ve stood for fuhrer?" Thanks for your ringing endorsement..... i'll rush out and buy a copy of 'If I ruled the world'

Haven't driven anyone out of the party, but if you want to congratulate me on a just in case basis..... well.....


----------



## chilango (Jan 16, 2006)

nwnm.

why do _you_ think so many people hate the SWP?


----------



## chilango (Jan 16, 2006)

..and, nwnm, what is _your_ opinion on the SWPs record of losing good activists?


----------



## Nigel (Jan 16, 2006)

*You Are F**king Mad!!!!!!*




			
				nwnm said:
			
		

> "Thankfully with the demise of the SWP it will be sooner coming!!!!"
> Yeah and without trade unions the workers would be better off, without the welfare state workers would be better off.... OMG Its the rebirth of the RCP



2+2= 22

You don't seriously equate this now minute sect with Trade Unions, Welfare State.

I thought the RCP were a break off from your lot in the IS.
You managed to create an organisation more cult like than yourselves!!!!!!

I think any element of the Labour Movement will be better off with your demise. As would any other proggressive tendency.

As for gains that workers have won and fought for, your ultra leftist stance in the recent PCS dispute could have lead to disaster. But then you could have held the moral high ground, by calling a defeat as part of a sell out and opportunistically tried to get a few members out of anyone niave enough to believe you!!!!±!!


----------



## socialistsuzy (Jan 16, 2006)

> posted by:nwnm
> 
> on that we differ.



i go to virtually all the SSAW organising meetings and therefore believe my information to be more reliable than yours especially when you probably got yours from the only active member of SSAW in wales who is in the SWP.


----------



## chilango (Jan 16, 2006)

Nigel said:
			
		

> 2+2= 22
> 
> You don't seriously equate this now minute sect with Trade Unions, Welfare State



As he is a fulltimer can we assume that this the CC approved official stance on trade unions?


----------



## Nigel (Jan 16, 2006)

Nigel said:
			
		

> 2+2= 22
> 
> You don't seriously equate this now minute sect with Trade Unions, Welfare State.
> 
> ...



I've heard them say more insane things at public meetings and Marxism.
E.G. The only way to stop the troubles in Northern Ireland is to donate money to the SWP.

No wonder Eamon McAnns doing so well!!!!


----------



## nwnm (Jan 16, 2006)

"As for gains that workers have won and fought for, your ultra leftist stance in the recent PCS dispute could have lead to disaster. But then you could have held the moral high ground, by calling a defeat as part of a sell out and opportunistically tried to get a few members out of anyone niave enough to believe you!!!!±!!" which dispute in particular?

"i go to virtually all the SSAW organising meetings and therefore believe my information to be more reliable than yours especially when you probably got yours from the only active member of SSAW in wales who is in the SWP" Nope, more down to the number of school/6th form students at SWP conference (a number of whom were from Wales)


----------



## Nigel (Jan 16, 2006)

Pensions


----------



## Streathamite (Jan 16, 2006)

nwnm said:
			
		

> "Thankfully with the demise of the SWP it will be sooner coming!!!!"
> Yeah and without trade unions the workers would be better off, without the welfare state workers would be better off.... OMG Its the rebirth of the RCP


sorry, but your tiny, atrophied cultish sect does NOT power the international labour movement, or even its' British end.


----------



## chilango (Jan 16, 2006)

In case you missed it, here it is again:





			
				nwnm said:
			
		

> "Thankfully with the demise of the SWP it will be sooner coming!!!!"
> Yeah and without trade unions the workers would be better off, without the welfare state workers would be better off.... OMG Its the rebirth of the RCP


----------



## belboid (Jan 16, 2006)

Nigel said:
			
		

> Pensions


the SP cop out you mean?  I think you'll find it's far from just being the SWP who think the SP were shite on that one - most especially in their reporting of the deal.

I'd try and find a better bit of ammuniton if I were you, after all, its not that hard to do so.


----------



## Nigel (Jan 16, 2006)

I'm not just doing it for point scoring it is a position that I hold!


----------



## cockneyrebel (Jan 16, 2006)

> the SP cop out you mean? I think you'll find it's far from just being the SWP who think the SP were shite on that one - most especially in their reporting of the deal.



The SP, when saying what the members are ready for, also stay pretty silent on the fact that they told PCS members to vote for the candidate to the right of Mark Serwotka and said Mark Serwotka should stand down. Now given this is very recent history, I don't think people should be so certain that the SP got it right this time.

The PCS NC also chose the ignore the fact that the PCS conference said that giving up the rights of conference was unacceptable.

Indeed before this deal the SP said that accepting an increase in age of retirement would be a "gross betrayal". 

We'll see how bad this deal was in the years to come.


----------



## socialistsuzy (Jan 16, 2006)

> Nope, more down to the number of school/6th form students at SWP conference (a number of whom were from Wales)



that means they're in the SWP, not necessarily SSAW and no way active in SSAW, i know a few that boycotted conference and loads that have left, are leaving or are disillusioned with the SWP and they make up the majority of active SSAW members.


----------



## socialistsuzy (Jan 16, 2006)

> Nope, more down to the number of school/6th form students at SWP conference (a number of whom were from Wales)



that means they're in the SWP, not necessarily SSAW and no way active in SSAW, i know a few that boycotted conference and loads that have left, are leaving or are disillusioned with the SWP and they make up the majority of active SSAW members.


----------



## chilango (Jan 16, 2006)

socialistsuzy said:
			
		

> that means they're in the SWP, not necessarily SSAW and no way active in SSAW, i know a few that boycotted conference and loads that have left, are leaving or are disillusioned with the SWP and they make up the majority of active SSAW members.



Surely not Suzy. Because their organisers view on his new recruits is:



> am doing and am adding to them thanks



so they can´t be leaving already, can they?

nwnm? are you there? or has the kettle boiled?


----------



## nwnm (Jan 16, 2006)

ah yes pensions I remember that one - When the unions started building the campaign over public sector pensions they said that unity was the key — everyone standing together. Part of the fight was about protecting future workers.But this deal does not include future civil service workers, and other groups, such as local government workers, seem to have been left out to dry.

So much for the bold leadership of the Socialist Party! Over 6,000 British Gas engineers who struck against the deal, opposed to the company’s plans to disadvantage future workers are obviously ultra left as well then. Not to mention NATFHE eh? No wonder I didn't see any of your supporters on the GMB picket lines. What would you have suggested they do? Get back to work?


----------



## Nigel (Jan 16, 2006)

How do you draw tis conclusion?????


----------



## nwnm (Jan 16, 2006)

because of you arguing that our position of opposing the deal as it let down future generations of workers was 'ultra left' (same position as the GMB who were on strike). Or do you only favour selling out future generations of workers in certain sectors?


----------



## nwnm (Jan 16, 2006)

"that means they're in the SWP, not necessarily SSAW" Good, this means having recruited them we will hopefully get them more involved in the movement...


----------



## chilango (Jan 16, 2006)

nwnm: are you gonna answer anything properly? I´ve got all day! I´m off to put the kettle on. I´d like to know what _you_ think about all the points raised...unless of course you are scared that the grass will shop you to the CC for posting here....


----------



## cockneyrebel (Jan 16, 2006)

The SP have already said that the NATFHE leadership are ultra left. Presumably this applies to the British Gas workers as well.

I think the SP have buried their head in the sand about how bad the PCS deal is.


----------



## socialistsuzy (Jan 16, 2006)

> "that means they're in the SWP, not necessarily SSAW" Good, this means having recruited them we will hopefully get them more involved in the movement...



WTF are you on about? it was you that tried to claim that SWP are recruiting more youth than the SP becuase of your work in SSAW??? which i have said is incorrect, so where is your arguement??


----------



## dennisr (Jan 16, 2006)

nwnm said:
			
		

> So much for the bold leadership of the Socialist Party! Over 6,000 British Gas engineers who struck against the deal, opposed to the company’s plans to disadvantage future workers are obviously ultra left as well then. Not to mention NATFHE eh? No wonder I didn't see any of your supporters on the GMB picket lines. What would you have suggested they do? Get back to work?



don't try to wriggle out of the shite your in nwnm by trying to raise that false arguement ...
so are you saying that because the PCS got the best deal they could given the present levels of confidence of thier members that BG engineers cannot fight for a better deal given the greater confidence of thier members? 

Or for that matter (and even you can work this out) PCS members in the future - given they still have a decent leadership - which they would have rapidly lost if a bunch of idiots had managed to isolate themselves from the membership and assisted the government and employers dirty campaign to get rid of them. As your two SWP NEC members realised at the time...

Now back to the anwsers to the question in hand ... (or are you going to continue to avoid it and try abuse as a poor replacement for arguement?)


----------



## articul8 (Jan 16, 2006)

cockneyrebel said:
			
		

> The SP have already said that the NATFHE leadership are ultra left. Presumably this applies to the British Gas workers as well.



Maybe the NATFHE exec vote would have more credibility if the leadership had played a more active role in defending the interests of its own membership - lecturers pay has been cut drastically in real terms over the past twenty years.


----------



## dennisr (Jan 16, 2006)

cockneyrebel said:
			
		

> The SP have already said that the NATFHE leadership are ultra left. Presumably this applies to the British Gas workers as well.
> 
> I think the SP have buried their head in the sand about how bad the PCS deal is.



No mate  - some people have buried thier head in the sand about the very concrete gap between  what we all want as an end result and what is practically possible, at this moment, given the present union membership.

But you know these arguements already. So were you going to try and convince the membership that they have got to go out anyway when they clearly considered the defeat of the attempted raising of thier own retirement age as a victory that was already meeting most of thier demands? Do you consider the consequences of the demands of a PCS under your fantasy leadership (in demanding an all out serious action when thier own membership would consider them insane given the climbdown by the government at that point) as the  actions of a serious left TU leadership? - you would have lost everything - including the support of the membership - for the sake of nothing more than rightous posturung ...

added: this TU struggle stuff isn't a bloody game to put it frankly  - it is peoples livelihoods, wages etc...


----------



## dennisr (Jan 16, 2006)

articul8 said:
			
		

> Maybe the NATFHE exec vote would have more credibility if the leadership had played a more active role in defending the interests of its own membership - lecturers pay has been cut drastically in real terms over the past twenty years.



exactly - this is the same NATFHE leadeship which have effectively handed the negotiations on thier members behalves over to Prentice and co as a consequence of thier 'rightous' position taking - so much for the verbal posturing ...


----------



## cockneyrebel (Jan 16, 2006)

> No mate - some people have buried thier head in the sand about the very concrete gap between what we all want as an end result and what is practically possible, at this moment, given the present union membership.



As said the SP might be more convincing in saying this if you hadn't said exactly the same thing when telling PCS members not to vote for Mark Serwotka and telling people to vote for the candidate to his right.



> So were you going to try and convince the membership that they have got to go out anyway when they clearly considered the defeat of the attempted raising of thier own retirement age as a victory that was already meeting most of thier demands?



The PCS conference voted against accepting a deal that meant future workers would get a worse pension deal. I think this was reflective of something. But even if the left couldn't win the argument there and then, I think they should have at least tried. So what if the membership had still voted no? I don't believe for a minute that would mean everyone running to the right wing bureaucrats. But now, when the two tier system fucks the union (which it probably will do in time), the left leadership won't even be able to say it fought against accepting the deal at the time. Indeed it encouraged members to accept it.

And you don't have to tell me trade unionism isn't a game, I know full well it isn't. Come on, there's no point being petty. Agree or disagree with what I'm saying I doubt you really think I'm just saying all this for a revolutionary kick. Whether I was in WP or not I'd think what the SP did was totally wrong, it's not about politcal point scoring.


----------



## cockneyrebel (Jan 16, 2006)

> exactly - this is the same NATFHE leadeship which have effectively handed the negotiations on thier members behalves over to Prentice and co as a consequence of thier 'rightous' position taking - so much for the verbal posturing ...



I don't agree. The NATFHE leadership might have made mistakes in the past, indeed I don't even know if it was the same leadership who made the decision to fight against the pensions deal, from what I understood the NATFHE NC moved to the left at the last election. But it's not just NATFHE, the FBU leadership have a similar view. Are they ultra left as well?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 16, 2006)

Your guns are aiming the wrong way comrades. There's time and place enough to go through this later - this ain't the thread for it.


----------



## chilango (Jan 16, 2006)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> Your guns are aiming the wrong way comrades. There's time and place enough to go through this later - this ain't the thread for it.



Quite. The SWP force an urbanite out of the party, and then come up with crap like this:



> "So "come the revolution" you see yourself in a position where you will be able to allow/forbid us to do things such as post on U75?" 'Come the revolution' you lot will still be posting/posturing on here whilst everyone else has taken to the streets! You sad, sad wankers....



and this:



> "Thankfully with the demise of the SWP it will be sooner coming!!!!"
> Yeah and without trade unions the workers would be better off, without the welfare state workers would be better off.... OMG Its the rebirth of the RCP




...and fail to answer a single point, despite the audince waiting with baited breath.

Thing is in the old days they´d get away with it. But this, the first affair of its kind to happen live on the internet...they shouldn´t be allowed to get away with it this time.

start a new thread on the PCS/NATFHE stuff...and let nwnm, rebel,moti  et al. squirm in public for a while


----------



## dennisr (Jan 16, 2006)

cockneyrebel said:
			
		

> As said the SP might be more convincing in saying this if you hadn't said exactly the same thing when telling PCS members not to vote for Mark Serwotka and telling people to vote for the candidate to his right.
> 
> I genuinly do not know what you are on about here?
> 
> ...


----------



## dennisr (Jan 16, 2006)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> Your guns are aiming the wrong way comrades. There's time and place enough to go through this later - this ain't the thread for it.



Yep, sorry - agreed - lets take this one elsewhere Cockney and leave nwnm to be hung out to dry. How about that drink?


----------



## cockneyrebel (Jan 16, 2006)

> Cockney-speak translates huge consessions by government as "sell-out" "totally wrong" - but when it comes down to it you are simply argueing that what you would have done was accept the deal, accept the concessions??? Or are you argueing that the leadership should have rejected a deal and tried to force out its own membership against that memberships wishes???? - come on, you have never clearly answered this Cockney - out with mate - show how serious you are ...
> 
> ps and can you stop getting all huffy and feeling personally slighted every time i sound remotely cynical !! - you know that does not work in the real world, you are a fellow trade unionist and should be used to robust, direct debate man. its nothing personal.



No I was saying that the leadership should have tried to persuade the membership to reject the deal because of the reasons given. Obviously if the membership rejected this and voted to accept it then no action would be taken. But I don't think that would have left the left isolated, and think it would have left the left in stronger position in the long run when the inevitable negative consquences of the deal come up in the next few years.

In terms of being huffy, I'm not, I just don't think you think I'm just saying this for revolutionary kicks or a game. But you're right, nothing wrong with a bit of robust debate....

But anyway, this is totally de-railing the thread and yeah I'd like to meet for another drink. Email me and lets arrange a pint


----------



## catch (Jan 16, 2006)

I'm not going to post those links _again_

Groucho, thanks for your (sort of) response. I assuming that the fact you siad "I haven't defended anything" means you can't right?


----------



## nwnm (Jan 16, 2006)

“I am confident the present leadership of the union would know the real mood on the ground amoung thier members” They could have found out by balloting their members. Its an amusing statement as you urged a vote against Mark Serwotka in the leadership elections (the word hypocrisy springs to mind)

The problem is there’s a conservative layer in the PCS leadership - they are Dennisr’s mates. Not only do they lack confidence in Rank and file PCS members, they also vote against more overtly political developments. Which is why the PCS will NOT be sending delegates as a national union to the World Social Forum. Apparently its ‘not a union issue’ Comments Dennis?


----------



## chilango (Jan 16, 2006)

nwnm said:
			
		

> “I am confident the present leadership of the union would know the real mood on the ground amoung thier members” They could have found out by balloting their members. Its an amusing statement as you urged a vote against Mark Serwotka in the leadership elections (the word hypocrisy springs to mind)
> 
> The problem is there’s a conservative layer in the PCS leadership - they are Dennisr’s mates. Not only do they lack confidence in Rank and file PCS members, they also vote against more overtly political developments. Which is why the PCS will NOT be sending delegates as a national union to the World Social Forum. Apparently its ‘not a union issue’ Comments Dennis?



who needs unions when you´ve got the swp? now you´re back...answers to the above?

(sorry to distract from your "more left than the SP" posturing  )

not hounding just you, but your erstwhile comrades are notable by their absence


----------



## Groucho (Jan 16, 2006)

dennisr said:
			
		

> don't try to wriggle out of the shite your in nwnm by trying to raise that false arguement ...
> so are you saying that because the PCS got the best deal they could given the present levels of confidence of thier members that BG engineers cannot fight for a better deal given the greater confidence of thier members?



Now here's an interesting SP position.

SP have always said it is a question of leadership. Now the GMB in British Gas don't have a SP leadership, not even particularly socialist. All of a sudden it is a question of confidence of their members. So why has the SP failed to gain confidence amongst PCS members, do you think?

More to the point, why does the SP believe that PCS members are not as confident as British Gas workers? Is it a case of blame the membership for their poor leadership?

PCS members would have been as prepared as NATFE (more so), GMB (more so going by evidence of recent strikes) and FBU. But their leadership settled short because the leadership doesn't trust the members, and seeks unity with Prentis above unity across the rank and file.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 16, 2006)

nwnm said:
			
		

> They could have found out by balloting their members..



The members will be balloted. And I'm willing to bet you that they vote for the deal as overwhelmingly as Left Unity did although perhaps not as overwhelmingly as the 100% vote given to it by SWP members on the PCS executive.




			
				nwnm said:
			
		

> The problem is there’s a conservative layer in the PCS leadership .



People like Sue Bond presumably.




			
				nwnm said:
			
		

> Which is why the PCS will NOT be sending delegates as a national union to the World Social Forum.



Sense of priorities as good as always I see.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 16, 2006)

Groucho said:
			
		

> But their leadership settled short because the leadership doesn't trust the members, and seeks unity with Prentis above unity across the rank and file.



Or alternatively their leadership settled for the best deal available rather than leading a "heroic" struggle to a crushing defeat. Perhaps you should ask the two people who were SWP members on the PCS executive why they voted as they did rather than going in for the posturing you prefer.


----------



## flimsier (Jan 16, 2006)

Groucho said:
			
		

> Now here's an interesting SP position.
> 
> SP have always said it is a question of leadership. Now the GMB in British Gas don't have a SP leadership, not even particularly socialist. All of a sudden it is a question of confidence of their members. So why has the SP failed to gain confidence amongst PCS members, do you think?
> 
> ...



This fits with what my next door neighbour (PCS, old labour type) says.


----------



## flimsier (Jan 16, 2006)

Nigel Irritable said:
			
		

> Or alternatively their leadership settled for the best deal available rather than leading a "heroic" struggle to a crushing defeat. Perhaps you should ask the two people who were SWP members on the PCS executive why they voted as they did rather than going in for the posturing you prefer.


That's been dealt with, but I see you avoid the question in a very dishonest manner.


----------



## flimsier (Jan 16, 2006)

flimsier said:
			
		

> This fits with what my next door neighbour (PCS, old labour type) says.



This man votes labour and he now hates the sp for their position (and the SWP, but at least they've said it was a mistake).

'Best available'. Does or does that not sound like a typical union leader phrase when they sell out?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 17, 2006)

flimsier said:
			
		

> This man votes labour and he now hates the sp for their position (and the SWP, but at least they've said it was a mistake).



So what you are saying is that this (fictional?) individual supports the party which is trying to cut civil service pensions but "hates" the parties he supposedly holds responsible for not fighting against it hard enough? Has he suffered some particularly unpleasant form of brain damage?




			
				flimsier said:
			
		

> 'Best available'. Does or does that not sound like a typical union leader phrase when they sell out?



And doesn't that sound like the typical mouthings of the armchair sectarian? The PCS despite accounting for only a tiny percentage of overal union membership accounted for half of all strike days in Britain last year. If only all union leaderships were such sell outs!

Here you go though flimsier, you are in charge of the PCS now. What do you do? Try to keep it concrete please.


----------



## Sucram (Jan 17, 2006)

You don't accept a deal which creates a two tier union! Even if you fight and are defeated (which was in no way certain) you at least have the credibility that you faught. Now when the bosses attack the workers they will have the advantage of the two-tier system AND the fact that the PCS executive committee accepted the deal! Brilliant, cheers SP, thanks for being really 'revolutionary'. The NATFHE exec and the British Gas Workers managed to place themselves to the left of you on this one.


----------



## nwnm (Jan 17, 2006)

"Quote:
Originally Posted by nwnm
Which is why the PCS will NOT be sending delegates as a national union to the World Social Forum. 
"Sense of priorities as good as always I see."
C'mon Nigel you can't wriggle out of this one easily either. As socialists I would have thought it a good idea to raise the level of POLITICS within the PCS. So why did your comrades on the NEC vote and argue against sending a delegation to the WSF? FFS your own organisation is supposed to be going. Aren't other PCS members 'advanced' enough. Do you not think it important to build links with others around the world fighting neo-liberalism, or can that only be done through the confines of your party?


----------



## neprimerimye (Jan 17, 2006)

nwnm said:
			
		

> They could have found out by balloting their members. Its an amusing statement as you urged a vote against Mark Serwotka in the leadership elections (the word hypocrisy springs to mind)
> 
> The problem is there’s a conservative layer in the PCS leadership - they are Dennisr’s mates. Not only do they lack confidence in Rank and file PCS members, they also vote against more overtly political developments. Which is why the PCS will NOT be sending delegates as a national union to the World Social Forum. Apparently its ‘not a union issue’ Comments Dennis?



The problem in the PCS is not that there is a conservative layer as Nwnm claims but that the leadership of the union has not fought for rejection of a two tier pensions deal amongst the membership. The leadership as such is perhaps the most leftwing of any union in political terms.

The problem for Nwnm is that the SWP, of which he is a 'leading member', did not fight for a rejection of a two tier pensions deal among the membership or even within the leadership of the PCS. In fact their members sitting on the PCS Executive capitulated to the majority of the Exec headed by their fellow Respectoid Mark Serwotka.

It is certainly true that the SWP has a good position on paper of opposition to such two tier pension deals but in practice in the PCS they failed to make this abstract position concrete. Their failure also exposes the SWP as a party lacking in any conception of disciplined work in which the members of the 'party' function as a single unit. In short despite all the Leninist bullshit the SWP members in the PCS acted like spineless centrists as I'l explain.

For a start the PCS had already balloted on the pensions issue and a strike had been mandated. The trouble is that left wing union leaderships often call off such strike actions for various reasons. Mostly because new talks are underway or new deals are on the table in the time honoured vernacular. So it was this time aropund and the SWP members of the PCS Exec voted with the majority not to abide by the mandate.

It was at this point that the SWP, if they were true to the conception of socialism from below, would have protested that only the membership should overturn a decision which they had taken in the first instance. As such the SWPers on the Exec, Bond and John, should have voted against calling off the suspended strike action and demanded the issue were put to the membership. This did not happen and at that point alarm bells should have been ringing in the SWP's Industrial Department.

But the SWP Industrial Department would seem not to have noticed and Bond and John went their own way. If the Industrial Department were asleep or on holiday it would also seem that the same was true of the entire SWP as not a single leader (including Nwnm) of the 'party' said or wrote a word in criticism at this point. Nor did the membership of the SWP's fraction within the PCS appear to have noticed this climbdown on the part of Bond and John.

As neither the leadership of the union or the SWP made any real attempt to rouse the membership against a two tier pensions deal is it true that the deal eventually signed was the best available in the circumstances? No it is not! In my view the union leadership and the left groups represented on it should have taken the issue to the members prior to the deal being signed. That did not happen and the Exec did in the event sign a deal that will in the course of time divide the workforce. to be fair to Serwotka, and the SPEW and SSP members of the Exec they genuiinly believe that this deal is the best that was possible in the circumstances comrades may differ on that assessment but it is a disagreement on tactics and not a sell out as hysterics have 
described it.

But on the part of the SWP members of the Exec it was a sellout of their oft proclaimed principles. And resulted in the editor of the Socialist Worker blasting the hapless Brendan Barber (who he?) for his part in the deal. It would take weeks before SWP acknowledged that their own members had betrayed the principles of their own 'party' and finally took action to discipline them. With the result that Martin John resigned forthwith from the SWP.

All this is known but what does not seem to have been much remarked upon is the role of the SWP leadership. Why, for example, did the Industrial Department not even talk to Bond and John after the vote to call off suspended strike action? Why did nobody else amongst the leadership see fit to raise the question? And was this important incident properly discussed, including the role of the SWP leadership, at conference?

Now given that the SWP conference has decided to make recruitment to the 'party' and workplace sales of SW a priority what does this mean for the SWP in the PCS? Will the SWP members in the PCS openly acknowledge that a calamitous error has been made? Will they now take the arguments to the membership and seek to bring pressure on the union Exec to reject the two tier bill? Or will they ignore the entire issue and talk about events which are of little consequence in the real world? For example will they use the WSF as a bludgeon to berate the PCS Exec having cooperated with that same Exec in the division of the workforce into those with first class pension rights and those with second class pension rights?

neprimerimye


----------



## flimsier (Jan 17, 2006)

I'd agree completely that the action of the SWP was the opposite of their stated position and they were wrong.

NI: my next door neighbour is a council worker. I'm not sure exactly what he does, but I know his contract changed last year so that he was set a target to review 1,500 of (something) in 3 months. He was explaining to me that he can do 8 a day in a good day.

He actually claims to have voted Lib Dem in the elections which were held on the same day as the mayoral election, but he votes Labour (presumably because he always has). He was delighted that Serwotka was elected, even though he couldn't remember his name when we first talked about it (I moved in on Sept 11th 2003, we first talked about it whever the first one day strike was after that - it was during a school holiday because we were both in the garden). 

He associates me with the socialists in his union - I've carefully spelled out that I don't agree with what they did - and he's challenged me directly because of their (your organisation's) actions.

Anyway, perhaps avoid the point by calling all Labour voters deranged, or me a liar.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 17, 2006)

flimsier said:
			
		

> Anyway, perhaps avoid the point by calling all Labour voters deranged, or me a liar.



I'm not calling all Labour voters deranged. I am saying that anyone who supports the party which is attacking pensions while claiming to hate other parties for in his view not fighting against those attacks hard enough is at best a fool and at worst has something medically wrong with him. I'm also sceptical as to his existence, but that's another question.

And speaking of avoiding the point:

Here you go though flimsier, you are in charge of the PCS now. What do you do? Try to keep it concrete please.

I'm looking forward to your answer on this. So far we've just had Sucram's contribution, which amounts to "try to lead a union, divided down the middle and with a rabid right wing trying to sabotage action, completely isolated from the rest of the union movement, into an unwinnable strike which will be fought soley by people who have already had their own pension rights protected in the face of an all out assault from the media and establishment generally". Sure the strike would be crushed and the union with it, but at least you would be be "fighting" enough for the likes of Sucram.


----------



## flimsier (Jan 17, 2006)

I don't know Nigel. I know I wouldn't have divided the union in two, no matter what.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 17, 2006)

flimsier said:
			
		

> I don't know Nigel.



Well at least you're honest. You are opposed to the deal but have no better alternative. That's not really a position a union leadership can adopt though - we reject this! and we're going to... em... well... our alternative is to... eh...


----------



## cockneyrebel (Jan 17, 2006)

Nigel if the union leadership had tried to convince the membership to reject the deal and a two tier workforce it could have had two results.

1) The membership rejects this and accepts the deal. I don't think this means the membership would therefore run into the hands of the right and it means in the long run, when the two tier workforce undermines the union, the left leadership won't be held responsible like they will now.

2) The membership agrees with the leadership and this would show that the SP are wrong about how reluctant the membership are. As said above the SP gave exactly the same argument when telling PCS members to vote for a candiate to the right of Mark Serwotka and saying he should step down. This was in very recent history, so your analysis of where the membership is at obviously isn't that good.

If the membership voted to reject the deal and take industrial action it would have had the FBU, NATFHE and possibly UNISON on side, it wouldn't have been left isolated.


----------



## Groucho (Jan 17, 2006)

Nigel Irritable said:
			
		

> I'm not calling all Labour voters deranged. I am saying that anyone who supports the party which is attacking pensions while claiming to hate other parties for in his view not fighting against those attacks hard enough is at best a fool and at worst has something medically wrong with him. I'm also sceptical as to his existence, but that's another question.



Here is the roots of SP pessimism. ALL those who 'support' (by voting once every five years in a Gen election) parties to the right of the SP (i.e. the vast majority of the working class) are at best fools, at worst derranged. Oh what an awful position to have to lead such people!
If only the membership could be dissolved and a new membership elected. eh? So you assume that all those who wouldn't vote SP in a General Election (though they will vote overwhelmingly for a socialist in a Gen Sec election against the expectations of the SP who urged support for a middle of the road LP member) - all those who vote to the right of the SP in a General election cannot be trusted to be given a vote on whether to fight over future pensions, or whether to accept a dreadful compromise. 

If a socialist leadership cannot be socialist in practice because (you believe) the members will not support a socialist leadership then what would be the point in haviong a Socialist leadership?


----------



## belboid (Jan 17, 2006)

neprimerimye said:
			
		

> All this is known but what does not seem to have been much remarked upon is the role of the SWP leadership. Why, for example, did the Industrial Department not even talk to Bond and John after the vote to call off suspended strike action? Why did nobody else amongst the leadership see fit to raise the question? And was this important incident properly discussed, including the role of the SWP leadership, at conference?


this is a very god point - tho one to which I imaginwe we know the answer.


----------



## nwnm (Jan 17, 2006)

Actually it was discussed way before then. one comrade admitted their error,  (ie the position of opposing the deal which the SWP argued was right) the other- as is public knowledge - left the SWP (and probably fancies themselves as a possible fulltime union official.)

Meanwhile I am still waiting for Nigel to explain why he doesn't think the PCS should send delegates to the WSF - do you think theres a seperation between 'politics' and 'economics' then comrade? Very Labourite of you...


----------



## revol68 (Jan 17, 2006)

nwnm said:
			
		

> Actually it was discussed way before then. one comrade admitted their error,  (ie the position of opposing the deal which the SWP argued was right) the other- as is public knowledge - left the SWP (and probably fancies themselves as a possible fulltime union official.)
> 
> Meanwhile I am still waiting for Nigel to explain why he doesn't think the PCS should send delegates to the WSF - do you think theres a seperation between 'politics' and 'economics' then comrade? Very Labourite of you...



oh the good old WSF, the places for all the banished social democrats and their trot hangers on. 

With the WSF and control of the unions we could have another 2nd international, wouldn't that be impressive.


----------



## cockneyrebel (Jan 17, 2006)

> Actually it was discussed way before then. one comrade admitted their error, (ie the position of opposing the deal which the SWP argued was right) the other- as is public knowledge - left the SWP (and probably fancies themselves as a possible fulltime union official.)



You've misunderstood what is being asked. Way before the whole pensions deal was voted on why didn't the SWP leadership have a word with them about the calling off of strike action. And was it discussed at conference?


----------



## articul8 (Jan 17, 2006)

Groucho said:
			
		

> ALL those who 'support' (by voting once every five years in a Gen election) parties to the right of the SP (i.e. the vast majority of the working class) are at best fools, at worst derranged.



no doubt Nigel can (and will) answer for himself.

but the facts as they have been recounted so far are
1) We have a New Labour government which has promised - in its attack on jobs, pay and conditions across the civil service - to carrry out probably the single biggest attack on a trade union's memebership since the miners
2) A PCS member chooses to vote for the party planning those attacks
3) The same bloke, rather than blaming the party he supports for its anti-union onslaught, instead attacks the very forces in the union trying to  defend the members by forcing concrete and genuine (albeit partial) concessions.

Is the inconsistency not absolutely blatant for anyone but the most head-banging sectarian to see?


----------



## osterberg (Jan 17, 2006)

Nigel Irritable said:
			
		

> School Students Against the War. It was set up by the Stop the War Coalition at the instigation of the SSP after ISR started organising the first wave of school student strikes. It was SWP controlled for a period but the number of actual SWP members involved was small so control was tenuous and now slipping.


 Thanks for answering my question about SSAW.There's too many acronyms on this site sometimes.I remember loads of school students blocking the road in Cardiff at the start of the war.Very inspiring they were.


----------



## Sucram (Jan 17, 2006)

articul8 said:
			
		

> no doubt Nigel can (and will) answer for himself.
> 
> but the facts as they have been recounted so far are
> 1) We have a New Labour government which has promised - in its attack on jobs, pay and conditions across the civil service - to carrry out probably the single biggest attack on a trade union's memebership since the miners
> ...



Wow thats brilliant that you no longer have any illusions in the Labour party, perhaps this man still does? Sure there is hypocrisy, but are you saying he isn't allowed to dislike the party which he see's as allowing these attacks to happen, the "socialists" who didn't fight against them but instead capitulated and didn't bother to give their membership the right to decide if they wanted to fight, instead taking the matter into their own hands and deciding for them?

The Labour party still has more influence amongst the working class than any left-wing party. I remember attending a meeting with trade unionists from Sefton council last autumn, who were being witchhunted by the council, including its Labour members, and yet when my comrade from Workers Power raised the need for a new workers party to represent the working class, the TU's still maintained that they should reclaim Labour! How they were going to do this they had no idea....but they still preferred to stck with Labour, despite being witchhunted by its members on their own council.

What is the point here is that the SP and SWP didn't oppose the creation  of a two-tier union. We can bicker about whether a struggle over it could have been won or not, but you cannot portrary accepting the creation of a two-tier union, even with "partial concessions" as any sort of victory at all.

I say this is indicative of the SP as a whole, talk very revolutionary amongst themselves but when it comes to actually doing something revolutionary, i.e. not accepting this deal, even though it would have been a hard struggle as it goes completely against TU and socialist principles and WILL undermine struggles in the future, you capitulate, claim the membership weren't up to it, that it might have been a hard difficult struggle that could have been lost. 

When, may I ask then, would it have been possible to carry out this struggle over pensions? I don't imagine it will be any easier in the future with a two-tier structure AND a membership which feels betrayed by the socialists on its Exec!

As for the SWP I completely agree that their actions demonstrate what a useless undisciplined "Leninist" party they are.


----------



## nwnm (Jan 17, 2006)

"What is the point here is that the....SWP didn't oppose the creation of a two-tier union." Wrong!
See this report - 
Left unity meeting -
http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/article.php?article_id=7692


"As for the SWP I completely agree that their actions demonstrate what a useless undisciplined "Leninist" party they are." As you are the only person to have raised this, who are you agreeing with? (I know you're in a pretty small outfit - answering yourself on here won't amend that). and your not particularly cogent on that one either. See this report - 
PCS Fraction meeting -
http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/article.php?article_id=7801

This is nothing like the position of the SP who whole heartedly backed the deal. They may have broken organisationally with New Labour, but still retain the same politics as they had within its ranks.... Enabling Act and all!


----------



## belboid (Jan 17, 2006)

nwnm said:
			
		

> Actually it was discussed way before then. one comrade admitted their error,  (ie the position of opposing the deal which the SWP argued was right) the other- as is public knowledge - left the SWP (and probably fancies themselves as a possible fulltime union official.


no, only the vote on the actual day was discussed at that meeting - not the failures of the SWP Industrial Organiser(s) in failing to spot the clues that such an action was likely to take place.

But then, it's never the centre that fucks up, always the comrades isn't it?  If only they could be re-elected.


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Jan 17, 2006)

Nigel Irritable said:
			
		

> I'm not calling all Labour voters deranged. I am saying that anyone who supports the party which is attacking pensions while claiming to hate other parties for in his view not fighting against those attacks hard enough is at best a fool and at worst has something medically wrong with him. I'm also sceptical as to his existence, but that's another question.
> ...



Oh 'he' exists all right - I vote Labour when there is no socialist alternative, most recently in the Local Elections 2004 ... 'like a rope supports a hanged man' ... but I also voted Respect in the EU elections on the same day. * And *I oppose the SP sell-out of *my* hard-earned pension!  No contradiction at all.


----------



## articul8 (Jan 17, 2006)

Sucram said:
			
		

> are you saying he isn't allowed to dislike the party which he see's as allowing these attacks to happen, the "socialists" who didn't fight against them but instead capitulated and didn't bother to give their membership the right to decide if they wanted to fight, instead taking the matter into their own hands and deciding for them?



Just whose is the betrayal here though??  

It is entirely untrue that socialists in the leadership "didn't fight".  The SP influenced leadership managed to fight for significant - albeit partial - concessions and retains strength and unity for the battles ahead.  The real betrayal was by the party which claims to represent workers and launches a Thatcheresque neo-liberal onslaught against them.      

I suspect Blair was gutted when the deal was accepted - he would have loved to have withdrawn all the concessions and portrayed the union leadership as ideologically motivated nutters prepared to squander the interests of the membership.  Instead his bluff was called, and the union militants not discredited in the eyes of the members.  
(even SWP exec members recognised this - at least until leant on)

And yes, I can understand individual rank-and-file activists being frustrated by the necessity of a tactical acceptance of an admittedly imperfect deal.  But what strikes me as spectacularly incoherent is when that criticism comes from someone who voted into government those pushing the attacks in the first place.


----------



## Groucho (Jan 17, 2006)

Nigel Irritable does not seem to accept that the kind of contradictory consciousness may exist where a worker votes conservatively, say for Lib Dem, or New Labour, but who favours a militant trade union response to issues mmore close to home. Pensions is one such that united PCS members in my branch right across the political spectrum, including Tory voters. A fair few believe in principle that it is not our right to sign away conditions of future workers (their kids condiions in some cases). A fair number more understand thast a two tier pensions system will undermine defence of the arrangements for existing workers in the face of attacks from future Governments, whether Brown, Hughes or Cameron led (they have all indicated that they may/will rip up the arrangements.)


----------



## Sucram (Jan 17, 2006)

nwnm said:
			
		

> "What is the point here is that the....SWP didn't oppose the creation of a two-tier union." Wrong!
> See this report -
> Left unity meeting -
> http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/article.php?article_id=7692
> ...



Oops sorry nwnm, you're right, you opposed it, its just your members on the PCS voted for it. This is where the undisciplined Leninist party comes in. As neprimeremy put it:



> It is certainly true that the SWP has a good position on paper of opposition to such two tier pension deals but in practice in the PCS they failed to make this abstract position concrete. Their failure also exposes the SWP as a party lacking in any conception of disciplined work in which the members of the 'party' function as a single unit. In short despite all the Leninist bullshit the SWP members in the PCS acted like spineless centrists as I'l explain.



You obviously don't enforce enough discipline on your membership as they voted against your position! Sure, you did oppose it, I was wrong there, but your members didn't translate that on paper opposition into concrete action.


----------



## chilango (Jan 17, 2006)

Sucram said:
			
		

> Oops sorry nwnm, you're right, you opposed it, its just your members on the PCS voted for it. This is where the undisciplined Leninist party comes in. As neprimeremy put it:
> 
> 
> 
> You obviously don't enforce enough discipline on your membership as they voted against your position! Sure, you did oppose it, I was wrong there, but your members didn't translate that on paper opposition into concrete action.



Presumably the CC´s rapid action disciplinery task force will already have dealt with this indiscipline, surely?


----------



## Sucram (Jan 17, 2006)

articul8 said:
			
		

> Just whose is the betrayal here though??
> 
> It is entirely untrue that socialists in the leadership "didn't fight".  The SP influenced leadership managed to fight for significant - albeit partial - concessions and retains strength and unity for the battles ahead.  The real betrayal was by the party which claims to represent workers and launches a Thatcheresque neo-liberal onslaught against them.
> 
> ...



And this is where the SP's major flaw is, always holding off for the "battles ahead", maintaining so-called "strength and unity" (Whose strength? the strength of the members who feel betrayed? What unity? The unity in a two-tier union?) as if the pensions battles wasn't going to be big enough already!

I'm sure Blair wasn't gutted, and neither are the people who will come into office after him as they realise that they have now been given a significantly weakened Union, with this two-tier system, and they can now hold off, having won some concessions from the workers and wait for the two-tier system to gradually wear away at union solidarity so that when the "battles ahead" do eventually come the Union will be in a much weaker position! Fantastic! Bravo SP!

Also, as you are a member of the SP I gather you're a Marxist, so as a Marxist you should have some knowledge of dialectics right? So how can you find it "spectacularly incoherent" that there might be inner contradictions within the conciousness of the working class? That they might vote for Labour and yet feel betrayed when their union gives into cuts by Labour?

As a Marxist revolutionary you should realise that its the job of socialists to present arguments that highlight these contradictions, in this case through the argument for resisting the pensions deal and arguing with workers that they should break with Labour and form a new party which will oppose these cuts. But no, the SP gives in, accepting partial concessions in the name of saving their strength for another fight later on, when their arguments will have less resonance with PCS members, and they will be less likely to break away to join groups like the SP, as they will remember this betrayal.


----------



## Sucram (Jan 17, 2006)

chilango said:
			
		

> Presumably the CC´s rapid action disciplinery task force will already have dealt with this indiscipline, surely?



Well its a shame the pensions deal has been voted on already hasn't it? And anyway, shouldn't that discipline exist already in a Leninist organisation. You shouldn't have to play catch up with discipline.

I think this is indicative of more than just a breach of discipline, it highlights a major flaw in the SWPs method in that they don't enforce enough discipline already to stop this thing happening.


----------



## articul8 (Jan 17, 2006)

Sucram said:
			
		

> Also, as you are a member of the SP



I suggest you read back over the thread to see if I an uncritical member/supporter of the SP.  As it happens, I do find myself in substantial agreement with many of their political positions, but find the culture of the organisation unhealthily dogmatic.  But we digress...



> so as a Marxist you should have some knowledge of dialectics right?
> So how can you find it "spectacularly incoherent" that there might be inner contradictions within the conciousness of the working class? That they might vote for Labour and yet feel betrayed when their union gives into cuts by Labour?



The fact that dialectical contradictions exist does not make all contradictions dialectical. I would explain this further - but Belboid will only come along to bog the debate down in logical symbols   

But as WPers are throwing accusations of betrayal around (far too lightly), I do think it only fair to ask whose is the real betrayal - Labour's or the SP's?   



> As a Marxist revolutionary you should realise that its the job of socialists to present arguments that highlight these contradictions, in this case through the argument for resisting the pensions deal and arguing with workers that they should break with Labour and form a new party which will oppose these cuts.



From what I have read and heard, the SP has not sought to give the impression that the deal is ideal - it has acknowledged significant limitations to the concessions made by the government.  It still holds the position that the suspension of new entrants rights should be reversed, and that the union should engage in further action to reverse it.  The decision to accept the deal at this stage was TACTICAL. 

arguing with workers that a new workers party is all very well, and correct in the abstract - and the SP members have no doubt done just this.  

But to pretend such a mass organisation could have sprung up overnight to organise forces to win this particular strike is as much a fantasy perspective as your "workers defence squads"!


----------



## cockneyrebel (Jan 17, 2006)

Sucram what organisation are you in in out of curiousity?


----------



## cockneyrebel (Jan 17, 2006)

> But to pretend such a mass organisation could spring up overnight to organise forces to win this particular strike is as much a fantasy perspective as your "workers defence squads"!



Why are you so sure of the SPs tactical decisions when they very recently got it so badly wrong with the election of Mark Serwotka and they used exactly the same logic.

Also this deal will mean a weakened union in the long run, and therefore the ability to win struggles will be reduced.

Also you'd hardly expect the same things from the LP, who are run by pro-capitalist leaders and the SP whose leaders are revolutionary socialists.


----------



## Sucram (Jan 17, 2006)

> I suggest you read back over the thread to see if I an uncritical member/supporter of the SP. As it happens, I do find myself in substantial agreement with many of their political positions, but find the culture of the organisation unhealthily dogmatic. But we digress...



Apologies there, I'm new here and have obviously made too many assumptions.



> But as WPers are throwing accusations of betrayal around (far too lightly), I do think it only fair to ask whose is the real betrayal - Labour's or the SP's?



Well since the Labour party has been betraying the workers since its inception it is a different betrayal to that of the SP. I expect the Labour party to betray workers, I don't expect a marxist organisation to not fight a struggle which is a blatant attack upon the workers and will weaken the union during future struggles. Sure if you want to compare it empirically the Labour party has been the bigger betrayer always, but the labour party has always been a bourgeoise workers party, whereas the SP is a marxist organisation committed to socialist revolution. So whose is the more insidious failure to other marxists?



> From what I have read and heard, the SP has not sought to give the impression that the deal is ideal - it has acknowledged significant limitations to the concessions made by the government. It still holds the position that the suspension of new entrants rights should be reversed, and that the union should engage in further action to reverse it. The decision to accept the deal at this stage was TACTICAL.



And we argue it was a tactical mistake which is why they are finding it so hard to portray the deal in anyway as positive and why workers feel betrayed. The whole point is that the SP has done this before, given in to attacks, saying its all tactical and that they are holding off for the next big fight...and when the next fight comes being in a worse position due to their "tactical" concessions before.



> arguing with workers that a new workers party is all very well, and correct in the abstract - and the SP members have no doubt done just this.
> 
> But to pretend such a mass organisation could have sprung up overnight to organise forces to win this particular strike is as much a fantasy perspective as your "workers defence squads"!



Where did I say a new workers party would spring up? I argued that it would be part of the strategy of resisting the deal, to argue against it with part of the solution being a new workers party and win support for that in the future by resisting the attacks now. You don't win support for your organisation by giving concessions to the government and weakening a union when it looks like the members of the union, and certainly those of other unions would have been up for a fight.


----------



## Groucho (Jan 17, 2006)

articul8 said:
			
		

> Just whose is the betrayal here though??
> 
> It is entirely untrue that socialists in the leadership "didn't fight".  The SP influenced leadership managed to fight for significant - albeit partial - concessions and retains strength and unity for the battles ahead.  The real betrayal was by the party which claims to represent workers and launches a Thatcheresque neo-liberal onslaught against them.
> .......



I have to say that I, and other activists in my branch, were extremely annoyed to find that the PCS NEC had voted - and so quickly too, why the undue haste? - to accept the pensions deal. My annoyance extended to the two SWP comrades on the NEC. 

I should say that I do accept that Mark Serwotka (I have a lot of time for Mark) and the majority of NEC members are not sell-out merchants, but have operated on the basis of trying to take the union movemernt forwards. On this issue though they have made a mistake. Not just a little mistake, although I can understand why they made it.

It seems to me that we face an unusual situation. On the one hand a very high level of discontent matched by an extremely high level of political generalisation to the left in response to both domestic and international events. On the other hand this is not being expressed through class struggle on the industrial front. The lack of confidence and poor organisation of workers is allowing a New Labour supporting TU bureaucracy to hold the workers in check. This disparity of political discontent and low level of struggle cannot go on for very long.

A breakthrough by a single group of workers at this time could open the floodgates. The FBU dispute of a few years back threatened such a breakthrough. But the FBU then leadership threw in the towel over the political issue of the war. The solidarity action in support of sacked Gate Gourmet workers also raised the prospect of victory, but this was thrown away by a TU leadership running scared in the face of anti-union laws.

This brings us to the next possibility - and in a way the most significant and with the most potential. The pensions dispute. Here we have public sector unions. Public sector unions have not suffered the level of job cuts, casualisation and defeats experienced in much of the private sector. Consequently public sector unions have grown in strength numerically and organisationally. This is particularly true of the RMT, FBU, UNISON and, most noteably, PCS. 

In 2004 there was a very low level of strikes - especially low level of disputes. But days 'lost' were double 2003 and higher than the average of the previous 10 years. PCS accounted for 50% of the strike days 'lost' in 2004. PCS, RMT and the FBU, and NATFHE have elected union leaderships that are not soft on New Labour. This is somewhat equivical but not in the case of pCS.

The pensions dispute arose because a deeply unpopular and divided New Labour Government did a Poll Tax and announced an offensive against the entire working class in one go. This enabled the left-wing PCS leadership - Mark Serwotka principally - to bring together through sweet talking and cajoling - the leaders of most of the unions under immediate attack. So far so bloody marvelous. Workers were not only prepared but were enthusiastic about our chance to finally hit back.

The problems arose when unity at the top of the unions started to wobble. Prentis and he UNISON leadership for one wanted to avoid a battle that sunk New Labour; they were desperate for a compromise. The mistake that the PCS leadership made was to rely too much on that unity that could be achieved and maintained at the top. Preparations in London for the generalised strike in March 2005 show that unity at the bottom could secure greater results. A joint UNISON/PCS/NATFHE meeting agreed to organise a demonstration and rally - UNISON leadership opposed but one or two NEC members took a different view and pressure forced a concession. The strike was called off once UNISON secured a compromise (to delay the assault until after the election)

PCS were too ready to compromise on the two tier pensions. Given that the deal left out UNISON local Govt., did not include the FBU, was rjected by NATFHE NEC and also by the GMB (who admittedlty refused to organise action jointly) it is clear that the battle was far from over, and that Prentis and the right-wing majority on the NUT leadership would have had a hard time selling it. Except they could use the left-wing firebrand, Mark Serwotka, to sell it for them.

Instead of last year seeing the break through with millions of workers out on strike (they voted for it) we see the levels of action taken plumet further to an all time low. A dispute in PCS DWP delayed etc. The message to the membership from the PCS NEC that this was the best achievable reinforces the view that we can't fight and win. After all even the Socialists are saying that we can't defeat Blair. 

The PCS leadership underestimated the wilingness of members to take action and simultaneously overestimated the strength of the Blair administration. 

Blair has been let off the hook.

Who is the evil scum? Blair and Brown and the CBI. Who has betrayed and sold out? The TUC and New Labour supoprting union bureaucrats. But sure we kinda expect that. Who though, has let us down by throwing away a chance to reverse the rot. Sadly our own people - the PCS NEC and Gen Sec.

I will just add that a key ingredient of the union fight on the pensions issue should be to link the struggle with defence of the state pension. Just think of the size of a demonstration in defence of pensions were the TUC and pensioners to call it and build it. Think how much bigger if unions were fighting over pensions, and how it would build up the confidence of workers to take action.


----------



## poster342002 (Jan 17, 2006)

Once again, though, the swappies give us this strangely amazed, slack-jawed and gobsmacked belief that they expected anything else to happen.

Meanwhile, there's a massive attack on incapacity benefits on it's way. Any chance of a campain against that?


----------



## articul8 (Jan 17, 2006)

Sucram said:
			
		

> You don't win support for your organisation by giving concessions to the government and weakening a union when it looks like the members of the union, and certainly those of other unions would have been up for a fight.



Armies that engage their opponents in battle at every conceivable opportunity - regardless of the situation in which they find themselves - don't usually win the war.

But is quite untrue to say the PCS leadership didn't 'fight' for their members - as a result of leading a strike, civil service workers across the country have prevented the government from stripping away their entitlements (I know new entrants don't have the same guarantees, but this can and must be reversed in the near future).  As a result the broad membership of the PCS - and i accept individuals might feel frustrated - still have confidence in the leadership to defend their interests. 

and cockers - if the SP have been so tactically maladroit in their decisions re- PCS over the years, why is it they have such influence on the exec today?


----------



## nwnm (Jan 17, 2006)

If they continue with a 'grand old duke of York' strategy, how long do you think that 'influence' will remain? The SP/Militant used to boast about their 'marxist' General Secretary in the CPSA John Macreadie until he made a similar pigs ear of things; paving the way for the right wing to dominate the union


----------



## articul8 (Jan 17, 2006)

Groucho said:
			
		

> Who is the evil scum? Blair and Brown and the CBI. Who has betrayed and sold out? The TUC and New Labour supoprting union bureaucrats. But sure we kinda expect that. Who though, has let us down by throwing away a chance to reverse the rot. Sadly our own people - the PCS NEC and Gen Sec.
> 
> I will just add that a key ingredient of the union fight on the pensions issue should be to link the struggle with defence of the state pension. Just think of the size of a demonstration in defence of pensions were the TUC and pensioners to call it and build it. Think how much bigger if unions were fighting over pensions, and how it would build up the confidence of workers to take action.



At least your reply gets beyond the hysterical accusations of sell-outs and betrayal - and gets to the tactical questions involved.

I think you underestimate the extent to which Blair/Brown deliberately singled out civil service workers as the critical test case for 'reform' and 'modernisation' of public services - both in terms of redundancies/restructuring and pensions/pay/conditions.  I think this was motivated by the fact that the PCS was the single biggest TU with a clearly left leadership and a willingness to organise strike action in defence of its members.  The strategy was to isolate the PCS workers, ram through the cuts, break the back of the union, demoralise other public sector workers, and bring in cuts across the board.

I do not think it at all impossible that the concessions were made to the PCS with the perspective that the union would reject the deal, fail to convince a substantial section of its members, and isolate itself in a head-to-head stuggle with the government.  

I certainly agree there is a section of workers in other unions who are angry and looking to stike back at the government - the FBU particularly spring to mind (although here the questions aren't simply, or principally, around pensions in the first instance).  But NATFHE's exec is all talk with little track record of national strike mobilisation.  And Prentis will be given greater time and space by Blair to quieten his own members.

Why give Blair what he wants - a isolated and split PCS to take on like Maggie took on the miners? 

(Your idea of asking the TUC to call a demo tied in with state pensions is 'pie-in-the-sky" utopianism.  Barber et al are thoroughly tied into the labour bureaucracy and scared shitless of that kind of mass action.  Of course I'd like to see some substantial political moves to link up the campaigns in different unions and beyond.  That's why the need to build a new workers party is so urgent.)


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jan 17, 2006)

nwnm said:
			
		

> If they continue with a 'grand old duke of York' strategy, how long do you think that 'influence' will remain? The SP/Militant used to boast about their 'marxist' General Secretary in the CPSA John Macreadie until he made a similar pigs ear of things; paving the way for the right wing to dominate the union



I was very active in the CPSA when Macreadie was under sustained attack from the Moderates, Broad Left 84, their various hangers on and 'more socialist than thou' voices stage left. My recollection is not of him making a pigs ear of things, but rather of him and those supporting him, being under constant fire; just one example of which was the branch I chaired having our finances suspended (which made it difficult but not impossible to function effectively) for two years while we were investigated.

Louis Mac


----------



## Nigel (Jan 17, 2006)

Sucram said:
			
		

> Well its a shame the pensions deal has been voted on already hasn't it? And anyway, shouldn't that discipline exist already in a Leninist organisation. You shouldn't have to play catch up with discipline.
> 
> I think this is indicative of more than just a breach of discipline, it highlights a major flaw in the SWPs method in that they don't enforce enough discipline already to stop this thing happening.



I think rather than having a 'fetish' about discipline, the problem with the SWP is the lack of education and consciousness within their Party. By folding membershp cards in their hands, no real political education, acting as a cult organisation. That is what happens!!!!!


----------



## belboid (Jan 17, 2006)

Nigel said:
			
		

> I think rather than having a 'fetish' about discipline, the problem with the SWP is the lack of education and consciousness within their Party. By folding membershp cards in their hands, no real political education, acting as a cult organisation. That is what happens!!!!!


that simply isn't true for its 'cadre' tho - and certainly wasn't throughout the 70's and 80's - the time when Bond and Johns both joined.


----------



## dennisr (Jan 17, 2006)

cockneyrebel said:
			
		

> Why are you so sure of the SPs tactical decisions when they very recently got it so badly wrong with the election of Mark Serwotka and they used exactly the same logic.
> 
> Also this deal will mean a weakened union in the long run, and therefore the ability to win struggles will be reduced.



Interesting isn't it that the recent independent (if i can say that...) contributions havn't found a problem with tactical decisions taken.

Also interesting how the original thread has been completly diverted  - letting our 'ra..ra..revolutionary' friends in the SWP off the hook completly (thanks largely to the even more ra..ra friends in WP). Well done ... I had tried to avoid replying as asked by sensible folk like butchers et al

A weakened union would be the result of leading an activist minority along with the present leadership against the majority of members. A weakened union would have resulted from leading a charge of the light brigade against a government, media and employers just itching to rip that union apart. And they attempt it again will again in the future.

What really pisses me off about all the bluster and accusations of betrayal from some spotty little herbert on a internet site (deluding themselves about their ability to lead even the smallest section of the organised working class when they have never in practice fought in ANY of the real or of the phantom battles they claim are the way forward - particulerly that wee shouty WP fella who has just appeared) is that not one of them has come up with a sensible option of HOW we (as in the membership and leadership of that union) were going to actually 'fight back'. 

Come on all you self-apointed experts - HOW was the union going to defeat the trap being laid out for them by the ruling class? Give us your battleplan ... HOW were the leadership going to pull the membership into would would have to have been an all out opened ended mass battle (you do realise that was the only way that the new pension plans were going to be comprehensively defeated don't you?). Do anty of you phanasists really, really believe that the average PCS member was actually up for that at this moment in time??? (apart from a couple of suicidal members of WP i presume ... (go on, go for it fellas - fuck strategy, fuck tactics and fuck the vast majority of the working class who will be looking on more than slightly bemused)


----------



## Nigel (Jan 17, 2006)

belboid said:
			
		

> that simply isn't true for its 'cadre' tho - and certainly wasn't throughout the 70's and 80's - the time when Bond and Johns both joined.



The culture of the organisation effects individuals within it!!!!!


----------



## Sucram (Jan 17, 2006)

dennisr said:
			
		

> Interesting isn't it that the recent independent (if i can say that...) contributions havn't found a problem with tactical decisions taken.
> 
> Also interesting how the original thread has been completly diverted  - letting our 'ra..ra..revolutionary' friends in the SWP off the hook completly (thanks largely to the even more ra..ra friends in WP). Well done ... I had tried to avoid replying as asked by sensible folk like butchers et al
> 
> ...



From Workers Power 300:



> Activists must launch a fight for:
> 
> * A campaign to inform members in all the unions of the dangers of a two-tier scheme.
> 
> ...



You seem to forget that public sector workers voted for strike action earlier last year, and were demobilised by the TU leaders when the government offered negotiations. They had 13 unions prepared to ballot for strike action in September, but the TU leaders decided to accept the partial concessions without balloting their members over it. If the exec had rejected the deal they could have balloted their membership, if the membership voted for action then why not carry it out, if they aren't prepared for the struggle then they would vote it down wouldn't they? And since they had voted for strike action earlier in the year, why do you think it so certain they would reject it?

With the British Gas Workers now having taken strike action to protect the rights of future workers, what makes you think the PCS workers would have been massively different, having voted for it before?

Also, how is this letting the SWP off the hook? They at least admitted they made a mistake, and opposed the pensions deal on paper. The fact that their members voted for it reflects very badly on their organisation and that has been mentioned here. They at least don't try and protray this as some sort of tactical necessity though. I'd be interested to know how the SP plans to win future PCS members to its side since your members effectively voted to increase their retirement age.


----------



## nwnm (Jan 17, 2006)

"go on, go for it fellas - fuck strategy, fuck tactics and fuck the vast majority of the working class who will be looking on more than slightly bemused" Well I notice 6,000 gas workers weren't particularly bothered by this and the 'majority of the working class' who went past their picket lines on the day looked pretty fucking impressed rather than bemused. (You have to appreciate the sad irony of a traditionally right led union striking to protect the rights of future generations of workers, after a left led union has left the battlefield)

"The culture of the organisation effects individuals within it!!!!!" Were you talking about the SWP mate or the culture of the SP dominated PCS exec? Your defeatist culture "A weakened union would be the result of leading an activist minority along with the present leadership against the majority of members" (wot, not that 'majority of members' who'd already voted for strike action once?) and grand old duke of York strategy. A weakened union is one with a 2 tier workforce which is a result of this deal. The 'culture' which is permeating from your members is not just of defeatism but economism - i.e. opposing broader political issues/initiatives such as the WSF (still waiting for the explanation as to why your comrades opposed PCS sending a delegation to this BTW)


----------



## cockneyrebel (Jan 17, 2006)

In terms of letting the SWP off the hook, not really, everyone has seen in this thread that they've had no answers, over pages and pages.

Dennis as you've met me you'll know I'm not spotty and not little. You also know I have been involved in TU work for a long time. The other WP bloke on here isn't spotty or little either as it goes. So happy days  

Dennis leaving aside the usual caricatures, how can you be so sure of the SP tactics? You've gotta admit you got it badly wrong with the election of Mark Serwotka, and used exactly the same logic as you are on this. Just because the SP are on the exec doesn't mean they are making the right decisions. The right-wing were dominant in the PCS for years and fucking up the union left, right and centre.

To get the members to fight the pension deal a ballot would have to have been won. If the ballot had been won it wouldn't have been a minority of activists vs the majority. If the ballot was lost then I don't think that would have driven the membership into the hands of the right and the left leadership wouldn't have been implicated with saying accept a deal that will fuck up the union in the long run. If the PCS members had voted to reject the deal, as said, I don't think they would have been isolated. The FBU, NATFHE and possibly UNISON would have been on side. This is the strategy, it's fairly simple really. The left leadership should have tried to get the membership to reject the deal and use industrial actions to defeat the governments attempts to impose a two tier workforce.

I agree with groucho that this is a tactical mistake. Obviously the SP and Mark Serwotka don't want to fuck over the membership.


----------



## Groucho (Jan 17, 2006)

nwnm said:
			
		

> - i.e. opposing broader political issues/initiatives such as the WSF (still waiting for the explanation as to why your comrades opposed PCS sending a delegation to this BTW)



Sue Bond proposed this and was defeated by an alliance of the SP and the soft Blairites, including Hugh Lanning. Their argument against was that members would not understand what the WSF was about and would see it as a junket for full timers (the proposal certainly did not stipulate that PCS should be represented exclusively by full timers).

Mark Serwotka, when he heard about it was disappointed and certainly would have supported Sue Bond on this.

It is worth reminding ourselves of the SP position when Mark stood and won the Gen Sec election. At the Left Unity nominating meetings they argued that Left Unity should not stand a Gen Sec candidate, but if we did it should be Terry Adams. SWP and others argued we should stand a candidate and it should be Mark Serwotka. Terry = a full timer nearing his retirement (he has retired now), member of the SP and fairly moderate as a bureaucrat. Mark = a rank and file worker with a history of militancy.

SP won their position - for no LU candidate at the LU conference. So the SWP and others met seperately and agreed to campaign to nominate Mark Serwotka,

The SP denounced his candidature and called on members to nominate the soft Blairite (think Prentis) as the only candidate with a hope of beating the very right-wing Reamsbottom. When nominations were in Reamsbottom had not obtained the required nominations to allow him to stand. 

The SP then attempted to anull the nominations and restart them to allow Terry Adams to stand (and also Reamsbottom another chance to seek nomination!). When this failed they split with some members backing Lanning against Mark and some backing Mark against Lanning. Mark won overwhelmingly on a clear platform describing himself as an independent socialist with a proud record of leading strikes, against partnership, against privatisation, for a fight over pay and jobs.

One of their members at the conference following Mark's election called him a 'scab' at an open meeting (for defying the LU conference decision).

Since Mark's election they have manouvred to isolate MKark and promote Hugh Lanning. They continue to fetishise their alliance with Lanning's group of New Labour suporters on the NEC.

It is a real shame because some of their comrades in the CS have a very proud record.


----------



## neprimerimye (Jan 18, 2006)

nwnm said:
			
		

> Actually it was discussed way before then. one comrade admitted their error,  (ie the position of opposing the deal which the SWP argued was right) the other- as is public knowledge - left the SWP (and probably fancies themselves as a possible fulltime union official.)



As is your usual habit you are missing the point. Bond and John voted to drop the suspended strike action long before they voted for the two tier pension deal. Given that the PCS is an important union with a relatively large number of members of the SWP within it why did no one from the leadership of your 'party' raise the issue with them after that first vote?

Is it not the case in the SWP that the Industrial Department and the Industrial Organiser(s) have a remit to supervise the work of comrades such as Bond and John occupying senior elected union positions? If they do not have such a remit what is their purpose? Why employ 'organisers' who do not organise'?

Given that you would seem to regard this 'error' as being purely a personal error on the part of Bond and of treachery on the part of John I must take it that the inaction of the SWP's Industrial Department was not discussed at your conference.  Frankly I find your lack of concern as to the inaction of your groups Industrial apparatus disturbing.

By the way as a fulltime organiser for the SWP, presumably with a finely honed knowledge of the trade union movement, why did you not raise the issue with your employers when Bond and John voted to drop the suspended strike action?


----------



## neprimerimye (Jan 18, 2006)

nwnm said:
			
		

> "As for the SWP I completely agree that their actions demonstrate what a useless undisciplined "Leninist" party they are." As you are the only person to have raised this, who are you agreeing with? (I know you're in a pretty small outfit - answering yourself on here won't amend that). and your not particularly cogent on that one either.



Actually both Belboid and I had raised this question of the lack of discipline within the SWP. Yet another fact you ignore in your usual boorish fashion.

The point of course is not that a mistake was made by Bond and John as leading SWP union activists. Mistakes are common and nothing to be ashamed of. The point is that once made they should be openly examined and measures taken to avoid the same mistake being made again.

But Bond anf John made two mistakes did they not? And nobody from the SWP Industrial Department or 'the leadership' saw fit to say anything until after the second! Surely a leadership alive to a major question for class struggle militants should have been, at very least, paying attention?

What happened next is also interesting for the light it sheds on the regime within the SWP. As the article nwnm linked to makes clear the issue of Bond and John voting against SWP policy was discusssed at a PCS fraction meeting and they were censored. Quite rightly in my view. John then resigned from the group he was a member of for nearly thirty years. What was not discussed was the inaction of both the Indistrial Department and the 'leadership' as a whole.

This is very interesting is it not? Two leading comrades are merely told off for an action that was against stated and publically known SWP policies. The Industrial department and the 'leadership' which did nothing despite being fully aware of events was not even criticised let alone censored. Now contrast this to Matt Kidd who was imediately suspended for making public information which appeaered in SW only days later.

The conclusions to be drawn as to the lack of accountability of the SWP's 'leadership' and the arbitrary nature of discipline within the organisation are I believe obvious even to the most purblind of comrades.

Neprimerimye


----------



## cats hammers (Jan 18, 2006)

Groucho said:
			
		

> would see it as a junket for full timers



You say this as if it wouldn't be.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Jan 18, 2006)

neprimerimye said:
			
		

> This is very interesting is it not?


No.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 18, 2006)

Since NWNM seems to care about it enough to start sending me PMs about it, I've no problem answering his question about the World Social Forum. And that answer is: I don't give a flying fuck if the PCS pays for some assorted lefties to go to South America and the mere fact that this is the issue you seize on to have a go at your political opponents shows your demented lack of a sense of priorities.

On the rather more important issue of the PCS campaign to defend its members pension rights: I note again that none of the assorted sectarian whiners have yet put forward any alternative whatsoever. The best that any of them have managed is someone from Workers Power arguing that everyone should get out of the trenches and walk slowly towards the enemy machine guns because that's the brave, fighting thing to do.


----------



## cockneyrebel (Jan 18, 2006)

> On the rather more important issue of the PCS campaign to defend its members pension rights: I note again that none of the assorted sectarian whiners have yet put forward any alternative whatsoever. The best that any of them have managed is someone from Workers Power arguing that everyone should get out of the trenches and walk slowly towards the enemy machine guns because that's the brave, fighting thing to do



Well you've obviously not been reading the posts then. How clear can I make it? The left leadership should have fought to try and get members to reject the deal through the ballot. If they didn't succeed then at least the left wouldn't be the ones associated with accepting a deal that weakened the union in the long run and made future government attacks harder to fight off. I think union members would could the left leadership more credit in the long run for being upfront about what accepting the deal means. If they won, then it would obviously mean the majority of members were up for industrial action.

As said, I'm not sure why you're so covinced about the SPs measure of where the membership is at considering you got it so badly wrong with Mark Serwotka using exactly the same logic.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 18, 2006)

cockneyrebel said:
			
		

> Well you've obviously not been reading the posts then. How clear can I make it? The left leadership should have fought to try and get members to reject the deal through the ballot.



I think you are missing the point. I'm well aware that you want the union leadership to oppose the deal. But what happens then?


----------



## cockneyrebel (Jan 18, 2006)

Well part of the leadership opposing the deal would be saying that the only it could be effecitvely oppossed is through industrial action. That way members would know that if they voted to reject the deal then industrial action would be taken.


----------



## flimsier (Jan 18, 2006)

You want the union leadership to do the other side's work for them, and suggest where they can save money/ pay for pensions?

No thanks.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 18, 2006)

cockneyrebel said:
			
		

> Well part of the leadership opposing the deal would be saying that the only it could be effecitvely oppossed is through industrial action. That way members would know that if they voted to reject the deal then industrial action would be taken.



So what you are saying is that you want the union to take industrial action? What sort of industrial action?




			
				flimsier said:
			
		

> You want the union leadership to do the other side's work for them, and suggest where they can save money/ pay for pensions?



Who is this addressed to? I don't think cr is suggesting the above and I'm certainly not.


----------



## flimsier (Jan 18, 2006)

Sorry Nigel, as you suspect, it's addressed to you. I didn't see the post in the middle.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 18, 2006)

flimsier said:
			
		

> Sorry Nigel, as you suspect, it's addressed to you. I didn't see the post in the middle.



In which case me response is:   

I'm not suggesting any such thing. What I am asking is that the various posturers move beyond posturing and explain exactly what they want the union to do and the consequences of their suggestions.


----------



## flimsier (Jan 18, 2006)

Yeah, that's the same as what Blair would say to the pcs.


----------



## cockneyrebel (Jan 18, 2006)

> So what you are saying is that you want the union to take industrial action? What sort of industrial action?



Industrial as in strike action. This might mean starting off with strikes of a certain number of days, if the government doesn't back down this could lead to all out action. However as the FBU, NATFHE and maybe UNISON could have been brought on side I think this was a strike that could have won.

It might have even been able to link in with the industrial action at British Gas.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 18, 2006)

cockneyrebel said:
			
		

> Industrial action is strike action. This might mean starting off with strikes of a certain number of days, if the government doesn't back down this could lead to all out action.



Would a few days have been enough or would it sooner or later take all out action?


----------



## cockneyrebel (Jan 18, 2006)

Depends on if the other unions came out in joint action. You'd only know once the action started and you saw how the government reacted. But obviously a left leadership would have to say to the membership that a yes vote could mean that all out action might be needed.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 18, 2006)

cockneyrebel said:
			
		

> Depends on if the other unions came out in joint action.



Given that there is going to be no large scale action by any of the other unions, we can safely cut straight to the chase and say that you think an all out strike will be needed eventually even if it starts with short strikes.

Now let's take a step back: what would happen in such a ballot?


----------



## cockneyrebel (Jan 18, 2006)

Nigel I don't think you're right when you can say that none of the other unions would take large scale action, especially if there was solidarity from the PCS. I think the FBU could, and while being a small union can put significant pressure on the government. The NATFHE leaderhship have also voted to reject the deal and even UNISON might be forced into taking action.

And some action is already being taken, as said the PCS dispute could have linked into the action being taken by British Gas workers.

Now as said, given that the SP got is so wrong with Mark Serwotka using the same logic I'm surprised you're so sure about what the SP says. But that aside I've already given my answers as to what I think would be the result of the membership accepting or not accepting the left leadership saying the deal should be rejected.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 18, 2006)

It was a fairly straightforward question Cr. Would the ballot be won or lost?


----------



## cockneyrebel (Jan 18, 2006)

> Would the ballot be won or lost?



How can you know for sure until the ballot is taken? The SP were obviously convinced Mark Serwotka wouldn't win the election, but they were proved overwhelmingly wrong. If the left leadership and left membership didn't go all out to try and convince members to reject it then I think there would in all likelihood be a rejection. If there was a sustained campaign and the reasons were given as to why the deal will be bad for the PCS in the long run I think it might have been possible to win over the membershiop.

But as said even if the left lost the argument there and then I think it would put them in a better position in the long run.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Jan 18, 2006)

cockneyrebel said:
			
		

> But as said even if the left lost the argument there and then I think it would put them in a better position in the long run.


I doubt this. If you get a reputation for proposing action that people aren't going to support it doesn't put you in a better position.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 18, 2006)

cockneyrebel said:
			
		

> How can you know for sure until the ballot is taken?



You can take an educated guess. Few enough votes are entirely unpredictable. But let me make it a bit easier for you: do you think a ballot was at all winnable?


----------



## belboid (Jan 18, 2006)

Nigel Irritable said:
			
		

> Given that there is going to be no large scale action by any of the other unions, we can safely cut straight to the chase and say that you think an all out strike will be needed eventually even if it starts with short strikes.
> 
> Now let's take a step back: what would happen in such a ballot?


have you spoken to the FBU, British Gas, NATFHE, etc etc then Nigel?

Sadly, what SP comrades are being forced to do, following their decision to (in practise) support the creation of a two tier workforce, is to play down the possibility of any kind of strike action in other sectors - as doing otherwise would show up the original decision to be, if not outright wrong, then pessimistic to say the least.

The fact is that the PCS exec did not simpy say 'this is all we can get, its crap, but....' they said 'we have won'.  That is a de facto support of a two tier workforce, deny tho I am sure you will.  It is telling a lie to the membership - that this is a good deal.  Not exactly great behaviour for marxists.

As I've said often before, I would be doubtful that a majority of PCS members would have voted for strike action, but that is a certainty following the exec decision. I think the exec should have sid 'we think this deal is crappy, but we are not going to get a better one without strike action, which we will fully support.' That would at least be honest, unlike the SP statements which ignored the effects of creating a two-tier workforce. And would it lead to the membership suddenly thinking 'what a bunch of nutters' and chucking you off the exec/  I doubt it very much indeed - indeed that 'argument' is actually a gross insult to the intelligence and strength of feeling of the membership - something which is actually more likely to have negative consequences foir your votes than making an honest statement about the future.

And nwnm - art thou going to reply to the SWP's refusal to discuss the national offices political failings?  Or are you going to carry on blaming the members as well?  (there, now you can't say this argument is letting the swappies offthe hook dennis )


----------



## cockneyrebel (Jan 18, 2006)

> I doubt this. If you get a reputation for proposing action that people aren't going to support it doesn't put you in a better position.



It's tactical. I don't think the left will look good in the PCS when it comes to light that they actively supported a deal that will mean a weakened union and means that future government attacks will be more likely to succeed.


----------



## belboid (Jan 18, 2006)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> I doubt this. If you get a reputation for proposing action that people aren't going to support it doesn't put you in a better position.


doing so once is hardly 'getting a reputation' tho is it. by this logic no action should ever be called unless the result was a pre-ordained certainty, which would obviously be crap.


----------



## cockneyrebel (Jan 18, 2006)

> You can take an educated guess. Few enough votes are entirely unpredictable. But let me make it a bit easier for you: do you think a ballot was at all winnable?



As said I don't know why you're so sure that it couldn't be. The SP would have said that there was no way Mark Serwotka could have won, as such you backed a much more right-wing candidate. You got that one very wrong, you might have got it wrong again.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Jan 18, 2006)

belboid said:
			
		

> doing so once is hardly 'getting a reputation' tho is it. by this logic no action should ever be called unless the result was a pre-ordained certainty, which would obviously be crap.


No, that argument is crap because it can only identify two options: a vote which is bound to be lost and a vote that is bound to be won.

As for "doing so once" - one of the reasons why the Left lost power in CPSA for a decade and more was precisely because they kept doing this, calling for all-out strike action _that they were never going to get_. No doubt it was the correct revolutionary strategy, establishing themselves as the best fighters for the interests of the working class, but it was a damned poor way of encouraging people to vote for you.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 18, 2006)

cockneyrebel said:
			
		

> As said I don't know why you're so sure that it couldn't be.



Ok. I tend to place more weight on Left Unitys assessment than on Workers Powers. Left Unity after all being a network of PCS activists who have managed to build the strongest left in any union and Workers Power being a group who have built precisely zero in the unions over thirty years. But I'm willing to take this at face value for the sake of argument.

Now do you think that your possible ballot victory would be by (a) a huge margin or (b) a narrow margin? When answering this question please take into account both the assessment of the overwhelming majority of Left Unity that a ballot is unwinnable and the continued existence of an organised and rabid right wing.


----------



## cockneyrebel (Jan 18, 2006)

> No, that argument is crap because it can only identify two options: a vote which is bound to be lost and a vote that is bound to be won.
> 
> As for "doing so once" - one of the reasons why the Left lost power in CPSA for a decade and more was precisely because they kept doing this, calling for all-out strike action that they were never going to get. No doubt it was the correct revolutionary strategy, establishing themselves as the best fighters for the interests of the working class, but it was a damned poor way of encouraging people to vote for you.



But the PCS leadership doesn't "keep doing this" do they, look at the pretty tame response to 100,000 job losses. This is an issue that will severly weaken the PCS in the long run and mean five extra years for workers, we're not talking about a strike over bog paper here are we.

As belboid said, the left leadership should have been honest with the membership. Also you would have also probably used this exact arguments to back what the SP said about Mark Serwotka.

I think it's a poor way to get people to vote for the left when the consequences become clear of a two tier workforce.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Jan 18, 2006)

cockneyrebel said:
			
		

> Also you would have also probably used this exact arguments to back what the SP said about Mark Serwotka.


Mmm, that's a good argument. "You would have said something that in fact I have not the slightest reason to think you actually said."


----------



## cockneyrebel (Jan 18, 2006)

> Ok. I tend to place more weight on Left Unitys assessment than on Workers Powers. Left Unity after all being a network of PCS activists who have managed to build the strongest left in any union and Workers Power being a group who have built precisely zero in the unions over thirty years. But I'm willing to take this at face value for the sake of argument.



Your digs aside, you keep ignoring the fact that the SP didn’t just get it a bit wrong with Mark Serwotka, you got it totally wrong, but there you go.

Belboid has already answered your second point.


----------



## cockneyrebel (Jan 18, 2006)

> Mmm, that's a good argument. "You would have said something that in fact I have not the slightest reason to think you actually said."



I said "probably". As you seem to be using exactly the same logic as the SP in this instance, I don't think that's an unreasonable thing to say.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Jan 18, 2006)

cockneyrebel said:
			
		

> I said "probably". As you seem to be using exactly the same logic as the SP in this instance, I don't think that's an unreasonable thing to say.


It's actually an extremely stupid thing to say as it conflates two very different situations and two very different sorts of votes.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 18, 2006)

cockneyrebel said:
			
		

> Your digs aside, you keep ignoring the fact that the SP didn’t just get it a bit wrong with Mark Serwotka, you got it totally wrong, but there you go.



Again it's a pretty straightforward question you are refusing to answer: Given that you think a ballot could be won, unlike most left activists in the PCS, do you think that a ballot win would be by a large or a narrow margin?


----------



## belboid (Jan 18, 2006)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> No, that argument is crap because it can only identify two options: a vote which is bound to be lost and a vote that is bound to be won.


to an extent perhaps, but then there is the fact that in refusing to call a ballot the exec have decided that any balot would undoubtedly overwhelmingly be lost - ie they are the ones making the decision that there are only two options.


> As for "doing so once" - one of the reasons why the Left lost power in CPSA for a decade and more was precisely because they kept doing this, calling for all-out strike action _that they were never going to get_. No doubt it was the correct revolutionary strategy, establishing themselves as the best fighters for the interests of the working class, but it was a damned poor way of encouraging people to vote for you.


thus PCS exec must be conservative, or people will think they are the old CPSA? Or are you saying that if they do do so, then they will get such a tasdte for calling action that they won't be able to stop themselves doing so again and again?   Sorry, but that's a crap argument imo.


----------



## cockneyrebel (Jan 18, 2006)

> It's actually an extremely stupid thing to say as it conflates two very different situations and two very different sorts of votes.



To be honest I find you pedantic and irritating. I really don't wanna debate this with you.



> Again it's a pretty straightforward question you are refusing to answer: Given that you think a ballot could be won, unlike most left activists in the PCS, do you think that a ballot win would be by a large or a narrow margin?



As said again, how would you know until the ballot was taken and the left had launched a campaign to win over the membership. You got it very wrong in your assessment of Mark Serwotka, you might have got it very wrong again.

I think as this deal has left the union in a far weakened state in the long run, it was something that was worthing fighting for. As belboid has said, you just turned around and said it was a good deal, a partial victory etc You could have at least been honest and said "this wasn't a good deal, but etc etc"....


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 18, 2006)

belboid said:
			
		

> to an extent perhaps, but then there is the fact that in refusing to call a ballot the exec have decided that any balot would undoubtedly overwhelmingly be lost - ie they are the ones making the decision that there are only two options.



The PCS will in fact be holding a ballot. And I'm willing to bet that the membership, like the union executive and the Left Unity conference, will vote to accept that deal overwhelmingly.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Jan 18, 2006)

belboid said:
			
		

> thus PCS exec must be conservative, or people will think they are the old CPSA? Or are you saying that if they do do so, then they will get such a tasdte for calling action that they won't be able to stop themselves doing so again and again?   Sorry, but that's a crap argument imo.


No, because it's not a question of getting the "taste" - it's being put before us as a general strategy, that you should call for action even when you believe it is very likely to be rejected.


----------



## cockneyrebel (Jan 18, 2006)

> The PCS will in fact be holding a ballot. And I'm willing to bet that the membership, like the union executive and the Left Unity conference, will vote to accept that deal overwhelmingly.



Given that even the left leadership has said accept, this wouldn't be much of a surprise. As it goes the PCS conference did actually vote to reject any deal that didn't include future workers, but the NC ignored that.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Jan 18, 2006)

cockneyrebel said:
			
		

> To be honest I find you pedantic and irritating. I really don't wanna debate this with you.


Well tough. If you're going to make claims that people's opinions are (or would be) wholly different to what they actually are, then you can expect people to tell you that you're wrong. The fault is entirely yours.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 18, 2006)

cockneyrebel said:
			
		

> As said again, how would you know until the ballot was taken and the left had launched a campaign to win over the membership. You got it very wrong in your assessment of Mark Serwotka, you might have got it very wrong again.



Again, you can take an educated guess. Although I am enjoying your conversion to a political version of chaos theory, where no predictions are possible. 

In your opinion, given the factors I've outlined, do you think that a ballot victory would be by a large or narrow margin?


----------



## belboid (Jan 18, 2006)

Nigel Irritable said:
			
		

> The PCS will in fact be holding a ballot. And I'm willing to bet that the membership, like the union executive and the Left Unity conference, will vote to accept that deal overwhelmingly.


well it certainly bloody will now the leadership have said its a great deal!

If your lot were still in opposition on the exec, you'd be spitting feathers!


----------



## cockneyrebel (Jan 18, 2006)

> In your opinion, given the factors I've outlined, do you think that a ballot victory would be by a large or narrow margin?



I don't know. As said you would have predicted that Mark Serwotka had no chance of winning and you got the very wrong.

Given a strong campaign by the left I think there was a possibility of getting yes vote. How strong that would have been, who knows, I haven't got a crystal ball. So how ever many times you ask, the answer will be the same. But a weakened union and five extra years for future workers being sold to the membership by the left as a good deal is totally wrong.


----------



## belboid (Jan 18, 2006)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> No, because it's not a question of getting the "taste" - it's being put before us as a general strategy, that you should call for action even when you believe it is very likely to be rejected.


Not by me it isn't.  But sometimes, yes, it is absolutely necessary to do so.  It's called leading, not tail-ending.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 18, 2006)

belboid said:
			
		

> well it certainly bloody will now the leadership have said its a great deal!



The Socialist Party's view is that this is not a great deal but is a major climbdown by the government and the best that can be achieved in the circumstances. I'm glad though that you think the PCS membership has such trust in our judgement!


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Jan 18, 2006)

belboid said:
			
		

> If your lot were still in opposition on the exec, you'd be spitting feathers!


This might be true and it's a common phenomenon - people call for action when in opposition and then don't when they're in power. But might that be because when you're in power you become a lot more aware of the perils of turning rhetoric into action?




			
				belboid said:
			
		

> Not by me it isn't.  But sometimes, yes, it is absolutely necessary to do so.  It's called leading, not tail-ending.


No, I don't think it's called leading. Leading involves being able to take people with you.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 18, 2006)

cockneyrebel said:
			
		

> I don't know.



Your evasiveness is getting ridiculous, cr. You know as well as I do that if by some miracle a ballot could be won, it would be narrow and there would be a substantial number of members voting the other way. If you won't accept that much, you are I'm afraid just showing yourself to be an utter fantasist.


----------



## belboid (Jan 18, 2006)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> This might be true and it's a common phenomenon - people call for action when in opposition and then don't when they're in power. But might that be because when you're in power you become a lot more aware of the perils of turning rhetoric into action?


now you're sounding like me mum on why Labour never got rid of nukes!


> No, I don't think it's called leading. Leading involves being able to take people with you.


indeed - but some is not necessarilly all. And it is a long-term strategy - arguing for rejecting the deal now would strengthen the execs position in saying we must reject all aspects of the two-tier workforce, something they cannot now say, because they have accepted it.


----------



## cockneyrebel (Jan 18, 2006)

> Your evasiveness is getting ridiculous, cr. You know as well as I do that if by some miracle a ballot could be won, it would be narrow and there would be a substantial number of members voting the other way. If you won't accept that much, you are I'm afraid just showing yourself to be an utter fantasist.



It's not evasive I just don't know what would have happened if the left leadership had launched a major campaign to reject the deal.

But the SP have given up before they've even tried. The acceptance of this deal means a weakened union and the left being discredited in the long run. You weren't honest with the membership on the point that this deal would leave the PCS in a weaker position in the long run.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Jan 18, 2006)

belboid said:
			
		

> indeed - but some is not necessarilly all. And it is a long-term strategy - arguing for rejecting the deal now would strengthen the execs position in saying we must reject all aspects of the two-tier workforce, something they cannot now say, because they have accepted it.


It might strengthen their position in _saying_ that, but not in actually doing anything about it, because they're not in a position to reject all aspects of the two-tier workforce.

To be honest all this reminds me of my old CPSA days in which we had an overtime ban for years and years. Well, we did strictly speaking, but in practice everybody except union reps did overtime even though the members would actually vote for the ban whenever they were asked. Now the supposed ban was maintained for years precisely because people said that if we dropped it, we'd weaken our position, but the problem was that we didn't _have_ a position, save a verbal one.

I don't believe any more in having purely verbal positions, not for practical matters.


----------



## One time (Jan 18, 2006)

*a necessary correction*


Having read some of the nonsense on this thread it is necessary to state a few facts.
First. *Matt Kidd was not suspended from the SWP*. Conference voted to not allow him to attend should he turn up and to refer the matter to the Disputes Committee. This was a sensible precaution to prevent our internal discussions being posted on a website which is completely hostile to the SWP.
Secondly the question of security was brought up because recently one of our comrades who was mentioned in the Weekly Worker is now under threat of the sack. The fact that comrades may have been mentioned in public before does not excuse naming them again without clearing it with them. They may have moved jobs, for example, as was the case with the comrade mentioned. 
However, the main reason conference voted not to allow Matt in was because we quite obviously want to have our internal discussions privately and not include people who are self declared enemies of the SWP and would like to see the “demise of the SWP” as a precondition for the develop of the class struggle.
(0n an aside as regards the PCS the industrial office did argue with the comrades that they should not vote for the deal. That is one of reasons why the meeting of SWP branch delegates voted to put out the statement condeming the decision and why one of the comrades subsequently apologised to SWP members in the PCS. But don’t let the facts get in the way of a good rant at the SWP.)
As regards the main topic, the fact remains *Matt was not suspended* and could have taken all his arguments about U75 and why it is important to post on here to the Disputes Committee. He chose to resign instead and conduct a dishonest debate on here. Perhaps his commitment to the SWP was not as strong as he maintains. 
These are the facts. People on here can believe me or not. (Maybe I’m one of those despicable bureaucrats in the SWP who just want to crush all dissent and weave a web of lies and deciet to bamboozle the membership.) Alternatively I may just be someone who having seen some 800-odd contributions made in a debate based on an inaccurate assumption just wanted to set the record straight.
Goodbye


----------



## belboid (Jan 18, 2006)

One time said:
			
		

> Matt Kidd was not suspended from the SWP


he was told he was tho.


> (0n an aside as regards the PCS the industrial office did argue with the comrades that they should not vote for the deal. That is one of reasons why the meeting of SWP branch delegates voted to put out the statement condeming the decision and why one of the comrades subsequently apologised to SWP members in the PCS. But don’t let the facts get in the way of a good rant at the SWP.)


no one has ever denied the first statement - so you either didnt read the posts closely enough or you are distorting them to suit your own ends. The question was over whether the IO should have seen their votes coming from their previous actions - it didn't.


----------



## One time (Jan 18, 2006)

*of course it did*




			
				belboid said:
			
		

> he was told he was tho.
> 
> no one has ever denied the first statement - so you either didnt read the posts closely enough or you are distorting them to suit your own ends. The question was over whether the IO should have seen their votes coming from their previous actions - it didn't.



No he wasn‘t (I don’t care if you choose to believe this)

I repeat  The comrades were argued with not to vote this way therefore it was obviously anticipated. Had it not been no discussion would have taken place. I would love to know just how you get your detailed insider knowledge of what did or did not take place. Were there meetings discussions etc. The truth is you do not know and just resort to baseless assumptions. 
Again you can choose to believe this or not.


----------



## Pilgrim (Jan 18, 2006)

One time said:
			
		

> Having read some of the nonsense on this thread it is necessary to state a few facts.
> First. *Matt Kidd was not suspended from the SWP*. Conference voted to not allow him to attend should he turn up and to refer the matter to the Disputes Committee. This was a sensible precaution to prevent our internal discussions being posted on a website which is completely hostile to the SWP.
> Secondly the question of security was brought up because recently one of our comrades who was mentioned in the Weekly Worker is now under threat of the sack. The fact that comrades may have been mentioned in public before does not excuse naming them again without clearing it with them. They may have moved jobs, for example, as was the case with the comrade mentioned.
> However, the main reason conference voted not to allow Matt in was because we quite obviously want to have our internal discussions privately and not include people who are self declared enemies of the SWP and would like to see the “demise of the SWP” as a precondition for the develop of the class struggle.
> ...



Some questions, if you please:

1. Why was Matt suspended (and I take HIS word for it) for using the names of SWP members when other SWP posters here have done exactly the same thing and not been disciplined for it?

2. Second, why (if this site is 'completely hostile to the SWP', as you incorrectly stated) do SWP hacks keep posting here so frequently?

3. Third, were the people whose names (and pictures, if memory serves) shown in the report in Socialist Worker asked, individually, if it was OK to use their names and images?

4. And, not having seen Matt's willingness to defend even the most ridiculous SWP policies on here, time and again, in the face of pretty heavy opposition from me and others, who are you to suggest that he is a liar or that his commitment was lacking?

5. Why isn't RW, or Udo, or some other drone posting up this cobblers? Or are they in hiding, licking their wounds after the public (and very welcome) exposure of what the SWP leadership will stoop to when it suits them?

I'm not actually expecting any credible answers to the above, nor any answer at all if I'm honest, but I just thought I'd raise a few questions.

Over to you.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 18, 2006)

6. Why have reports from other SWP members on misreprensentations/lies/rumours being spread about Matt at conference been ignored?

7. Why have other SWP members on here and in other places not been sanctioned for naming SWP members?

8. Why was Matt informed by at least two higher up members acting in their offical party capacity that he _had_ been suspended promptingb his resignation?

9. Why was he not informed of the conference vote concerning him, and why was he not allowed to present a defence or explanation of his actions?


----------



## cockneyrebel (Jan 18, 2006)

Well well a member of the hierarchy steps onto U75, we should be honoured 

Did Matt not receive a rude phone call from the SWP CC then? Was all that made up?

And shouldn't Matt have been told about what was gonna happen at conference so he could at least come along and put his case?

Also, considering what Matt wrote about was subsequently reported in Socialist Worker it's not like this was a major infringement of confidentiality. Rather than having a full scale conference debate/vote on it, couldn't it have been dealt with in a bit more of a subtle way? Couldn't someone have phoned Matt up for instance? It's ironic that Matt was actually using this info to put the SWP in a more positive light.

Also you might say some posters on here are hostile to the SWP, but U75 as a website clearly isn't. It's a Brixton based community forum.....

As for naming names again there are two points. 

Firstly this board can't even be viewed unless you sign up and I think the SWP are being a tad paranoid if they think that bosses around the land are signing up to U75 to see if they can spot one of their employee's names being mentioned, this is hardly the same as someones name being mentioned in a newspaper.

Secondly the names mentioned have also been mentioned very recently in Socialist Worker and they all continue to be in the public domain as open SWP activists. Also Socialist Worker have actually published a picture of people at the conference. Did you ask everyone in that picture if it was ok?

In terms of your PCS comrades I'm surprised it was left so long before the grandly named "Industrial Office" (the SWPs implementation in the unions is fuck all, and among industrial workers pretty much non-existant) took some action. As you say it was obvious for a long time that your comrades weren't taking the SWP line. Considering Matt gets banned from conference for posting on U75 I think you wanna get your priorities right.


----------



## belboid (Jan 18, 2006)

One time said:
			
		

> No he wasn‘t (I don’t care if you choose to believe this)


he is certanly under the impression that he was so told, as are other SWP posters here who attended conference - how would that come about if it's not true?  Is he welcome to attend SWP events?  Would he have been were he not pushed into 'resigning'?



> I repeat  The comrades were argued with not to vote this way therefore it was obviously anticipated. Had it not been no discussion would have taken place. I would love to know just how you get your detailed insider knowledge of what did or did not take place. Were there meetings discussions etc. The truth is you do not know and just resort to baseless assumptions.
> Again you can choose to believe this or not.


Your logic fails. Unless the IO had become complete imbeciles they would have discussed the vote with the two members prior to the vote, and the members would have told them what their intentins were. hence, no anticipation _required_.  As to the second part of your statement, there is no _evidence_ that any previous discussions had taken place - a position i adopt having read (what should be) relevant articles in your paer, on the PCS left unity sites etc.  I see you do not make any attempt to provide any evidence that my belief is wrong, but simply shrug your shoulders and amble off.  Impressive.


----------



## osterberg (Jan 18, 2006)

Of course it's not capitalism that's the real enemy , it's the SWP.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 18, 2006)

Well, for the SWP it appears to be Matt.


----------



## belboid (Jan 18, 2006)

osterberg said:
			
		

> Of course it's not capitalism that's the real enemy , it's the SWP.


yes dear, that's exactly what everyone is saying.


----------



## One time (Jan 18, 2006)

*this is getting tedious*

the fact remains you got your facts wrong and spent over 800 posts arguing on a false assumption Matt was not suspended. The conference took a democratic decision to refer him to the Disputes Committee if he turned up he didn’t and chose to resign.
So starting from a position of him being suspended we now get to a position of him being "forced to resign" because of a "rude phone call" on which I assume you were listening in.
Belboid
The fact remains you do not know what has or has not gone on as regards the industrial office. This ignorance does not prevent you from making baseless accusations about the situation—long may you continue. I am not going to share any information about this to continue to fuel your manic gossiping. I have stated the facts you can believe them or not.
Cockney Rebel: Think about your influence inside the “industrial working class” before you make such crass bitter comments. And don’t underestimate the importance of security who would have thought a comrade’s boss would read such a irrelevent publication as Weekly Worker
Finally: Don’t flatter yourselves I am not part of the “hierarchy” that cause you such fevered nightmares. However, despite the importance of this site in the overthrow of capitalism I fear I must leave you to it. Apparently there is a real world out there.


----------



## belboid (Jan 18, 2006)

you're really not very good at this arguing thing are you?

Hope you have made yourself feel all better, and indeed _superior_ anyway.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 18, 2006)

One time said:
			
		

> the fact remains you got your facts wrong and spent over 800 posts arguing on a false assumption Matt was not suspended. The conference took a democratic decision to refer him to the Disputes Committee if he turned up he didn’t and chose to resign.
> So starting from a position of him being suspended we now get to a position of him being "forced to resign" because of a "rude phone call" on which I assume you were listening in.


 Let's make it four times. Why was Matt informed by at least two higher up members claimingt that they were acting in their offical party capacity that he had been suspended prompting his resignation?


----------



## cockneyrebel (Jan 18, 2006)

Typical SWP logic. Where did I say anywhere that Matt resigned because of a rude phone call, I asked if that phone call had happened. If you're gonna be this dishonest in replying, why should anyone believe anything else you're saying?

In terms of the PCS the two members concerned were going against the SWP line for a long time. Now considering the SWP could take such immediate and strong action against someone for posting on U75, don't you think you should have sorted things out with the PCS members who were leading a major dispute long before you did? As said, looks like you should get your priorities right.

I have never claimed the organisation I'm in has influece in the working class, but then again we don't have a body called the "Industrial Office".

As for security, as said this board can't even be read unless you sign up. Also the people named have very recently been named in Socialist Worker. If you are so concerned about security I would have thought you'd be more worried about printing pictures of people at conference in your newspaper. Also your organisations flippant attitude to the BNP getting hold of names of people when the SWP was infiltrated seems to show an uneven way of dealing with things.

Lastly if you don't think this site is of any importance (and on the bigger scale of things it's not at all), then why bother coming on here to post in the first place?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 18, 2006)

Yeah, was anyone suspended over the BNP infilitration of the Manchester SWP and UAF?


----------



## Pilgrim (Jan 18, 2006)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> Yeah, was anyone suspended over the BNP infilitration of the Manchester SWP and UAF?



I may be wrong, but I don't recall anyone being suspended.

Did the SWP ever issue a proper apology to those who might have been adversely affected by the Finnon/Stoker debacle?


----------



## neprimerimye (Jan 18, 2006)

Having read the post from 'One Time' I think it cannot be denied that what we have just witnessed is a member of the inner circle of the SWP's leadership attempting to run a damage control exercise. Although this poster writes in a manner that is intended to suggest possession of the authority granted only those with knowledge of the 'truth' in this affair at bottom his/her contribution is as boorish as any of those of the hapless Nwnm. 'One Time' makes several claims that are worth looking at in some more detail as they are effectively lies or accusations that others are lying. 

1/ He claims that Matt Kidd was not suspended from membership despite Matt stating here that he was so informed. In which case either matt or One Time is lying. Given that One Time then goes on to state that a vote was taken at conference to prevent matt sitting as a delegate at that gathering it is clear that Matt actually was suspended from exercising his rights as a member of the SWP to sit as an elected delegate. In short he was suspended from membership pending a decision of the Disputes Committee. Or to be plain 'One Time' is not telling the truth but spinning.

2/ 'One Time' also repeatedly slurs Matt as not being a loyal member and a self declared enemy of the SWP who prefers to conduct a dishonest debate on these boards. Yet from the evidence of Matts previous posts he was loyal and certainly had adequate support for his opinions to be elected as a conference delegate. Perhaps 'One Time' is worried that Matts suggestion that the SWP cannot be democratically reformed has an echo within the ranks of 'The Party'?

3/ It is interesting that the SWP Industrial Office did talk to Bond and John after their first flaunting of SWP policy. It is curious that this snippet of information only now is vouchsafed to us too. Which makes the leniency of their punishment for breaking discipline a second time even harder to understand given that what we are discussing in this instance is a question of great tactical importance within the unions. But of course Sue Bond apologised to SWP members so that makes everything alright. Nevermind the new entrants to the Civil Service who might have had better pension rights if the SWP had carried out it own policies and fought for them amongst the PCS rank and file!

Funnily enough I think 'One Time' has done the best job thus far in justifying the punitive action taken against Matt Kidd and in the process provided us with additional information as to how the SWP functions today. It is also interesting that some of the regular SWP posters to these boards have not been active here recently. Perhaps Matts suspension has, at least in part, served its purpose?


----------



## Wilf (Jan 18, 2006)

One time said:
			
		

> Finally: Don’t flatter yourselves I am not part of the “hierarchy” that cause you such fevered nightmares. However, despite the importance of this site in the overthrow of capitalism I fear I must leave you to it. Apparently there is a real world out there.


Care to share with us a couple more details?  You joined U75 today to give us the 'definitive version of events' - but tell us you are not part of the 'hierarchy'.  Which is it then?  Were you deputed by the hierarchy to come on here and 'set the record straight' or are you just an ordinary member who somehow knows the inns and out of this case?

Oh, yes, and while we are at it, why the hell would employers have a problem with anybody being a member of the swp??


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 18, 2006)

4thwrite said:
			
		

> Oh, yes, and while we are at it, why the hell would employers have a problem with anybody being a member of the swp??


 They're not team players. No SOH. Self-important. Pompous. etc


----------



## Pilgrim (Jan 18, 2006)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> They're not team players. No SOH. Self-important. Pompous. etc



That and they keep trying to force people to buytheir bloody paper all the time.


----------



## Wilf (Jan 18, 2006)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> They're not team players. No SOH. Self-important. Pompous. etc


  

But some at least are hierarchical grasses who will walk through fire to defend their foolish organisation.  Just what the average Personnel office would be looking for.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 18, 2006)

Absolutely - fast tracked upstairs as protoges.


----------



## osterberg (Jan 18, 2006)

Pilgrim said:
			
		

> That and they keep trying to force people to buytheir bloody paper all the time.


 Waving a newspaer about and shouting 'Socialist Worker' is _so_ intimidating.


----------



## Pilgrim (Jan 18, 2006)

osterberg said:
			
		

> Waving a newspaer about and shouting 'Socialist Worker' is _so_ intimidating.



I'd be more intimidated if a flock of new-born lambs hoved into view than of a group of Swappie papersellers.

'Mildly irritating' would be a more accurate description.


----------



## osterberg (Jan 18, 2006)

Pilgrim said:
			
		

> I'd be more intimidated if a flock of new-born lambs hoved into view than of a group of Swappie papersellers.
> 
> 'Mildly irritating' would be a more accurate description.


So you're not exactly being _forced _ to buy a newspaper , are you?


----------



## Pilgrim (Jan 18, 2006)

osterberg said:
			
		

> So you're not exactly being _forced _ to buy a newspaper , are you?



That depends on how desperate they are to fill their quota and not have to back to their overlords with any unsold copies.

Occasionally, I take pity on the poor souls and have a copy for old times sake.


----------



## flimsier (Jan 18, 2006)

Well nothing ever happened to me if I failed to sell any.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 18, 2006)

flimsier said:
			
		

> Well nothing ever happened to me if I failed to sell any.



The suggestion that something would is a bit silly really. I mean it isn't as if there is a shortage of serious criticisms to make of the SWP, there's no need for this kind of stuff. I'd say the worst that could happen to you for failing to sell your papers might be a slightly boring pep talk from an over-enthusiastic fulltimer.


----------



## Pilgrim (Jan 18, 2006)

Nigel Irritable said:
			
		

> The suggestion that something would is a bit silly really. I mean it isn't as if there is a shortage of serious criticisms to make of the SWP, there's no need for this kind of stuff. I'd say the worst that could happen to you for failing to sell your papers might be a slightly boring pep talk from an over-enthusiastic fulltimer.



No, fair's fair.

I'm not in the best of moods at the moment, but that was a tad mean.


----------



## articul8 (Jan 18, 2006)

Given that Socialist Worker is available in full online for anyone interested, why would you spend 80p (or has it gone up again?) on a copy?


----------



## nwnm (Jan 18, 2006)

“Since NWNM seems to care about it enough to start sending me PMs about it, I've no problem answering his question about the World Social Forum. And that answer is: I don't give a flying fuck if the PCS pays for some assorted lefties to go to South America and the mere fact that this is the issue you seize on to have a go at your political opponents shows your demented lack of a sense of priorities.”

Actually, like most of those posting, I have also raised major criticisms of the Socialist Party’s pensions debacle in the PCS. Although it would be good if the SP allow you to handle propoganda for your outfit at the WSF. Ican’t wait to see the leaflets “World Social Forum - Why We Don’t Give a Flying Fuck!”

One of the reasons you do not want to discuss this isn’t because you don’t give a fuck about the WSF. Its becase it shows what your buddies are doing on the PCS Exec as Groucho pointed out - 

“Sue Bond proposed this and was defeated by an alliance of the SP and the soft Blairites, including Hugh Lanning. Their argument against was that members would not understand what the WSF was about and would see it as a junket for full timers (the proposal certainly did not stipulate that PCS should be represented exclusively by full timers).

Mark Serwotka, when he heard about it was disappointed and certainly would have supported Sue Bond on this.

It is worth reminding ourselves of the SP position when Mark stood and won the Gen Sec election. At the Left Unity nominating meetings they argued that Left Unity should not stand a Gen Sec candidate, but if we did it should be Terry Adams. SWP and others argued we should stand a candidate and it should be Mark Serwotka. Terry = a full timer nearing his retirement (he has retired now), member of the SP and fairly moderate as a bureaucrat. Mark = a rank and file worker with a history of militancy.

SP won their position - for no LU candidate at the LU conference. So the SWP and others met seperately and agreed to campaign to nominate Mark Serwotka,

The SP denounced his candidature and called on members to nominate the soft Blairite (think Prentis) as the only candidate with a hope of beating the very right-wing Reamsbottom. When nominations were in Reamsbottom had not obtained the required nominations to allow him to stand. 

The SP then attempted to anull the nominations and restart them to allow Terry Adams to stand (and also Reamsbottom another chance to seek nomination!). When this failed they split with some members backing Lanning against Mark and some backing Mark against Lanning. Mark won overwhelmingly on a clear platform describing himself as an independent socialist with a proud record of leading strikes, against partnership, against privatisation, for a fight over pay and jobs.

One of their members at the conference following Mark's election called him a 'scab' at an open meeting (for defying the LU conference decision).

Since Mark's election they have manouvred to isolate MKark and promote Hugh Lanning. They continue to fetishise their alliance with Lanning's group of New Labour suporters on the NEC.

It is a real shame because some of their comrades in the CS have a very proud record.”

Don’t assume this will get buried by a few pithy comments it won’t. There is something very wrong with cuddling up with new labourites one minute and telling people that a 2 tier membership is the best you can get the next.


----------



## mk12 (Jan 18, 2006)

osterberg said:
			
		

> Waving a newspaer about and shouting 'Socialist Worker' is _so_ intimidating.



About 15 people asking you to join outside a Marxism meeting, on the other hand...


----------



## chilango (Jan 18, 2006)

> Don’t assume this will get buried by a few pithy comments it won’t.



Nwnm, Your failure to comment on the SWP`s record of excluding activists seems to have done though....


----------



## neprimerimye (Jan 18, 2006)

nwnm said:
			
		

> Actually, like most of those posting, I have also raised major criticisms of the Socialist Party’s pensions debacle in the PCS. Although it would be good if the SP allow you to handle propoganda for your outfit at the WSF. Ican’t wait to see the leaflets “World Social Forum - Why We Don’t Give a Flying Fuck!”
> 
> One of the reasons you do not want to discuss this isn’t because you don’t give a fuck about the WSF. Its becase it shows what your buddies are doing on the PCS Exec....
> 
> Don’t assume this will get buried by a few pithy comments it won’t. There is something very wrong with cuddling up with new labourites one minute and telling people that a 2 tier membership is the best you can get the next.



This thread is concerned with the SWP and not, as such, with the PCS. While I consider that the politics of the PCS can usefully be discussed here unless that discussion relates to the SWP it belongs on a different thread. Attempts by Nwnm to discuss the work of the SP in the PCS are nothing more than a cheap and obvious atttempt to distract attention from the failings of his own group.

That said I find it curious that Nwnm is now lauding the move of Sue Bond on the PCS Exec to have the union send, at considerable financial cost, a delegation to the WSF. Perhaps Nwnm could inform us what the membership of the PCS will gain by sending a delegation to the WSF? Will it enable them to further the struggle for equal pension rights for all PCS members, present and future, for example?


----------



## Nigel (Jan 18, 2006)

Do you think that there is a serious chance that the SWP could democratise   itself, allow factions and not have Witchhunts. 

Or is the rot so deep set that nothing, not even if Tony Cliff came down on a silvery cloud with Trotsky Lenin & Bukharin in the background could save it?????


----------



## mutley (Jan 18, 2006)

neprimerimye said:
			
		

> This thread is concerned with the SWP and not, as such, with the PCS. While I consider that the politics of the PCS can usefully be discussed here unless that discussion relates to the SWP it belongs on a different thread. Attempts by Nwnm to discuss the work of the SP in the PCS are nothing more than a cheap and obvious atttempt to distract attention from the failings of his own group.
> 
> That said I find it curious that Nwnm is now lauding the move of Sue Bond on the PCS Exec to have the union send, at considerable financial cost, a delegation to the WSF. Perhaps Nwnm could inform us what the membership of the PCS will gain by sending a delegation to the WSF? Will it enable them to further the struggle for equal pension rights for all PCS members, present and future, for example?



Supporting and sending delegates to the wsf means getting directly involved in a new (though clearly not unproblematic) way of organising and mobilising against capitalism and neo-liberalism. We're all up against the same attacks, such as on pensions, throughout the world. So we need to continue to try to build a global movement whilst building the fight in each locality.


----------



## neprimerimye (Jan 18, 2006)

mutley said:
			
		

> Supporting and sending delegates to the wsf means getting directly involved in a new (though clearly not unproblematic) way of organising and mobilising against capitalism and neo-liberalism. We're all up against the same attacks, such as on pensions, throughout the world. So we need to continue to try to build a global movement whilst building the fight in each locality.



Concretely how would the PCS sending, at great cost, a delegation to the WSF defend pension rights which have already been relinquished?

Is it not the case that this motion from Sue Bond is actually a face saving device for the SWP after their, and Sue Bonds, failure to effectively fight for their own positions amongst the rank and file of the union?


----------



## mutley (Jan 18, 2006)

neprimerimye said:
			
		

> Concretely how would the PCS sending, at great cost, a delegation to the WSF defend pension rights which have already been relinquished?
> 
> *Concretely, in the narrow way that you phrase the question, of course it wouldn't. But I don't think that a union with a record of internationalism, of engagement with new political formations and of attempting to find a way forward should give up on such engagement becasue they've been knocked back on a particular issue.*
> 
> Is it not the case that this motion from Sue Bond is actually a face saving device for the SWP after their, and Sue Bonds, failure to effectively fight for their own positions amongst the rank and file of the union?



Well if you choose to think that you may. It is of course utterly impossible to refute, which is why it serves your purposes so well.


----------



## levien (Jan 18, 2006)

neprimerimye said:
			
		

> Concretely how would the PCS sending, at great cost, a delegation to the WSF defend pension rights which have already been relinquished?
> 
> Is it not the case that this motion from Sue Bond is actually a face saving device for the SWP after their, and Sue Bonds, failure to effectively fight for their own positions amongst the rank and file of the union?



The SWP's mistakes in the PCS have been publicly appologised for.  It is no secret that Sue Bond got sucked along with the pesimistic outlook of the Millies on the exec or that the PCS fraction was clearly not functioning as it should do - I have no idea if "civil unrest" has had much success or not (but I promise an SPewer will come along to rubbish it.)

The fact remains that this is an attempt to correct that and try an connect the PCS with the young and radical movements around the WSF.  Bringing in new blood is probably about the only thing that revolutionaries can do to radicalise and rebuild a rank and file in a union like the PCS.


----------



## articul8 (Jan 18, 2006)

You can just hear the Swappie "industrial office": 

"Oi - Sue!  Stop worrying about the tactics of a dispute affecting the lives of thousands of workers, and get back to pointless sloganeering and sponsoring NGO dominated red herring junkets!"


----------



## levien (Jan 18, 2006)

articul8 said:
			
		

> You can just hear the Swappie "industrial office":
> 
> "Oi - Sue!  Stop worrying about the tactics of a dispute affecting the lives of thousands of workers, and get back to pointless sloganeering and sponsoring NGO dominated red herring junkets!"



A "left" echo of the rightwing.  Should revolutionaries stop talking about or internationalism?  Why is that counterposed to defending pensions.  Socialist worker btw has a focus on pensions this week.


----------



## articul8 (Jan 18, 2006)

levien said:
			
		

> A "left" echo of the rightwing.  Should revolutionaries stop talking about or internationalism?  Why is that counterposed to defending pensions.  Socialist worker btw has a focus on pensions this week.



no - nothing would assist the rightwing more than for a left leadership to adopt a futile ultra-left position of calling an unwinnable all-out strike and discrediting itself in the eyes of the membership - whilst at the same time banging on about a bureaucratic event at the other side of the world which is highly likely to achieve jack shit.  What have the other social fora actually achieved - in concrete terms - for workers worldwide?

And of course I think the left should have an internationalist outlook.  But you are in a better position to persuade others, if you demonstrate a SERIOUS and EFFECTIVE concern for the immediate battles faced by workers at home.  

Perhaps you'd like to answer the questions levelled by Pilgrim and Butchers about Matt's suspension - which, like other the resident swappies, you have singularly failed to do.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jan 18, 2006)

4thwrite said:
			
		

> Care to share with us a couple more details?  You joined U75 today to give us the 'definitive version of events' - but tell us you are not part of the 'hierarchy'.  Which is it then?  Were you deputed by the hierarchy to come on here and 'set the record straight' or are you just an ordinary member who somehow knows the inns and out of this case?
> 
> Oh, yes, and while we are at it, why the hell would employers have a problem with anybody being a member of the swp??


   Another one  taking drugs?.....  like charlie mowbry you  honestly believe that the SWPwould organise to send people into the urban 75 forum?


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jan 18, 2006)

neprimerimye said:
			
		

> Having read the post from 'One Time' I think it cannot be denied that what we have just witnessed is a member of the inner circle of the SWP's leadership attempting to run a damage control exercise. Although this poster writes in a manner that is intended to suggest possession of the authority granted only those with knowledge of the 'truth' in this affair at bottom his/her contribution is as boorish as any of those of the hapless Nwnm. 'One Time' makes several claims that are worth looking at in some more detail as they are effectively lies or accusations that others are lying.
> 
> 1/ He claims that Matt Kidd was not suspended from membership despite Matt stating here that he was so informed. In which case either matt or One Time is lying. Given that One Time then goes on to state that a vote was taken at conference to prevent matt sitting as a delegate at that gathering it is clear that Matt actually was suspended from exercising his rights as a member of the SWP to sit as an elected delegate. In short he was suspended from membership pending a decision of the Disputes Committee. Or to be plain 'One Time' is not telling the truth but spinning.
> 
> ...


boredom plays a bigger part.


----------



## audiotech (Jan 18, 2006)

flimsier said:
			
		

> Well nothing ever happened to me if I failed to sell any.



I don't know if SWP are supposed to take a certain number of papers to sell these days, but I recall a vigorous debate  some time back, when the apparatchik's in the party put forward the idea to the rank and file that comrades had to take and sell an allotted amount. This proposal was rejected outright on a vote and the idea was ditched.


----------



## mk12 (Jan 18, 2006)

I was suspended. The CC member who rang me told me so. He also told me I was not allowed to attend any SWP meeting, including my branch, or sell the paper until I went to the disputes committee. Interestingly, even now after I have left, I am not allowed to attend branch meetings or go to events like Marxism. I resigned because I didn't want to be in a party that suspends someone for doing what I did - being honest and open about our party's views (all of them, even those of a minority). The Bolsheviks, who worked in illegality in a Tsarist autocracy for christ's sake, argued their differences _in public_. Yet the SWP doesn't allow someone to say how the CC election went on a leftist bulletin board.




			
				One time said:
			
		

> Cockney Rebel: Think about your influence inside the “industrial working class” before you make such crass bitter comments. And don’t underestimate the importance of security who would have thought a comrade’s boss would read such a irrelevent publication as Weekly Worker



So why not condemn other SWP posters on here as well as me, seeing as they have revealed the names I mentioned as well? Why did they single out me?

And on my loyalty: Well, I was not expecting anything better to be honest. The fact that I have defended the party on a "hostile anarchist web-board" sort of suggests I _was_ loyal. I also worked hard in my branch, trying to get a group going at college. But don't let any of that change your views.


----------



## audiotech (Jan 18, 2006)

articul8 said:
			
		

> Given that Socialist Worker is available in full online for anyone interested, why would you spend 80p (or has it gone up again?) on a copy?



Have you donated online you cheapskate?


----------



## articul8 (Jan 18, 2006)

Have i f***


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 18, 2006)

levien said:
			
		

> I have no idea if "civil unrest" has had much success or not (but I promise an SPewer will come along to rubbish it.)



I have never even heard of "civil unrest", but I'll rubbish it if you like. What is it, some supposedly "rank and file" front? The SWP in Ireland have been periodically in shit like that in the public sector unions, it's never gone anywhere but they did manage to cost the real left body in one union just enough votes to give the right wing control a couple of years ago.




			
				nwnm said:
			
		

> One of the reasons you do not want to discuss this isn’t because you don’t give a fuck about the WSF etc etc etc



This kind of shit just cracks me up.

Be honest about it for once. The SWP want the PCS to pay for an activist holiday in Venezuela, to help fund an SWP "intervention" into the World Social Forum and more generally in the country. If the PCS were to send delegates it would be the usual suspects from the left groups who would push to go, and maybe a promising "contact" or two along with union fulltimers. The PCS executive decided that at a time when they are going to be leading major struggles at home on balance they don't need to give the right wing that kind of stick to beat them with and useful though the WSF may be it isn't a priority. Am I outraged, not in the slightest. And the only reason the SWP are outraged is that now they won't be able to send a couple of hacks along to try and recruit some unfortunate Venezuelan.




			
				ResistanceMP3 said:
			
		

> like charlie mowbry you honestly believe that the SWPwould organise to send people into the urban 75 forum?



Yeah those kind of accusations are just bizarre. You see them on Irish Indymedia too, claims that some left party or other "sent" people on to a board to claim x, y or z. I think part of it is that deep down some anarchists and other activists actually believe the Leninist propaganda that we are soooo incredibly organised...


----------



## chilango (Jan 18, 2006)

MC5 said:
			
		

> I don't know if SWP are supposed to take a certain number of papers to sell these days, but I recall a vigorous debate  some time back, when the apparatchik's in the party put forward the idea to the rank and file that comrades had to take and sell an allotted amount. This proposal was rejected outright on a vote and the idea was ditched.




What about the "3 for me" campaign?


----------



## jannerboyuk (Jan 18, 2006)

levien said:
			
		

> It is no secret that Sue Bond got sucked along with the pesimistic outlook of the Millies on the exec...


Surely the definition of trot sectarianism. Even when our comrades fuck up its 'their' fault. Cracking stuff. I'm genuinely impressed by that king of mental gymnastics. Startling stuff.


----------



## gurrier (Jan 18, 2006)

Nigel Irritable said:
			
		

> Yeah those kind of accusations are just bizarre. You see them on Irish Indymedia too, claims that some left party or other "sent" people on to a board to claim x, y or z. I think part of it is that deep down some anarchists and other activists actually believe the Leninist propaganda that we are soooo incredibly organised...


Considering that they essentially just kicked somebody out on this board, due to  the content of what they said on this board, I don't think one can rule out the 'bizarre' in this case.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 18, 2006)

gurrier said:
			
		

> Considering that they essentially just kicked somebody out on this board, due to  the content of what they said on this board, I don't think one can rule out the 'bizarre' in this case.



What appears to have happened here is that some uber-hack who was on the board anyway went running to an SWP leader telling tales of Matt's "disloyalty". I still don't think for a second that they have ever organised an intervention here or that they would be bothered to do so. But as you say, nothing much would surprise me about the SWP at the moment.

It appears by the way that they actually sent MattKidd12 a letter telling him that he is banned from SWP public meetings and their Marxism conference.


----------



## articul8 (Jan 18, 2006)

Nigel Irritable said:
			
		

> It appears by the way that they actually sent MattKidd12 a letter telling him that he is banned from SWP public meetings and their Marxism conference.



you think it can't get worse and then...


----------



## Solidarnosc (Jan 18, 2006)

I only just caught this:




			
				Pilgrim said:
			
		

> I may be wrong, but I don't recall anyone being suspended.



No, nobody was suspended, but to be fair to individual SWP members on this (remember, I don't have much truck with the SWP at all these days), it wasn't an individual thing, it exposed organisational and political failings on a party-wide level. I don't think it can be attributed to an individual. The culture and political trajectory of the SWP is at fault here. In fact, punishing individuals for party-wide failures is a part of the problem. 

As it goes, I wrote a three-page document highlighting the opportunist culture inside the SWP and things which can be done to prevent this happening again. I got a warm cup of tea and a more hotter grilling from the district organiser 'advising' me not to distribute the document further. 



> Did the SWP ever issue a proper apology to those who might have been adversely affected by the Finnon/Stoker debacle?



No.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 18, 2006)

Solidarnosc said:
			
		

> As it goes, I wrote a three-page document highlighting the opportunist culture inside the SWP and things which can be done to prevent this happening again. I got a warm cup of tea and a more hotter grilling from the district organiser 'advising' me not to distribute the document further.



What particular "opportunist" deeds was your document lambasting?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 18, 2006)

Solidarnosc said:
			
		

> No, nobody was suspended, but to be fair to individual SWP members on this (remember, I don't have much truck with the SWP at all these days), it wasn't an individual thing, it exposed organisational and political failings on a party-wide level. I don't think it can be attributed to an individual. The culture and political trajectory of the SWP is at fault here. In fact, punishing individuals for party-wide failures is a part of the problem.


 The local organisers should have been for allowing that structure and lazinnes to happen under their watch. That's basic good practice as a matter of course.


----------



## Solidarnosc (Jan 18, 2006)

Nigel Irritable said:
			
		

> What particular "opportunist" deeds was your document lambasting?


 Well, it wasn't "deeds". It was a culture. Those who knew Finnon and Stoker would also know that their political development was poor to be generous about it, but the simple fact is that they were "yes" people. They just did what they were told, and seemed loyal, and were put into nominally important positions in Respect and Manchester StW, but when you tried to engage them in political debate, it didn't go very far. Their political understanding, even up until the last weeks of their infiltration, was rock bottom, but nothing was ever done about it, because they "wanted to promote good, working class young people in the party" (whether or not they are actually from a working class background, we'll never know, I can't be sure to be quite honest). 

In honesty, they just did what they were told and were rewarded for it. 




			
				butchersapron said:
			
		

> The local organisers should have been for allowing that structure and lazinnes to happen under their watch. That's basic good practice as a matter of course.



Of course they should, but the organisational structure was the same across the SWP. I was in two different SWP districts (Manchester and North London) and several branches, and it was the exact same, which lead me to believe it was a problem with the party's internal culture and structure nationally, not just in Manchester. To punish the Manchester party leadership for mistakes and problems which affected other districts would be the wrong way to go about it.


----------



## sihhi (Jan 18, 2006)

cockneyrebel said:
			
		

> Typical SWP logic. Where did I say anywhere that Matt resigned because of a rude phone call, I asked if that phone call had happened. If you're gonna be this dishonest in replying, why should anyone believe anything else you're saying?
> 
> In terms of the PCS the two members concerned were going against the SWP line for a long time. Now considering the SWP could take such immediate and strong action against someone for posting on U75, don't you think you should have sorted things out with the PCS members who were leading a major dispute long before you did? As said, looks like you should get your priorities right.
> 
> ...



Just to bang it in again I pointed out John Rees' absurd comments which totally fuck up any case they have (none) against Matt here:

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=4052879&postcount=562

No SWPer replied-- hopefully we'll get a response now.


----------



## Wilf (Jan 19, 2006)

4thwrite said:
			
		

> Care to share with us a couple more details?  You joined U75 today to give us the 'definitive version of events' - but tell us you are not part of the 'hierarchy'.  Which is it then?  Were you deputed by the hierarchy to come on here and 'set the record straight' or are you just an ordinary member who somehow knows the inns and out of this case?
> 
> Oh, yes, and while we are at it, why the hell would employers have a problem with anybody being a member of the swp??






			
				ResistanceMP3 said:
			
		

> Another one  taking drugs?.....  like charlie mowbry you  honestly believe that the SWPwould organise to send people into the urban 75 forum?



First of all if follows that One Time was not party to the discussions on this Board - s/he only registered today - and you can't read debates without registering.  Looked to me like it was someone seeking to set out a definitive version of events (damage limitation actually).  So... if this person has a 'definitive account', I simply asked how that was - where they one of your bosses or an ordinary member with access to the fine detail of this sorry affair?

And a question for you RMP3: without naming them of course, do you know who One Time is?


----------



## nwnm (Jan 19, 2006)

“Be honest about it for once. The SWP want the PCS to pay for an activist holiday in Venezuela, to help fund an SWP "intervention" into the World Social Forum and more generally in the country.” We are perfectly capable of sending our own activists thanks. But obviously ordinary members of the PCS are nowhere near political enough to want to go to this are they. Just like this PCS member who wrote to Socialist Worker -
“I was saddened and disappointed to learn that the PCS civil service workers’ union will not be sending any delegation to January’s World Social Forum (WSF) in Caracas, the capital of Venezuela.
The WSF is an event of international social importance bringing together trade unionists, civil society groups, peace activists, environmental and human rights groups and others to discuss a wide range of issues, which are pertinent to PCS as one of the biggest unions in economically rich Britain. 
The WSF also signifies a stand against the forces of neo-liberalism and globalisation, which threaten trade unions worldwide. 
It is an opportunity to discuss on an international platform issues that affect the trade union movement such as job cuts, pensions, poverty, free trade and war, as well as a chance to show solidarity with others. 
The trade union movement is and always has been an international movement and an injury to one is an injury to all regardless on which continent it takes place.
In August I visited Colombia as a PCS delegate and met Colombian trade unionists. 
Despite the massive human rights violations that are faced on a daily basis, trade unions in Colombia are fighting exactly the same battles such as attacks on pensions and working rights. 
I am sure this is true globally. The very fact that this year’s WSF takes place in Venezuela, with the social battles and changes that are currently taking place, makes it an important event. 
I strongly believe that the PCS should reconsider this decision and send a delegation to represent us at such an important social event, and unite in solidarity with our brothers and sisters from around the globe with whom we stand side by side.”
Bravo! You and the Blairites that the SP lined up with in the vote (as with the 2 tier workforce on pensions) must be proud of yourselves. You might as well have stayed in new labour with your former Guru Ted Grant as you are still selling the working class their shoddy pensions deal…


----------



## neprimerimye (Jan 19, 2006)

levien said:
			
		

> The SWP's mistakes in the PCS have been publicly appologised for.  It is no secret that Sue Bond got sucked along with the pesimistic outlook of the Millies on the exec or that the PCS fraction was clearly not functioning as it should do - I have no idea if "civil unrest" has had much success or not (but I promise an SPewer will come along to rubbish it.)
> 
> The fact remains that this is an attempt to correct that and try an connect the PCS with the young and radical movements around the WSF.  Bringing in new blood is probably about the only thing that revolutionaries can do to radicalise and rebuild a rank and file in a union like the PCS.



That Sue bond was "sucked along" might well be true but it would appear that it was Martin John her fellow SWPer that was doing the sucking. Sucking up that is in the hope of fulltime position. But the point, which the SWPers here consistantly ignore, is that the error made was not hers or Johns but that of the SWP leadership. Their error in not stepping in to correct the initial mistake of voting to call of suspended strike action has not even been addressed let alone apologised for. Not that anybody need give a toss about an apology that was made in effect to the SWP leadership for an error they were party too.

But at least we agree that the route to radicalising and building the PCS is to bring in new blood. Well we would agree if you could explain how sending a PCS delegation to Caracas will encourage more young members of PCS to take on leading roles in their branches in Aberdeen, Sheffield, Norwich, etc.


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Jan 19, 2006)

The SWP have published the international perspectives resolution agreed by their conference.  It contains an attack on the Scottish Socialist Party - a response defending the role of the SSP has been made by Socialist Resistance on their website.

http://www.socialistresistance.net/reply to SWP.htm
http://www.istendency.net/


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 19, 2006)

nwnm said:
			
		

> We are perfectly capable of sending our own activists thanks.



Of course no SWP members would have dreamed of "offering their services" as PCS delegates to the World Social Forum...




			
				nwnm said:
			
		

> But obviously ordinary members of the PCS are nowhere near political enough to want to go to this are they. Just like this PCS member who wrote to Socialist Worker



"Ordinary members" of the PCS are often extremely "political", after all they've in recent years consistently elected the most left wing leadership in the trade union movement. Which doesn't change for a moment the fact that a PCS delegation to Venezuela would almost automatically have been made up of lefty activists who would put themselves forward, some promising "contacts" and union fulltimers. You know this and I know this.

The idea that a PCS member writing a letter complaining about that decision in the pages of "Social Worker" is somehow evidence against rather than for that proposition is just bizarre. A quick use of google shows that the author of that letter has... wait for it... previously had another article in the pages of that paper. In other words, your evidence of outrage amongst the PCS ranks comes from exactly the kind of lefty activist or contact I was talking about.


----------



## cats hammers (Jan 19, 2006)

Nigel Irritable said:
			
		

> The idea that a PCS member writing a letter complaining about that decision in the pages of "Social Worker" is somehow evidence against rather than for that proposition is just bizarre. A quick use of google shows that the author of that letter has... wait for it... previously had another article in the pages of that paper. In other words, your evidence of outrage amongst the PCS ranks comes from exactly the kind of lefty activist or contact I was talking about.



You didn't really need to google his name to know that tho, did you?


----------



## nwnm (Jan 19, 2006)

" A quick use of google shows that the author of that letter has... wait for it... previously had another article in the pages of that paper." So have Noam Chomsky, Tony Benn and Tariq Ali. But I don't remember them joining the party. You still haven't eplained why your comrades are forming a block on the PCS eec with New Labourites though...

Neither have you eplained why the SP is going to the WSF but votes against PCS doing the same. The 'too many lefties' tag wears a bit thin here


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jan 19, 2006)

Nigel Irritable said:
			
		

> Yeah those kind of accusations are just bizarre. You see them on Irish Indymedia too, claims that some left party or other "sent" people on to a board to claim x, y or z. I think part of it is that deep down some anarchists and other activists actually believe the Leninist propaganda that we are soooo incredibly organised...


  yes, and the same people usually contradict themselves by correctly quoting Leninist party leadership's attacking members for wasting their time on boards like this.  

I came on him a few years back, after a member of workers Power on Indy media suggested to me that the SWP was frightened of debating other people on the left.I said I was interested in what people had to say, and he suggested I try here.  My experience has convinced me that the various Leninist party leadership are about right, debating with the hard left, with a few notable exceptions, is completely futile!  

I still contribute to bulletin boards, but as before I came on here I preferred to do so with people to the right of me.  this may be considered equally futile, as having little prospect of convincing people to move to the left, but at least it doesn't feel like trying to shuffle deckchairs on the Titanic.  

Fraternal greetings.  ResistanceMP3


----------



## belboid (Jan 19, 2006)

mattkidd12 said:
			
		

> I was suspended. The CC member who rang me told me so. He also told me I was not allowed to attend any SWP meeting, including my branch, or sell the paper until I went to the disputes committee.


so 'one time' is simply and straightforwardly a liar then - there's a suprise!


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 19, 2006)

nwnm said:
			
		

> " A quick use of google shows that the author of that letter has... wait for it... previously had another article in the pages of that paper." So have Noam Chomsky, Tony Benn and Tariq Ali. But I don't remember them joining the party.



Now your argument is that she isn't a left wing activist because... three other longstanding left wing activists have had articles in Social Worker too?

Face it. Your mob wanted the PCS to fund a recruiting expedition to Venezuela. Nothing wrong with chancing your arm, but PCS decided that they had better things to be doing. Your "outrage" here is hypocricy of the highest order and your attempts to use an occasional contributor to the pages of Social Worker as an example of outrage amongst "ordinary members" of the PCS is just laughable.

Now what's your view on the SWP writing to Matt to tell him that he's banned from "public" meetings? Petty spite or petty spite?


----------



## cockneyrebel (Jan 19, 2006)

> Now what's your view on the SWP writing to Matt to tell him that he's banned from "public" meetings? Petty spite or petty spite?



You could look at it another way, maybe they were being very considerate


----------



## belboid (Jan 19, 2006)

Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> The SWP have published the international perspectives resolution agreed by their conference.  It contains an attack on the Scottish Socialist Party - a response defending the role of the SSP has been made by Socialist Resistance on their website.
> 
> http://www.socialistresistance.net/reply to SWP.htm
> http://www.istendency.net/


one interesting little bit from the original:

"“a mistake to argue, as some of the revolutionary left do, that these formations should convert themselves into ‘parties’ based on the traditional model of far left organisation – with their own papers,

what _did_ happen to that motion passed at the previous Respect conference for a Respect paper? hmmm....


----------



## Groucho (Jan 19, 2006)

Nigel Irritable said:
			
		

> Now your argument is that she isn't a left wing activist because... three other longstanding left wing activists have had articles in Social Worker too?
> 
> Face it. Your mob wanted the PCS to fund a recruiting expedition to Venezuela. Nothing wrong with chancing your arm, but PCS decided that they had better things to be doing. Your "outrage" here is hypocricy of the highest order and your attempts to use an occasional contributor to the pages of Social Worker as an example of outrage amongst "ordinary members" of the PCS is just laughable.
> 
> Now what's your view on the SWP writing to Matt to tell him that he's banned from "public" meetings? Petty spite or petty spite?



 It is unfortunate that Matt did not agree to attend the Disputes Committee, as all may have been different then.

The issue here re the WSF is Should trade unions be involved in the international movement against globalisation, or should there be a seperation between political struggle and economic trade union struggle. The SP and Labourites clearly believe that involvement in wider political issues on an international scale is not appropriate for a Trade Union. 

Do we care that trades unionists get shot in Colombia? Do we care that Africa is being forced to adopt neo-liberalist policies in return for a breather on debt interest payments? Do we believe that workers of the World should unite? Or not?


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jan 19, 2006)

4thwrite said:
			
		

> First of all if follows that One Time was not party to the discussions on this Board - s/he only registered today - and you can't read debates without registering.  Looked to me like it was someone seeking to set out a definitive version of events (damage limitation actually).  So... if this person has a 'definitive account', I simply asked how that was - where they one of your bosses or an ordinary member with access to the fine detail of this sorry affair?
> 
> And a question for you RMP3: without naming them of course, do you know who One Time is?


  I maintain, if you believe the SWP leadership organises people to come in here your mind must be altered in some way or another.  The SWP leadership argues completely the opposite, that comrades shouldn't waste their time in such places.  And for the past 20 years I've been in the party, as many other members of the hard left will point out, the SWP prerfer top target their megre forces on 'reformist' and those winnable to United Front activity.

Let me give you another possible scenario for One Time.  Heard about the cuffufle, and came to see what it was about.

Anyway, you'll believe what you want regardless of what I say, so;

Frats Comrade.  

PS.  I personally believe if individual SW comrades are going to intervene in a places like this they should caucus.  they should be trying to achieve something beyond futile bickering.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jan 19, 2006)

mattkidd12 said:
			
		

> So why not condemn other SWP posters on here as well as me, seeing as they have revealed the names I mentioned as well? Why did they single out me?


forgive me comrade, I haven't read much of this 24 page debate, but I was just wondering what do you believe is the answer to your question?

Frats Rmp3


----------



## Groucho (Jan 19, 2006)

ResistanceMP3 said:
			
		

> PS.  I personally believe if individual SW comrades are going to intervene in a places like this they should caucus.  they should be trying to achieve something beyond futile bickering.



'Intervening' here is about as crucial to the SWP as watching Eastenders (which I also do) or CBB! 

I'll not be taking it seriously enough to caucus. I think spiders are the coolest pets, that Most Haunted LIve! was a really great TV programme (My spirit guide, Fat Baz, won't submit to party discipline by the way), and System of a Down are the rockest HM band ever. I'll not be agreeing a party line on any of these issues...


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 19, 2006)

Groucho said:
			
		

> It is unfortunate that Matt did not agree to attend the Disputes Committee, as all may have been different then.



So what you are saying is that spiteful gesture is punishment for not attending your kangaroo court? You don't find it even a little strange that someone like Pickman's Model, who genuinely does have it in for the SWP, is allowed to attend your "public" meetings, while Matt isn't?




			
				Groucho said:
			
		

> The SP and Labourites clearly believe that involvement in wider political issues on an international scale is not appropriate for a Trade Union.



Yes because that's *clearly* what thinking that the PCS shouldn't hand the right wing a stick to beat its left with in the run up to major battles by financing an SWP recruitment jaunt to South America means, isn't it?


----------



## revol68 (Jan 19, 2006)

Groucho said:
			
		

> It is unfortunate that Matt did not agree to attend the Disputes Committee, as all may have been different then.
> 
> The issue here re the WSF is Should trade unions be involved in the international movement against globalisation, or should there be a seperation between political struggle and economic trade union struggle. The SP and Labourites clearly believe that involvement in wider political issues on an international scale is not appropriate for a Trade Union.
> 
> Do we care that trades unionists get shot in Colombia? Do we care that Africa is being forced to adopt neo-liberalist policies in return for a breather on debt interest payments? Do we believe that workers of the World should unite? Or not?



do we need to travel half way across the world to engage in a glorified talking shop, amongst necrophilacs attempting to fuck some life back into social democracy? Does the working class unite through politico junkets that represent a strata of activist or through the actual implicit internationalism of their struggles?


----------



## Groucho (Jan 19, 2006)

Nigel Irritable said:
			
		

> Yes because that's *clearly* what thinking that the PCS shouldn't hand the right wing a stick to beat its left with in the run up to major battles by financing an SWP recruitment jaunt to South America means, isn't it?



Ah so the WSF is an SWP recruitment jaunt? You don't follow international politics do you?

This argument 'we can't do this, we can't do that or the right will do us in' is very poor. You defeat the right by proving that the left can make a difference not by being too scared to move. 

The new young activists in PCS, do you know were they are coming from? Stop the War, Make Poverty History (for all its faults). It is the wider political issues that inspires them. 

Now, I agree that if a union fails on the central 'bread and butter' issues then no amount of political engagement will rescue it. Unfortunately, the same argument is used there. We see massive job cuts but we can't have a CS wide strike because the right will call us 'strike happy', we see increased delegated pay areas despite a five year campaign over national pay - but we can't call strikes because the right..., we have to accept two tier pensions otherwise the right...., we have to reluctantly accept privatisation otherwise the right...but most of all we can't alienate the 'PCS Democrats' (who support the Labour Party) or they will split and then the right....

Assess the situation.

How strong is Tony Blair and his Govt? How much unrest is there amongst the membership? Why did they vote a left NEC in for two terms? Why was the Nov 5th 2004 national one day PCS strike so solid? Why was the vote for a strike over pensions in favour? Just how much are the members really holding the SP/PCS Democrat leadership back(LU have a majority but PCS Democrats appear to have been given a vetoe)? Or is it the leadership holding the workers back? What happens then Dissillusion perhaps? and then maybe the right will creep back in. And we'll have the SP saying 'we were too left-wing. We must go back to supporting Lanning for Gen Sec!"


----------



## Wilf (Jan 19, 2006)

ResistanceMP3 said:
			
		

> I personally believe if individual SW comrades are going to intervene in a places like this they should caucus.  they should be trying to achieve something beyond futile bickering.



the notion that you should caucus before posting in a chat room??  well, that just about says it all


----------



## poster342002 (Jan 19, 2006)

Groucho said:
			
		

> Why was the Nov 5th 2004 national one day PCS strike so solid?


How solid was this strike outside the DWP? Did the main central London government ministries and departments soldily strike? How many departmental London HQ buildings were shut down?


----------



## neprimerimye (Jan 19, 2006)

chilango said:
			
		

> What about the "3 for me" campaign?



Oh yes I remember that campaign very well. if you recall that year we had a District caucus in the Student Union building. Tony Cliff and the then student fulltimer HW were speaking on behalf of the CC.

After Cliff had finished his speech instructing us that we all had to take 3 copies of the paper to sell a comrade sat next to me raised his hand to ask a question. Rather naively he asked if that meant he no longer had to sell more than 3 papers each week and if other comrades would take over his surplus SW sales.

For a brief moment Cliff looked totally nonplussed but soon recovered and explained that taking 3 papers was a minimum commitment. The comrade concerned would have to continue to do his paper round each week and should be proud to sell so many papers as he did.

Nwnm always was a committed paper seller but not terriblly bright.


----------



## Groucho (Jan 19, 2006)

poster342002 said:
			
		

> How solid was this strike outside the DWP? Did the main central London government ministries and departments soldily strike? How many departmental London HQ buildings were shut down?



Why do you concentrate your question on London HQ buildings where a fair number of 'workers' are FDA senior Civil Servants and the grade structure is top heavy?

80% of PCS members struck. Offices across the country were shut down. London HQ buildings were seriously disrupted.


----------



## poster342002 (Jan 19, 2006)

Groucho said:
			
		

> Why do you concentrate your question on London HQ buildings


I only ask this question because I suspect the answer may have something to do with why the governemnt continues to press on regardless with it's attacks, staff-number reductions etc.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 19, 2006)

Groucho said:
			
		

> Ah so the WSF is an SWP recruitment jaunt?



No Groucho. But it wasn't being suggested that the PCS fund the World Social Forum. The suggestion was that the PCS should stump up to pay for a few SWP members and assorted other lefties to go to South America for a week. And really I find your attempts to muster some kind of "political" outrage, fairly laughable.


----------



## Groucho (Jan 19, 2006)

Nigel Irritable said:
			
		

> No Groucho. But it wasn't being suggested that the PCS fund the World Social Forum. The suggestion was that the PCS should stump up to pay for a few SWP members and assorted other lefties to go to South America for a week. And really I find your attempts to muster some kind of "political" outrage, fairly laughable.



It was suggested that the PCS send a delegation and play a part in the international movement against neo-liberalism. No more, no less. The SP, along with Labourites,  decided it was too political.


----------



## Groucho (Jan 19, 2006)

poster342002 said:
			
		

> I only ask this question because I suspect the answer may have something to do with why the governemnt continues to press on regardless with it's attacks, staff-number reductions etc.



Ah, but to that I have to say two things.

Firstly the Government were rattled by the support for the one day strike. Rattled enough go agree a protocol on job reductions that insists on negotiations and certain measures designed to minimise compulsary redundancies. This will have saved a fair few individuals jobs and will have delayed the cutting of 1,000s of posts. In addition the Govt. scuttled away from attacks on sick leave entitlements dropping the idea completely - a very real achievement. I might add that the concession on pensions was given in part because PCS had demonstrated ability to deliver effective action.

Secondly, a one day strike once is hardly going to bring even a weak Govt. to its knees. In my opinion action should have been discontinuous. The ballot in favour of action on March last year was for discontinuous action - but that strike was called off. Discontinuous action would have allowed further stoppages and a kind of guerilla action.


----------



## poster342002 (Jan 19, 2006)

Groucho,

How do you know individual deparmtents aren't implementing these things (attacks on sick leave, tightening disciplinary proceedures in order to be able to sack more people, reduction of posts etc etc) by stealth? Just becuase the government hasn't quite charged ahead, doesn't mean it won't leave it to delegated departmental managements to quietly continue what they started.


----------



## mk12 (Jan 19, 2006)

ResistanceMP3 said:
			
		

> forgive me comrade, I haven't read much of this 24 page debate, but I was just wondering what do you believe is the answer to your question?
> 
> Frats Rmp3



I don't know, that's what I am trying to find out. It seems like double standards to me.


----------



## Geoff Collier (Jan 19, 2006)

Nigel Irritable said:
			
		

> No Groucho. But it wasn't being suggested that the PCS fund the World Social Forum. The suggestion was that the PCS should stump up to pay for a few SWP members and assorted other lefties to go to South America for a week. And really I find your attempts to muster some kind of "political" outrage, fairly laughable.



This probably isn't allowed of, but did you read this? 

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/UK_Left_Network/message/69228


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 19, 2006)

Yep I've read it. Good luck to him, I hope he gets some donations to get there. I doubt if he'll be coming onto message boards to express his outrage if some union doesn't bung him money towards his trip though.


----------



## Groucho (Jan 19, 2006)

poster342002 said:
			
		

> Groucho,
> 
> How do you know individual deparmtents aren't implementing these things (attacks on sick leave, tightening disciplinary proceedures in order to be able to sack more people, reduction of posts etc etc) by stealth? Just becuase the government hasn't quite charged ahead, doesn't mean it won't leave it to delegated departmental managements to quietly continue what they started.



The attack on sick leave envisaged by Gordon Brown would require legislation. he wanted to force zero pay for the first days off sick before statutory pay kicks in. No-where in the CS has this been implimented as Brown had to back off. I accept that trigger points for action against 'too much' sick absence etc are being toughened up.

On jobs it is the case that every Dept. are cutting posts. Not by stealth, but openly and the union resistance is muted. But the protocol relates to compulsary redundancies and these have been delayed or, in some cases avoided, by the protocols.

Privatisation is also going ahead. The point is that the one day strike achieved something worthwhile but on its own no-where near enough. Even the pensions compromise will no doubt only delay the attack on existing staff.

But the strike was solid. It had an impact on Govt. It shows that action gets results, but without more action the achievements, such as they are, will be whittered away.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jan 19, 2006)

Groucho said:
			
		

> 'Intervening' here is about as crucial to the SWP as watching Eastenders (which I also do) or CBB!
> 
> I'll not be taking it seriously enough to caucus. I think spiders are the coolest pets, that Most Haunted LIve! was a really great TV programme (My spirit guide, Fat Baz, won't submit to party discipline by the way), and System of a Down are the rockest HM band ever. I'll not be agreeing a party line on any of these issues...


well if you can enjoy Eastenders, and putting yourself through that torture, I can understand why you might enjoy this place.  

To be honest, I think I prefer to talk to some members of the Tory party, than some of the Leftists in here.

Frats comrade


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jan 19, 2006)

mattkidd12 said:
			
		

> I don't know, that's what I am trying to find out. It seems like double standards to me.


So go through the apeal/whatever anyway, and find out.  otherwise, as you say none of this will make any sense.

you cannot have been suspended because of this;



			
				mattkidd12 said:
			
		

> I was suspended. The CC member who rang me told me so. He also told me I was not allowed to attend any SWP meeting, including my branch, or sell the paper until I went to the disputes committee. Interestingly, even now after I have left, I am not allowed to attend branch meetings or go to events like Marxism. I resigned because I didn't want to be in a party that suspends someone for doing what I did - being honest and open about our party's views (all of them, even those of a minority). The Bolsheviks, who worked in illegality in a Tsarist autocracy for christ's sake, argued their differences _in public_. Yet the SWP doesn't allow someone to say how the CC election went on a leftist bulletin board.


otherwise I too, as you say, would have been suspended.

fraternal greetings.  ResistanceMP3


----------



## mk12 (Jan 19, 2006)

Well, in my letter of why I _was_ suspended, and on the phone when they actually told me, one of the reasons I was being disciplined in this way was because I had mentioned names on this web-board. They told me about how certain members had had trouble at work due to their "outing" in the Weekly Worker. I was told I was "acting like a little kid" for mentioning names, because I didn't realise the seriousness of this.



> So go through the apeal/whatever anyway, and find out.



Why bother, if I don't want to rejoin the party anyway?


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jan 19, 2006)

mattkidd12 said:
			
		

> Well, in my letter of why I _was_ suspended, and on the phone when they actually told me, one of the reasons I was being disciplined in this way was because I had mentioned names on this web-board. They told me about how certain members had had trouble at work due to their "outing" in the Weekly Worker. I was told I was "acting like a little kid" for mentioning names, because I didn't realise the seriousness of this.
> 
> 
> 
> Why bother, if I don't want to rejoin the party anyway?


why?  Just so your comments about being suspended for being involved in an open and honest debate make sense, because as they stand, with me still being a member, they don't.  Do they?

fraternal greetings.  ResistanceMP3


----------



## mk12 (Jan 19, 2006)

I didn't understand that post, sorry. You want me to go to the disputes committee so my arguments make sense to you?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 19, 2006)

mattkidd12 said:
			
		

> I didn't understand that post, sorry. You want me to go to the disputes committee so my arguments make sense to you?


 Oh dey do do do don't dey do


----------



## articul8 (Jan 19, 2006)

this thread is losing me now


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 19, 2006)

After only 41 pages and 1001 posts? Fucking lightweight.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jan 19, 2006)

mattkidd12 said:
			
		

> I didn't understand that post, sorry. You want me to go to the disputes committee so my arguments make sense to you?


as you say it doesn't make sense that you have been suspended for being involved in an open and honest debate, and I have not.  






			
				mattkidd12 said:
			
		

> I don't know, that's what I am trying to find out. It seems like double standards to me.


Attending the disciplinary may explain THIS incongruity.  I would suggest it is the only way you will "find out"

I would hope there may be factors that both you and they are not aware of, and at least there could be an amicable parting, if not a resolution.

Fraternal greetings.  ResistanceMP3


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jan 20, 2006)

4thwrite said:
			
		

> the notion that you should caucus before posting in a chat room??  well, that just about says it all


yes you and Groucho were probably right, it was a bit over the top.  However, I hope Groucho's response finally confirmed to you how delusional yours and Charlies conspiracy theory about the the swp organising  to intervene in this place is.


----------



## Pilgrim (Jan 20, 2006)

ResistanceMP3 said:
			
		

> yes you and Groucho were probably right, it was a bit over the top.  However, I hope Groucho's response finally confirmed to you how delusional yours and Charlies conspiracy theory about the the swp organising  to intervene in this place is.



TBH, we'll never know for sure whether 'OneTime' is or isn't a senior Swappie.

And after his/her baptism of fire it's likely to be a while before we see 'OneTime' again.

There is still, however, the issue of which U75 P&P poster was the grass who fingered mattkidd12 and caused him so much grief.

And we'll be probably be waiting until Hell freezes over before the grass has the spine to openly admit what they did.

One thing is for sure, the SWP CC will not have been happy about how their latest shenanigans have been splashed all over U75 (and many other places by now).


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jan 20, 2006)

Pilgrim said:
			
		

> TBH, we'll never know for sure whether 'OneTime' is or isn't a senior Swappie.
> 
> And after his/her baptism of fire it's likely to be a while before we see 'OneTime' again.


  we cant prove that "one time" is not the man in the moon.  There is NO conspiracy to organise how SW people intervene in here, as Groucho's comments illustrate.  END OF.


> There is still, however, the issue of which U75 P&P poster was the grass who fingered mattkidd12 and caused him so much grief.
> 
> And we'll be probably be waiting until Hell freezes over before the grass has the spine to openly admit what they did.
> 
> One thing is for sure, the SWP CC will not have been happy about how their latest shenanigans have been splashed all over U75 (and many other places by now).



from the limited amount I have read of the past 40 pages, this little scenario could have unfurled in a whole number of ways.  your little theory maybe the correct, and then again it could be crap.

every organisation has rules.  don't reveal butcher's real name, you could get banned from the forum.  

  ResistanceMP3


----------



## belboid (Jan 23, 2006)

UNISON, AMICUS, the Transport and General Workers Union, the GMB, and the National Union of Teachers members will be voting in the next few weeks over plans to attack the local government pension scheme.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4640572.stm

Clearly, they are all run by mad ultra-left bastards.

(where's the original pensions thread gone, couldnt find it....)


----------



## flimsier (Jan 23, 2006)

belboid said:
			
		

> UNISON, AMICUS, the Transport and General Workers Union, the GMB, and the National Union of Teachers members will be voting in the next few weeks over plans to attack the local government pension scheme.
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4640572.stm
> 
> ...


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 23, 2006)

belboid said:
			
		

> Clearly, they are all run by mad ultra-left bastards.



Or alternatively the government, under pressure from furious employers and the right wing media, are refusing to offer the same deal as that won by the PCS and now their leaderships are using a ballot to try and gain something along the lines of that deal?


----------



## belboid (Jan 23, 2006)

not so, the main diffeence is over the '85 year' rule, which the government are hoping to withdraw.  As was announced at the time of the discussions with PCS.


----------



## flimsier (Jan 23, 2006)

Nigel Irritable said:
			
		

> Or alternatively the government, under pressure from furious employers and the right wing media, are refusing to offer the same deal as that won by the PCS and now their leaderships are using a ballot to try and gain something along the lines of that deal?



Are you joking? Is that really what you think is happening?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 23, 2006)

belboid said:
			
		

> not so, the main diffeence is over the '85 year' rule, which the government are hoping to withdraw.  As was announced at the time of the discussions with PCS.



Not quite up on some of the intricacies of British occupational pension schemes, but as I understand it:

Civil Servants currently can retire at 60 with full pensions. The government wanted to end that situation for all workers, current and future but the PCS deal protects that right for current workers (its central merit) but doesn't cover new entrants (its central problem).

Local government workers can retire at 60 only under the 85 year rule. The government proposals are to remove that right for current workers as well as future entrants.

Am I missing something here?


----------



## Groucho (Jan 23, 2006)

Nigel Irritable said:
			
		

> Not quite up on some of the intricacies of British occupational pension schemes, but as I understand it:
> 
> Civil Servants currently can retire at 60 with full pensions. The government wanted to end that situation for all workers, current and future but the PCS deal protects that right for current workers (its central merit) but doesn't cover new entrants (its central problem).
> 
> ...



No, except the fact that it is easier for the Govt to lay in to Local Govt workers in this way now PCS has pulled out on a shoddy compromise (which leaves existing workers pension rights vulnerable in the (near) future.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 23, 2006)

Groucho said:
			
		

> No



So in fact my initial guess that the local government unions haven't been offered the same concessions as the PCS was essentially correct.


----------



## Groucho (Jan 23, 2006)

Nigel Irritable said:
			
		

> So in fact my initial guess that the local government unions haven't been offered the same concessions as the PCS was essentially correct.



That is correct.

..and was predicted by those of us in PCS who opposed the deal. Wheras the SP argued that our signing made it easier for local Govt workers. We said 'unity is strength'.


----------



## cockneyrebel (Jan 23, 2006)

Yeah the logic of the SP that accepting the PCS deal was showing solidarity to workers in other sectors was a classic......talk about double speak.....


----------



## Nigel (Jan 25, 2006)

How else do you expect to build an effective strategy within the Trade Union & Labour Movement and keep the momentum going to gain confidence for workers to take further action.


----------



## nwnm (Jan 25, 2006)

er... by voting to take fucking action. obviously the government were so scared by the PCS leaderships decision that they've decicided to er..... launch an all out attack on the PCS in DWP which is probably why Serwotka has written about it in our paper http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/article.php?article_id=8185 (not yours.....)   

And heres a reminder of the battle your comrades fudged on -
http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/article.php?article_id=8177


----------



## neprimerimye (Jan 26, 2006)

nwnm said:
			
		

> er... by voting to take fucking action. obviously the government were so scared by the PCS leaderships decision that they've decicided to er..... launch an all out attack on the PCS in DWP which is probably why Serwotka has written about it in our paper (not yours.....)
> 
> And heres a reminder of the battle your comrades fudged on -



Perhaps the reason why Serwotka is writing in SW is because he was asked to do so?

That one of your former leading members in the union has resigned from the SWP and the other is in disgrace for adopting the same fudged position as Serwotka and the SP may also be a factor of course.


----------



## Groucho (Jan 26, 2006)

Right. Enough! (I say)

Local Govt. workers across ten unions including the FBU are to take action in defence of pension rights. PCS are in dispute in DWP (potentially elsewhere), RMT are in dispute with LUL/Livingstone over on-going job and safety issues. 

If I were the Govt. I would intervene to attempt to split the FBU from the local Govt. action (by offering the same temporary 'deal' as PCS - hopefully FBU would stick to their guns and refuse) and then ride out strikes in local Govt. What this weak Govt cannot survive is a generalised crisis of the sort threatened over pensions last year. They can ride out isolated one day strikes sector by sector. They are intent on dismantaling the welfare state, education and health - all public services. 

The trade union movement should rise to this occassion and create the general crisis that is the Govts worse nightmare. DWP should strike alongside, as should tube workers. All other disputes should be brought into paralel. 28 March should be turned into a generalised public sector offensive. Mark and PCS can redeem themselves here. Mark, in his role on the TUC Gen Council, should call for a TUC 'day of action' and demo. We could then march forwards and put the pensions 'compromise' behind us.


----------



## Nigel (Jan 26, 2006)

I can just see you organising the 'mass' mobilisation.
You, a few SWP members, a couple guys with a dog on a string. Imagining millions of workers behind you, going off to storm the winter palace!!!


----------



## nwnm (Jan 26, 2006)

well.... more chance of that happening than your lot overthrowing capitalism with an 'Enabling Act'


----------



## Nigel (Jan 26, 2006)

nwnm said:
			
		

> well.... more chance of that happening than your lot overthrowing capitalism with an 'Enabling Act'


Elaborate????
Your opposed to reforms/transitional demands now.
The Winter Palce is in St.Petersburg, are you lot going to storm it at the next G8 demo. Although there I have very little empathy or support for the SWP, I'll support you on that one>


----------



## nwnm (Jan 26, 2006)

Some ‘transitional demand’. Its one where the working class has a secondary role to th SP’s  “socialist government”. This is the scenario. A left government is elected which implements ‘socialist’ policies. Stiff resistance from the bosses threatens these achievements and the working class is mobilised “in support” of the government. In other words, ‘Vote for us and we’ll set you free - we’ll give you a shout if we need your help.’


----------



## articul8 (Jan 26, 2006)

I see the news about Matt's suspension has hit the headlines - well weekly worker anyway!

Pilgrim and Cockers have hit the big time too!


----------



## chilango (Jan 26, 2006)

"lefty website"


----------



## Nigel (Jan 26, 2006)

What is wrong with that then?


----------



## chilango (Jan 26, 2006)

A bit of a sweeping generalisation, no?

I wouldn´t describe myself as a "lefty". Nether would many posters I guess - even here in P&P.


----------



## Groucho (Jan 26, 2006)

Nigel said:
			
		

> I can just see you organising the 'mass' mobilisation.
> You, a few SWP members, a couple guys with a dog on a string. Imagining millions of workers behind you, going off to storm the winter palace!!!



So let me get this right.  Are the SP opposed to organising a demonstration and co-ordinated action on 28 March? 
Are you saying that PCS should not co-ordinate their disputes alongside that of the local Govt workers?
You see this as equivilant to an ultra-left and abstract call for revolution now?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 26, 2006)

Are some of you by any chance failing to notice that "Nigel" and me are different people?


----------



## dennisr (Jan 26, 2006)

Groucho said:
			
		

> So let me get this right.  Are the SP opposed to organising a demonstration and co-ordinated action on 28 March?
> Are you saying that PCS should not co-ordinate their disputes alongside that of the local Govt workers?
> You see this as equivilant to an ultra-left and abstract call for revolution now?



I thinkyou will find out that Nigel would not know - given he is not involved either as a PCS member or SP member ...


----------



## dennisr (Jan 26, 2006)

articul8 said:
			
		

> I see the news about Matt's suspension has hit the headlines - well weekly worker anyway!
> 
> Pilgrim and Cockers have hit the big time too!



Ohh feck, the poor b*****ds !!


----------



## Groucho (Jan 26, 2006)

dennisr said:
			
		

> I thinkyou will find out that Nigel would not know - given he is not involved either as a PCS member or SP member ...



Ah I thought that when he said "I am a supporter of the Socialist Party" that he was therefore a supporter of the SP.


----------



## dennisr (Jan 26, 2006)

Groucho said:
			
		

> Ah I thought that when he said "I am a supporter of the Socialist Party" that he was therefore a supporter of the SP.



I know - he has obviously got some 'background' in the various groups - but definately not an SP member - i can (almost..) assure you of that


----------



## Pilgrim (Jan 26, 2006)

dennisr said:
			
		

> Ohh feck, the poor b*****ds !!



I'd also like to put on record the fact that I had absolutely nothing to do with the article in question.

They might have quoted me verbatim, and Cockneyrebel as well, but I didn't have any contact with the Weekly Worker at all, as I didn't want to make things worse for Matt.

Just so mattkidd12 and others know that.

And it would have been nice to have actually been asked, or even notified, before using such a large chunk of my post as well.


----------



## JHE (Jan 26, 2006)

articul8 said:
			
		

> I see the news about Matt's suspension has hit the headlines - well weekly worker anyway!
> 
> Pilgrim and Cockers have hit the big time too!


Written by 'SW Kenning'!    That's quite good.  More WW writers should pick apt noms de plume.


----------



## Pilgrim (Jan 26, 2006)

JHE said:
			
		

> Written by 'SW Kenning'!    That's quite good.  More WW writers should pick apt noms de plume.



I have a shrewd suspicion as to which poster originated the story in the Weekly Worker, but as I'm not a snitch I'll let it lie there.


----------



## articul8 (Jan 26, 2006)

wasn't me guvnor - only sad types like me read it, so hardly worth briefing them.  

Looks like someone sent them the URL and they just copied chunks straight from the boards.


----------



## Wilf (Jan 26, 2006)

Nigel Irritable said:
			
		

> Are some of you by any chance failing to notice that "Nigel" and me are different people?


Look, lots of people on here think the world is run by 7 dimensional lizards and/or owl gods.  We're hardly gonna be able to distinguish between 2 similar names are we?


----------



## Nigel (Jan 28, 2006)

*Whats going on*




			
				dennisr said:
			
		

> I thinkyou will find out that Nigel would not know - given he is not involved either as a PCS member or SP member ...


Would you like to respond to my PM.


----------



## Nigel (Jan 28, 2006)

dennisr said:
			
		

> I thinkyou will find out that Nigel would not know - given he is not involved either as a PCS member or SP member ...



As I stated before, I am a supporter of the Socialist Party and although I am not a member of the PCS I have friends and people I know who are members of the PCS and work in the Public Sector going back to the days of the CPSA, when I was an AO working in the dole office.

I am a member of AMICUS, being affilited to that union whilst working as a Builder(hard to believe I know).

Dennisr, please don't give me any grief, I've got enough people dong that..
Cheers


----------



## treelover (Jan 30, 2006)

Bit late coming into the thread, but for the record i think what happened to Mk was disgusting, though of course i think he is better off without the cultists) I am also clear it was Moti who grassed him: he himself has revealed he was the key cultural programme worker on the London ESF, he was/is a most unpleasant person with definite personality defects and is an absolute, though cunning and manipulative Trotbot  (and i don't usually describe people in such a nasty persaonal way) he's your grass, afaiac


I won't ever name him though


----------



## nwnm (Jan 30, 2006)

"Originally Posted by dennisr
I thinkyou will find out that Nigel would not know - given he is not involved either as a PCS member or SP member ... "
"As I stated before, I am a supporter of the Socialist Party and although I am not a member of the PCS I have friends and people I know who are members of the PCS and work in the Public Sector going back to the days of the CPSA, when I was an AO working in the dole office.I am a member of AMICUS, being affilited to that union whilst working as a Builder(hard to believe I know).Dennisr, please don't give me any grief, I've got enough people dong that..Cheers"

Could thiis signal yet another split in the SP? After their 'Red Nineties' turned into the 'Nasty nineties'; and they parted company with their head theoretician Ted Grant, lost most of their Scottish comrades, their black organisation declared UDI, they expelled liverpool organiser Dave Cotterell (along with most of the Liverpool members), parted company with the Socialist Democracy Group, were forced into a 'debate' with the Australian DSP after they knicked one of their sections, had a major falling out with Matt Wrack over democratising the TU political funds, and even lost members to us in the Socialist Alliance - You'd have thought things would have settled down a bit......but then again


----------



## dennisr (Jan 30, 2006)

nwnm said:
			
		

> Could thiis signal yet another split in the SP?



Remind us again, how many members of the branch you are active in are still members of the SWP ?

These boards alone account for christ knows how many bitter ex-members of your organisation. Let alone the loyal one you recently expelled ...

You come across as a bit of a silly c**t nwnm


----------



## Macullam (Jan 30, 2006)

Could thiis signal yet another split in the SP? After their 'Red Nineties' turned into the 'Nasty nineties'; and they parted company with their head theoretician Ted Grant, lost most of their Scottish comrades, their black organisation declared UDI, they expelled liverpool organiser Dave Cotterell (along with most of the Liverpool members), parted company with the Socialist Democracy Group, were forced into a 'debate' with the Australian DSP after they knicked one of their sections, had a major falling out with Matt Wrack over democratising the TU political funds, and even lost members to us in the Socialist Alliance - You'd have thought things would have settled down a bit......but then again  [/QUOTE]

Do you actually believe any of this shite ? As for the so called expelled members (non of them were )where are they now. The SSP has been in crisis and drifting towards left nationalism, The DSP is also in crisis re its SA involvement. Matt Wrack was in a minority of one re his position on the labour party and the question of union funds. The FBU is now dissafilliated and matt Wrack was happy to speak at our Socialism 2005 Event. But lets not let the truth get in the way of sectarian gossip.


----------



## nwnm (Jan 31, 2006)

"As for the so called expelled members (non of them were )where are they now. The SSP has been in crisis and drifting towards left nationalism, The DSP is also in crisis re its SA involvement. Matt Wrack was in a minority of one re his position on the labour party and the question of union funds. The FBU is now dissafilliated and matt Wrack was happy to speak at our Socialism 2005 Event. But lets not let the truth get in the way of sectarian gossip." 

Well the Expellees and the SDG seem to be in quite a cosy relationship with A USEC group in the UK and producing a joint mag. Matt was in a minority of 1 in your party but not in the SA which produced a pamphlet by him on the subject. (I think Matt is open to speak/work with anyone as are Mark Serwotka and Bob Crow, hence Matt's recent interview with us http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/article.php?article_id=8178 )

Lets not let the truth get in the way of sectarian gossip? Thats a bit rich! This whole thread has been full of sectarian gossip. And who was it started by? Oh, a member of the SP. Unfortunately for you Guys after the usual anti SWP rants from the usual suspects, attention wandered onto more serious matters; like your misleadership over the pensions issue in the PCS. The SSP is in crisis and drifting towards left Nationalism? Is this something to boast about? This was the main reason you broke with Ted Grant (the 'Scottish Turn'), and even that poor old sod warned you that you'd lose most of your Scottish members in the first pamphlet his new group produced, (not that I agree with his overall prognosis BTW)

Don't know if you noticed but there was one of these '  ' on the end of my last post; indicating that it was humourous (allbeit a bit sarcastic) - but it would appear that I have touched a bit of a raw nerve. Even hinting that there have been/may be some problems with the culture of your organisation is too much for you. As the old bloke on dads army would say "They don't like it up 'em Captain Mainwaring!".

"Remind us again, how many members of the branch you are active in are still members of the SWP ?" Well all of them of course - otherwise they wouldn't be in my branch would they? Now who's a silly c**t?


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Jan 31, 2006)

I hear that a longstanding trade union activist and member of an East London SWP Branch has publicly resigned from the Party over the issue of lack of democracy exhibited at the SWP Conference.  

Apparently they also cited the SWP's support for the Religious Hatred Bill as one of the reasons for resigning.  They were disappointed that no-one tried to persuade them to remain.

Of course one swallow does not make a spring, and such resignations are not unheard of in the SWP, if rarely publicised, but the timing is interesting nonetheless.

NB I am not naming the individual, nor giving their branch, gender, trade union etc, to try to prevent them being identified on a public board.  I would be grateful if other posters who know of this case could similarly avoid risks to public identification - I think it is sufficient to know only that the member was in East London, longstanding and holds senior rank in a local trade union.  This issue has been debated earlier in this thread.


----------



## Macullam (Jan 31, 2006)

(I think Matt is open to speak/work with anyone as are Mark Serwotka and Bob Crow, hence Matt's recent interview with us http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/article.php?article_id=8178 )

No one is disputing this. how is your working relationship with GG by the way are we to see any interviews in socialist worker in the near future. If you are refering to the resistance mag you are talking of two ex members of the SP who were not expelled both came out of the ISG and drifted back to its orbit. I hear another leading trade union activist has left the fold. isnt it a bit rich talking about expulsions given the treatment of a regular poster to this list.


----------



## Groucho (Jan 31, 2006)

Macullam said:
			
		

> how is your working relationship with GG by the way are we to see any interviews in socialist worker in the near future.



Yes, in this weeks SW.


----------



## Groucho (Jan 31, 2006)

Incidentally, I am a member of the SWP and have been for most of my adult life - in fact for just over half of my entire life    For most of that time I have been a very active member. 

I remain commited to the politics of the SWP, and of all the various organisations on the left I feel strongly that the SWP has the soundest theoretical position, and has contributed the most to the movement. However, no organisation is perfect. The most crippling thing that can happen to an organisation is to i. deny reality and ii. create an atmosphere of sectarianism where the genuine theoretical and tactical differences end up taking second place to a kind of 'party patriotism'. 

I support democrati centralism as being the most effective way for a revolutionary organisation to operate. 

I have always been happy to work with other Socialists and progressives because generally* we are on the same bloody side! I will happily work with pretty much anyone on specific issues (excluding Fascists obviously). As a union rep I have to (quite rightly) work within a union that includes Tory voters.

One thing that always sadens me is to see members of 'rival' sets of initilals IS v IMG, SWP v SP tearing lumps out of each other. When an SP member began working at my place a few years back he expected me to be a block to his activity. Instead I encourage and supported him onto our union Committee. We caucused and compromised so that we could where possible present a united front within the union branch. It was almost invariably possible. Had we not worked together the more moderate elements would have used the division to carve us both out. As it happens we also engaged in rigourous debate over many many pints and he eventially joined the SWP. 

I do not regard the SP as political enemies. There is a certain inevitable rivalry but ultimately there is enough in common that should permit us to work together. The SP are the most serious force on the left in Britain outside of the SWP. I am a Marxist and socialist first. I am a member of the SWP because I believe we have the best collective strategy to advance the Working Class movement. The party is never an end in and of itself.

In short I hate sectarianism!


*I say generally because occassionaly a leftist or Anarchist group adopts such a sectarian position that they become a sect and see their principle operation as attacking other left groups - e.g. CPGB/Weekly Worker.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jan 31, 2006)

Groucho said:
			
		

> Incidentally, I am a member of the SWP and have been for most of my adult life - in fact for just over half of my entire life    For most of that time I have been a very active member.
> 
> I remain commited to the politics of the SWP, and of all the various organisations on the left I feel strongly that the SWP has the soundest theoretical position, and has contributed the most to the movement. However, no organisation is perfect. The most crippling thing that can happen to an organisation is to i. deny reality and ii. create an atmosphere of sectarianism where the genuine theoretical and tactical differences end up taking second place to a kind of 'party patriotism'.
> 
> ...


excellent post Groucho!

as a poorly (politically and otherwise) educated working class lad, what drew me into the SWP was it's totally practical and pragmatic attitude.  It wasn't just fancy sounding speeches full of rhetoric that was music to the ear, there was a plan of action.  There was theory and practice.

fraternal greetings comrade, resistanceMP3


----------



## dennisr (Jan 31, 2006)

Groucho said:
			
		

> In short I hate sectarianism!



I fully sympathise with the sentiment you have expressed very well Groucho (even if we would disagree on some of the conclusions you have drawn ...). I am not convinced certain other supporters of your ideas on this thread see things the same way though - they certainly do not behave in that way and seem more intent on resorting to the 'throw enough shite and some of it will stick' response. Those looking on from the 'outside' will simply have thier preconceptions reinforced about all of us. 

Don't worry, luckily, this bulletin board isn't the real world


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jan 31, 2006)

dennisr said:
			
		

> I fully sympathise with the sentiment you have expressed very well Groucho (even if we would disagree on some of the conclusions you have drawn ...). I am not convinced certain other supporters of your ideas on this thread see things the same way though - they certainly do not behave in that way and seem more intent on resorting to the 'throw enough shite and some of it will stick' response.


well I don't what you do, because I haven't noticed you much, but when the common debating style is "trotbot" it does tend to drag down people down.and I have learned the hard way to take anything said on here about the SWP with a large grain of salt.





> Those looking on from the 'outside' will simply have thier preconceptions reinforced about all of us.
> 
> Don't worry, luckily, this bulletin board isn't the real world


 I totally agree about people from the outside, and am truly thankful this bulletin board is irrelevant to the real world.

fraternal greetings.  ResistanceMP3


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 15, 2008)

*3 year bump* JM's hammer finally cracks the ice? Note the SWP responses on this thread an compare to the one about Rees...


----------



## Gumbert (Dec 15, 2008)

the SWP must be the most intimately known revolutionary organisation on the tinterweb

with which some oppositionists opinions would evaporate if there was no SWP...

cmon folks you know you love to hate us... kiss kiss


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 15, 2008)

"oppositionists* eh?

Ans gumbo resurfaces, I wonder why?


----------



## mk12 (Dec 15, 2008)

I wonder what JM thinks about all this now.


----------

